1

January 19, 2016 John R. Sakers

Owner and Manager

Mr. John S. Duncan V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.

Director, Flight Standards Service 4645 W Ivanhoe St

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office Chandler, AZ 85226

Federal Aviation Administration (480) 286-3429

800 Independence Avenue, SW vwingaerial@gmail.com

Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

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

aerial systems on land controlled by clients of V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C. (hereinafter “Petitioner”) to 

assist in the safe assessment of terrain, infrastructure and operations for our clients.

Dear Mr. Duncan:

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Modernization Act)1

Petitioner respectfully requests an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) to assist in the 

evaluation of terrain, infrastructure and operations for our clients. In addition to the waiver authority 

provided in Section 333 of the Modernization Act, the Administrator may grant certain exemptions 

under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f)2upon the determination that such an exemption is in the public interest in 

light of the Petitioner’s explanation as to why granting such exemption(s) would not adversely affect 

safety or how the exemption would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as compliance with the 

underlying regulation. 

Additionally, pursuant to the requirements contained within 14 C.F.R. §11.83, Petitioner anticipates 

operations on land controlled by clients of Petitioner outside of the United States and requests 

extension of the exemption to those operations accordingly. Petitioner acknowledges and intends 

compliance with the salient requirements and recommendations contained within International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular 328-AN/1903and further acknowledges that FAA extension of the 

exemption outside of the United States is entirely contingent upon the FAA’s assessment of compliance 

with the Standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

 

1

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

2

49 U.S.C. 44701(f) specifically provides authority to the Administrator to grant an exemption from a requirement 

of a regulation under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any of sections 44702-44716 of this title if the 

Administrator finds the exemption is in the public interest. 

3

ICAO Cir 328-AN/190, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), 2011 
2

Background Information

This request is motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety and environmental sensitivity in 

terrain analysis, infrastructure and operations that are characteristically located in very remote 

locations. While an exemption would not entirely eliminate the need for in-person visual inspection 

required by various Federal and State regulations, it would allow Petitioner to deploy video, 

thermographic and spectral means to evaluate terrain, infrastructure, operational assets and 

agricultural resources via sUAS rather than piston-engine powered aircraft, resulting in a safer, cleaner

and more efficient assessment process through various phases of site design, construction and 

operation. 

The safety, environmental compliance and operational condition of many infrastructure and other 

assets is heavily dependent upon constant detailed analysis and inspection. Factors ranging from natural 

phenomena (i.e., seismic and weather) to man-made (i.e., inattention, intrusion, intentional or 

unintentional physical damage, trespassing) can adversely impact infrastructure and other assets to the 

extent that abrupt failure can occur. Recognizing this, our Federal and State Governments have over 

time enacted a variety of regulations that require various levels of documented routine and conditionbased special inspections. Clients of Petitioner detail these requirements within their internal policies 

and procedures and characteristically conduct the required inspections using either company personnel 

in motor vehicles or on foot, by contracting specialized resources which includes services conducted 

primarily by aerial imagery, or both. As renewable energy resources such as wind and solar take on an 

increasingly vital role in powering our nation, added challenges such as finding single malfunctioning 

photovoltaic panels among millions in one installation by very precise heat signatures or detecting 

various stress anomalies in wind turbine blades using video-based analysis have arisen. While our clients 

typically apply strict ‘hierarchy of controls’ methodologies to reduce human and environmental risk to 

levels as low as reasonably possible, there always remains a component of irreducible risk when 

employees are called upon frequently to conduct inspections sometimes at significant heights or over 

large areas of terrain while exposed to sometimes unpredictable weather events. During facility 

construction activity, the simultaneous presence of employees on foot and often large construction 

equipment creates the potential for human-error conflicts that pose the risk of serious or fatal injury.

The skilled use of sUAS when and where feasible allows for remote viewing that reduces these iterations 

of human involvement and thus reduces the probability of an injury or fatality.

Granting the Exemption is in The Public Interest

As described in the following information, Petitioner anticipates that its use of sUAS in lieu of current 

conventional means and methods that employ single engine fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft serves the 

public interest by localizing all phases of flight to secured property which eliminates related airfield 

noise nuisance risk to neighbors and decongests airfields and the National Air Space (NAS) on a sortie for 

sortie basis plus the transit/ferry distance from an airfield to the area or asset being examined that 

applies to civil aircraft but does not apply to sUAS. Tightly controlled and localized operation of sUAS 

over secured areas not proximal to airfields at very low altitude and airspeeds coupled with the 
3

significant technical safeguards built into certain current generation sUAS mitigates, to the maximum 

extent currently achievable, both the probability and consequence of an aviation incident/accident 

versus currently-employed fixed wing and rotorcraft alternatives. 

Furthermore, Petitioner anticipates that its use of sUAS will, to the maximum extent possible, eliminate

the greenhouse gas (GHG) and lead emissions associated with the current use of certain piston-engine 

fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft fueled by 100LL aviation gasoline on a sortie for sortie basis plus the

transit/ferry distance from an airfield to the target area that does not apply to sUAS (which are activated 

and deactivated on-site). While Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rulemaking has not yet

been undertaken regarding the emissions related to piston-engine powered aircraft , Petitioner notes 

that the EPA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that contemplates the 

potential use of Section 231 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to adopt aircraft engine standards domestically4

and intends to issue proposed findings regarding Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using 

Leaded Aviation Gasoline in 2017 following its ANPR issued on that subject in 2010.5In light of these 

considerations and consistent with the spirit and intent of Executive Order 13653 entitled “Preparing 

the United States for the Impact of Climate Change,”6Petitioner believes that the use of sUAS in lieu of 

piston-engine fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft affords the opportunity to advance a cleaner alternative 

in terms of enhancing air quality and contributing to the cause of reducing the rate at which climate 

change appears to be progressing. 

Finally, the use of sUAS equipped with spectral imagery equipment affords a highly efficient means for 

assessing crop and grazing forage condition which will inform efficient water usage and application of 

various agricultural treatments as opposed to broad area watering and application of treatments 

employed when highly accurate imagery is either not available or is prohibitively expensive. 

Accordingly, Petitioner believes that the Grant of an Exemption serves the Public Interest and is 

consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the Modernization Act that safe systems be 

permitted in the national airspace (NAS) prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use 

of these systems.7

 

4

The EPA is not currently considering GHG emissions from piston-engine aircraft as noted in 80 F.R. 37758-806, 

however, piston-engine aircraft were not excluded from the petition forming the basis of the current ANPR.

5

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation 

Gasoline; Proposed Rule 75 F.R. 22440-68.

6

EO 13653, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” requires federal agencies to integrate 

considerations of the challenges posed by climate change effects into their programs, policies, rules, and 

operations to ensure they continue to be effective, even as the climate changes.

7

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

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

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

to national security.
4

Granting the Exemption will not Adversely Impact Safety

Petitioner holds that the proposed use of sUAS for the purposes described in the following company 

operational information section enhances safety because it largely replaces a like number of operations 

currently conducted by primarily single engine land and rotorcraft given the following:

1. Take-off, landing and flight operations of sUAS are conducted on and at or below 400 feet AGL 

above property controlled and typically secured by an owner or right of way holder as opposed 

to manned flights originating and terminating at an airfield, transiting often significant distances 

within the NAS and conducting imagery and sensor operations at altitudes compliant with the 

minimum safe altitude (MSA) requirements contained within §91.119. The operation of sUAS in 

lieu of manned aircraft therefore is expected to be largely contained within comparatively lower 

use portions of Class G airspace and can thus be expected to enhance safety by decongesting 

airfields and the NAS.

2. Because sUAS used as intended by Petitioner are less than 55 pounds fully loaded, operated at 

or below 50KTAS, at or below 400 feet AGL and not in proximity to persons on the ground 

beyond the PIC and VO, the probability of an aviation accident or incident as defined in Part 830 

is significantly minimized versus similar operations currently conducted by manned aircraft.

3. For the purposes described in the following company operational information, Petitioner will 

only employ sUAS during daylight hours and under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). In 

the vast majority of foreseeable applications, these operations will be conducted within 

approximately 75 feet of separation from the nearest, highest structure along the secured flight 

path of the sUAS. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft is minimal particularly 

in contrast with the current use of manned aircraft for inspection purposes.

4. Given the typically remote location of the majority of the tasks to be performed by sUAS, it is 

highly unlikely that operation of sUAS within 5 nautical miles of an airfield or heliport will 

become necessary. In the event that such operations become necessary, Petitioner will contact 

management personnel at the airfield/heliport and/or the FAA air traffic control tower if the 

facility is controlled, describe the intended operations, provide a flight plan and fully comply 

with all directions issued by either the management organization or the Air Traffic Controller as 

applicable.

5. Given that many of the tasks contemplated for the sUAS application are currently performed by 

single engine land aircraft and single engine rotorcraft-helicopters, safety is enhanced by very 

significantly reducing the risk posed by the mass, velocity and flammable fuel loading 

characteristic of many present-day operations. For example, in contrast to a typical manned 

Cessna 172SP with a maximum take-off weight of 2550 pounds, 53 usable gallons of 100LL 

aviation gasoline, maneuvering airspeed (VA) limitation between 90KIAS-105KIAS and stall speed 

between 48KCAS-53KCAS8, the sUAS variants proposed by Petitioner under this exemption 

request are unmanned, have a maximum weight of 55 pounds, operate at speeds between 

 

8

Cessna Model 172S NAV III GFC 700 AFCS, Information Manual, Cessna Aircraft Company 20 December 2007
5

0KTAS (hover) and 100KTAS (maximum), are battery powered, are technically speed limited 

below airframe tolerance, are capable of both manual and GPS-directed hover hold and are 

incapable of stall in other than power failure scenarios. Each of these differences highlights the 

enhancements to safety that will be achieved by replacing like conventional aircraft sorties with 

sUAS.

6. Because of the inherent risks present regarding certain infrastructure operations (e.g., pipelines, 

power plants, rail, water treatment facilities, communication and transmission towers, etc.); our 

clients take appropriate measures to control unauthorized access. These controls range 

anywhere from security fencing to advanced motion detection systems and are most often 

applied in depth (i.e., multiple security features, some of which are visible, some of which are 

not readily apparent even to a trained observer). Together with joint mission pre-planning and 

provision of additional flight-path security as may be needed, the combination of security 

measures and PIC/VO VLOS awareness will virtually eliminate operational risk to persons on the 

ground.

7. While no standards have yet been established for sUAS Airman Certification, Petitioner regards 

safe operation of any aircraft within the NAS as an imperative that requires formal education, 

competency examination and certification. Given that, all sUAS missions will be flown under 

VMC/VLOS by a current FAA Certificated Airman (minimally, Private Pilot Privileges with a 

current Class III medical and having continuously met biennial flight review (BFR) requirements)

as PIC and sole manipulator of the controls with one or more VO positioned to ensure the sUAS, 

the airspace above and below it, obstructions and position relative to objects on the ground is 

under observation at all times during flight operations.

8. Each PIC will be required to demonstrate at least 3 manual take-offs and landings with each 

sUAS variant they are qualified to operate every 90 days and additionally will be required to 

maneuver the sUAS manually around various objects located in a controlled test environment.

PETITIONER will not designate a PIC until the candidate has achieved a minimum of 25 hours of 

demonstrated safe operation in a controlled training environment, a minimum of 200 

activation-deactivation cycles manually, a minimum of 50 activation-deactivation cycles via 

device programming (automatic launch and recovery), a minimum of 10 additional hours of 

competency evaluation for each additional sUAS beyond that used for initial certification and 

successful completion of a competency examination (written) based on internal procedures and 

the aircraft manual. Petitioner additionally intends to provide training to VO personnel 

consistent with relevant aeronautical knowledge elements contained within the Sport Pilot 

Certificate requirements found in §61.309.

9. Prior to calculating and preparing the mission flight plan, Petitioner procedurally requires a 

documented formal mission coordination meeting between the assigned PIC, VO and Client 

representatives with emphasis on mission parameters, flight environment, obstructions and 

exclusion zones (ground security provisions). As a standard, Petitioner will not allow personnel 

not involved with flight operations within 500 feet of the PIC, VO and laterally from the 

centerline of the flight path on each leg of flight. 
6

10. Petitioner procedurally requires documented preparation of a flight plan prior to each day of 

operation with emphasis on point to point GPS legs, flight altitude (AGL) and speed (KTAS) 

appropriate to the sensor/imagery package and below 400 feet (AGL) and 50KTAS, landing 

points based on 25% reserve power, radio frequencies, communication protocols, emergency 

procedures and airspace evaluation based on published NOTAMs, TFRs, SFR, MTR, mission or 

blanket Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) requirements and proximity to known 

manned aviation operations using a combination of current “Foreflight®” and FAA “B4UFLY” 

information.

11. Petitioner procedurally requires filing of a Distant Notice to Airmen (D-NOTAM) for each mission 

between 72 and 24 hours prior to sUAS activation for the mission or as otherwise required by a 

specific or blanket COA. This requirement includes cancelling filed D-NOTAMs upon total mission 

abort or mission completion.

12. Petitioner procedurally requires that the PIC maintain an sUAS PIC logbook indefinitely.

13. Petitioner procedurally requires that all aircraft hours, maintenance/operating discrepancies, 

maintenance/calibrations performed and return-to-service authorization be logged in an aircraft 

logbook unique to the FAA registration number of the aircraft. Each aircraft logbook must be 

retained for a minimum of 3 years after retirement and notification of retirement to the FAA.

14. The sUAS proposed for exemption by Petitioner are each equipped with automated “return to 

home (RTH)” features triggered by power state and/or loss of command and control (C2) 

connectivity.

15. The sUAS proposed for exemption by Petitioner are each capable of flying automatically via GPS 

waypoint and manually, with PIC ability to immediately manually override GPS as may be 

required by changes in the flight environment.

16. Petitioner notes, agrees with, supports and will comply to the extent current means exist with 

the operational limitations, operator certification and responsibilities and aircraft requirements 

contained within the Summary of Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107 “Overview of Small 

UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”9

Accordingly, given these strict operational conditions and greatly reduced risk versus current 

alternatives, Petitioner believes that the Grant of Exemption will Not Adversely Impact Safety and is 

consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the Modernization Act that safe systems by 

permitted in the national airspace (NAS) prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use 

of these sytems.10

 

9

Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01

10 Id. P.L. 112-95
7

Company Operational Information

Petitioner is owned, operated and managed by an FAA certificated airman qualified to exercise the 

privileges of a private pilot holding airplane single engine land and rotorcraft-helicopter ratings without 

limitations.

Petitioner is in the business of Consulting on, Equipping, Maintaining and Operating Mission Specific 

sUAS for our clients. Clients look to us for the safe and efficient operations of sUAS. In addition to threedimensional photogrammetric mapping and imagery for use in preparation of various engineered plans, 

imagery to assess project completion and regulatory compliance components and video and 

thermographic imagery to evaluate operational safety and performance, we increasingly have clients 

looking for services that include non-invasive high-resolution terrain imagery designed to detect 

probable habitat features for a wide variety of flora and fauna listed or protected under various Federal 

and State laws.

Without risking human disturbance of such suspected habitats via traditional methods of detection 

conducted by biologists or ecologists on foot or by land vehicle, our contemplated use of sUAS for this

purpose enables the use of high-resolution imagery to accurately and unobtrusively inform design

efforts around such protected species habitat in consultation with specialized biologists, ecologists and 

other interested stakeholders. 

Petitioner specifically provides services in the following phases and types of operation:

Siting and Design Operations:

Topographical Assessment and 3-D Mapping

High Value Flora and Fauna Habitat Detection and Mapping

Rights-of-Way Mapping

Surveying Support

Project Execution Support Operations:

Project Progress Mapping

Compliance Monitoring and Documentation

Protected Flora and Fauna Buffer Zone Monitoring

Infrastructure Inspection Operations:

Electrical Utility and Transmission Line Condition Inspection

Communications Tower Inspection

Railway Condition Inspection

Pipeline Condition Inspection

Manufacturing Facility Environmental Controls Condition Inspection

Oil Exploration and Production Site and Equipment Inspection
8

Mining Environmental Features Condition Inspection

Agricultural Inspection

Security Fence and Features Condition Inspection

Road Condition Inspection

Operational Assessment:

Equipment Anomaly Detection

Heat Islanding Detection and Measurement

Agricultural Health Assessment:

Farm and Grazing Land Spectral Imagery 

Supporting Documentation

Appendix A provides a summary of this request suitable for publication in the Federal Register.

Appendix B provides manufacturer’s information regarding the design, aircraft performance and failsafe features for the following aircraft: (1) DJI Phantom 3 Professional, (2) DJI S1000, (3) DJI Inspire 1 

Professional, (4) Aibotix Aibot X6. We have provided manufacturer information related to operating 

limitations, normal and emergency procedures, and maintenance and inspection procedures.

Appendix C provides the Table of Contents of the V-Wing Aerial Solutions (Petitioner’s) Operations and 

Safety Manual for flights covered under this Exemption Request. 
9

Additional Required Information in Support of the Petition for Exemption:

Pursuant to the procedural requirements contained within 14 C.F.R. §11.81, Petitioner provides the 

following information in addition to the foregoing sections regarding safety, operations and the public 

interest:

(a) Name, mailing address and additional contact information:

John R. Sakers (FAA Airman Certificate Number 3285262)

Owner and Manager

V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.

4645 W Ivanhoe St

Chandler, AZ 85226

(480) 286-3429

vwingaerial@gmail.com

(b) The Specific Sections of 14 C.F.R. from which Exemptions are Sought:

Petitioner believes it may need an exemption for the following provisions contained within 14 

C.F.R. in order to conduct the contemplated operations. In some instances, relief is needed as a 

result of relief from another provision that renders the compliance with the provision at hand 

infeasible.

i. Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status

ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H;

iii. 14 C.F.R. Part 27;

iv. 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b);

v. 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a);

vi. 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) and (c);

vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a);

viii. 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121

xi. 14 C.F.R. §91.151(a) and (b)

xii. 14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b)

xiii. 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

viii. 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2)

ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

Petitioner believes that exemptions are only needed from the above-listed regulatory 

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

operations described here, Petitioner respectfully requests an exemption from any such 

regulatory provision as well.
10

(c) The Extent of Requested Relief and the Reasons Relief is Needed:

i. Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status: 

Given the previously described aircraft size, speed, altitude and controlled operating areas 

governing operation as proposed by Petitioner, the requirements of an equivalent level of safety 

under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Modernization Act are met. 

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

authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate upon 

due consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to 

airports/heliports and populated areas of the particular sUAS. 

The sUAS deployed by Petitioner are less than 55 pounds fully loaded, carry neither pilot nor 

passenger, and are operated exclusively within secured areas. Unlike other civil aircraft currently 

conducting similar operations, sUAS operations to be conducted by Petitioner would not 

originate at an airfield, would not require in-transit use of the NAS between an airfield and the 

secured area, and will be tightly controlled to comparatively smaller areas at altitudes at or 

below 400 feet above ground level (AGL) and speeds less than 50 knots true airspeed (50KTAS). 

Dissimilar from civil aircraft conducting similar operations, added margins of safety are provided 

given that the sUAS to be deployed will be operated by the PIC under continuous and 

simultaneous Visual Observer (VO) VLOS observation with two-way verbal communication 

established prior to and maintained throughout all phases of flight. Additionally, consistent with 

the meaning and intent of “VLOS,” the sUAS to be deployed will be operated only in day light 

conditions (i.e., never at night as defined in 14 C.F.R. §1.1) and under Visual Meteorological 

Conditions (VMC).

All sUAS operations to be conducted by will be planned in full coordination with client experts 

relative to the technical requirements, parameters and site security and safety provisions for 

each mission and conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations 

(FAR), Conditions and Limitations issued pursuant to Grant of Exemption under Section 333 of 

the Modernization Act and local public safety requirements.

ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H Airworthiness Certificates

The FAA has stated that no exemption is required from this subpart if certain findings are made 

that the sUAS selected provides an equivalent level of safety when compared to aircraft typically 

used for the same application. Petitioner believes that these criteria are met within this petition, 

and therefore does not believe an exemption is required. If, however, the FAA determines that 
11

there are characteristics of the sUAS selected that fail to meet the requirements of the 

Modernization Act, an exemption is respectfully requested. 

An equivalent level of safety has been provided in that the sUAS proposed for exemption by 

Petitioner are safer than current manned aviation alternatives given their size, weight, speed, 

absence of flammable fuels, inert payload (i.e., imagery and sensor equipment), technical 

safeguards and low altitude operating envelope.

iii. 14 C.F.R. Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft

This Part sets forth the requirements for airworthiness certification of normal category 

rotorcraft. Although the sUAS proposed by Petitioner are not defined as normal category 

rotorcraft.

**********

Relief is requested to the extent that certification may otherwise be requested under this Part, 

for the same reasons and given the same equivalent level of safety as previously described in 

the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.

iv. 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b) Aircraft Markings

This section sets forth the requirements for aircraft markings and states: when marks include 

only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted 

or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator 

must also display on that aircraft near the 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.11

**********

Relief is requested because of the size of the sUAS proposed for use by Petitioner, which limits 

the space available for various required aircraft markings under this section. In previous Grants 

of Exemption, the FAA has determined that exemption from these requirements was warranted 

provided that the aircraft have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 

Part 45, Subpart C that are “as large as practicable.”

Equivalent safety will be provided by marking all of Petitioner’s sUAS with their N-Number in a 

prominent location on the fuselage with markings that are as large as practicable. 

 

11 Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45-5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 45-9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977; 

Amdt. 45-24, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004
12

v. 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a) Rotorcraft (Markings)

Relief is requested to the extent that markings may otherwise be required under this section, for 

the same reasons and given the same equivalent level of safety as previously described in the 

request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b).

vi. 14 C.F.R. §§91.9(b)(2) and (c) Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard

(b)(2) No person may operate a U.S. registered civil aircraft – for which an Airplane or 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by 21.5 of this chapter, 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.

(c) No person may operate a U.S. registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in 

accordance with part 45 of this chapter.

**********

Relief is requested because sUAS manuals can’t be “in the aircraft,” and “markings, and 

placards, or any combination thereof” are impracticable beyond the N-Number marking 

previously discussed.

Equivalent safety is provided by assuring that the sUAS manual for the sUAS being employed in 

any given operation is at the PIC station from which the sUAS is controlled. Also as previously 

discussed, N-Number markings will be affixed to each sUAS and sized “as large as practicable.”

vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a) Flight Instruction; Simulated Instrument Flight and Certain Flight Tests

(a) 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. 

**********

Relief is requested because sUAS by design do not have dual controls, rather flight is controlled 

singularly by the PIC from a ground station through the use of a hand-held control unit that 

commands and controls the sUAS via radio frequencies.

Equivalent safety is provided by assuring that when sUAS flight instruction is performed, no 

persons will be onboard the aircraft and the operation will be in a remote, secured instruction 

and testing area a safe distance from personnel not associated with the flight instruction. The 

PIC providing the instruction and the individual receiving the instruction will both employ 

situational awareness relative to the sUAS and will wear suitable personal protective equipment 

(PPE). Because Petitioner will only employ FAA certificated airmen as PIC, training will only be 
13

provided from certificated airmen to certificated airmen until and unless the FAA deems 

otherwise in future rulemaking.

viii. 14 C.F.R. §§61.113(a) and (b)

§61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command12

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a 

private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers 

or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in 

connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that 

business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for 

compensation or hire.

**********

Relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and (b) because the contemplated operations would 

not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and none of the other exceptions to paragraph (a) apply. 

Petitioner notes that neither Section 333 nor the FAA’s exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. 

§44701(f) allows the FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman 

certificate as prescribed in 49 U.S.C. §44711 and proposes to use only current FAA certificated 

airman as pilots of its sUAS (minimally, Private Pilot, Class III medical, current BFR).

Operation of an sUAS as proposed by Petitioner will not be incidental to the business or 

employment, rather, it will be compensated as an operation separate and distinct from the 

business. Therefore, without this exemption, the pilot would be required to hold a Commercial 

Pilot Certificate as provided in §61.133 which would impart needless and prohibitive cost 

without any appreciable benefit considering the dissimilarity of the skills and risks associated 

with commercial operation of an sUAS versus commercial operation of a manned aircraft. As 

previously described, the risk associated with the proposed sUAS operations are significantly 

less than the risks posed by fixed wing and rotorcraft aircraft upon which risks the standards for 

certification of a Commercial Pilot are based. 

An equivalent level of safety has been provided as previously indicated. The sUAS will be 

operated by an FAA certificated airman under continuous VO operation in daylight VMC 

conditions at altitudes well below most permissible minimum safe altitudes for other civil 

aircraft and within a flight environment largely under the control of the client organization. 

Accordingly, the operational risks associated with the proposed sUAS operation are limited to 

Petitioner’s personnel, who will be properly safeguarded and the property of Petitioner’s client 

on the ground. As previously described, Petitioner will initially only assign a current FAA 

 

12 Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61-

115, 72 FR 6910, Feb. 13, 2007; Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5220, Feb. 1, 2010
14

Certificated Airman (minimally a Private Pilot) as PIC for sUAS operation and will to the 

maximum extent possible adhere to the conditions previously described in the current NPRM.13

ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

§91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no 

person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over 

open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated 

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

**********

Relief is needed because the contemplated operation would not comply with §91.119(c).

The operations contemplated by Petitioner must be conducted at altitudes below 500 feet and 

within 500 feet of persons directly associated with flight operations (viz. PIC and VO) and 

structures (the primary targets of aerial imagery). Imagery operations conducted at separations 

greater than 500 feet more often than not fail to provide meaningful results. Although an sUAS 

is not a helicopter, the operation of the sUAS models proposed by Petitioner is very similar to 

helicopter operations with respect to takeoffs, landings and the ability to hover at fixed points. 

Therefore, Petitioner will comply with §91.119(d) and conduct all operations accordingly 

without hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

Relief is neither needed nor requested from paragraphs (a) or (b). Regarding paragraph (a), both 

the characteristics of the sUAS and the controlled flight envelope within which operations are 

conducted enable emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure without undue hazard 

to persons or property on the surface. Regarding paragraph (b), Petitioner does not anticipate 

conducting any operations over congested areas as defined.

x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121

§91.121 Altimeter Settings. 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...

**********

Relief is needed because the sUAS contemplated for use are, in some cases, not equipped with a 

primary barometric altimeter, rather, with a primary GPS altitude instrument.

 

13 Id. Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Notice No. 15-01
15

An equivalent level of safety is provided by the PIC prior to flight and pursuant to the sUAS flight 

manual and Petitioner’s flight planning checklist by confirming the altitude of the launch site 

shown on the GPS indicator with reference data prior to each activation of the aircraft. 

Continuous altitude information is provided during flight via digitally encoded telemetry 

between the sUAS and ground-based operational display. Various primary and secondary 

altitude sensors may be installed on different sUAS, including GPS employing GPS triangulation, 

digitally encoded altimeters, radio altimeters or a combination thereof. Depending upon the 

particular technology built into the sUAS selected for the operation, a zero reference point will 

be established and confirmed by the PIC in accord with the sUAS flight manual prior to each 

activation. While maintaining VLOS during flight, the PIC and VO will qualitatively monitor 

altitude readouts based on known heights of various features along the flight path. In the event 

the altitude readout appears to be erroneous, the sUAS will be safely deactivated (landed) and 

the altitude accuracy concern fully resolved prior to continuing operations. 

xi. 14 C.F.R. §91.151

§91.151 Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions. (a) No person may begin a flight in an 

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

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

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes. (2) text omitted. (b) No person may 

begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming 

normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes. 

**********

Relief is needed because an sUAS is neither an airplane nor a rotorcraft as defined and because 

the operation of an sUAS is within a controlled, defined area that does not raise the risk 

mitigated by §91.151, which contemplates that an aircraft or rotorcraft may run out of fuel in 

the event that the aircraft is required to circle the intended point of landing or divert from the 

intended point of landing to an alternate airfield or heliport. The regulatory text of §91.151(a)(2) 

is omitted from this request because sUAS operations will not be conducted by Petitioner at 

night. In lieu of the otherwise applicable fuel requirement, equivalent safety will be provided by 

requiring deactivation (landing to full stop) be executed at 25% remaining battery power. 
16

xiv. 14 C.F.R. §91.405

§91.405 Maintenance Required. Each owner or operator of an aircraft-(a) Shall have that 

aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between the required 

inspections except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as 

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter...

**********

Relief is needed because maintenance standards have not been developed that would allow an 

owner or operator of an sUAS to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. Rather, 

Petitioner will maintain its aircraft as instructed in the manufacturer’s literature, including but 

not limited to the sUAS owner’s manual and consistent with ASTM F2909-14 Standard Practice 

for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS).

xv. 14 C.F.R. §91.407

§91.407 Operation after Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding or Alteration. (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...

**********

Relief is needed because maintenance standards have not been developed that would allow an 

sUAS operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. Specifically, there are no 

authorization standards nor authorized persons able to approve the return to service of an sUAS 

that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration. In lieu of 

this requirement, Petitioner will maintain its aircraft in accordance with the sUAS owner’s 

manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM F2909-14 Standard 

Practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(sUAS). Further, prior to operational use, Petitioner will conduct and log post-maintenance 

testing of the aircraft in all flight regimes in a secured testing area to verify full functionality of 

the sUAS and all systems supporting the sUAS. 

xvi. 14 C.F.R. §91.409 

§91.409 Inspections. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may 

operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had- (1) An annual 

inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to 

service by a person authorized by 43.7 of this chapter; or (2) An inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

**********
17

Relief is needed because annual inspection standards have not been developed that would 

allow an sUAS operator to meet the part 91 inspections requirements. Specifically, no inspection 

standards or protocols exist regarding either annual inspection or the authorization to return 

the aircraft to service. As previously described, Petitioner will maintain its aircraft in accordance 

with the sUAS owner’s manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM 

F2909-14 Standard Practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (sUAS). 

xvii. 14 C.F.R. §§91.417(a) and (b)

§91.417 Maintenance Records. (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...

**********

Relief is needed because the standards and requirements surrounding maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, alteration and various required or approved inspections have not been 

developed, which would not allow an sUAS operator to meet the part 91 maintenance 

requirements. In lieu of these requirements, Petitioner will develop and maintain record 

keeping protocols consistent with the inspections and maintenance recommended in the sUAS 

owner’s manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM F2909-14 

Standard practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (sUAS).

Conclusion

The FAA has already granted exemptions similar in all material respects to this petition for exemption. 

Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Section 333 of the Modernization Act to permit the 

operation of the aircraft proposed. This petition warrants review by the FAA with summary grant 

consideration requested given that this petition does not set any precedents.

If any questions arise or clarification is needed in your consideration, please do not hesitate to contact 

the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

John R. Sakers

Owner and Manager, V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.
18

Appendix A

Summary for Publication in the Federal Register

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

the Federal Register as needed.

Petitioner: V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.

Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected:

i. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H;

ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 27;

iii. 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b);

iv. 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a);

v. 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a);

vi. 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) and (c);

vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a);

viii. 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121

xi. 14 C.F.R. §91.151(a) and (b)

xii. 14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b)

xiii. 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

xiv. 14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

xv. 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2)

xvi. 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

Description of Relief Sought:

The Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, 14 C.F.R. Part 

27, 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b), 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a), 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a), 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) and (c), 14 

C.F.R. §91.109(a), 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b), §91.119(c), §91.121, 91.151, §91.405(a), 

§91.407(a), §91.409(a)(1) and (2), §91.417(a) and (b) in order to conduct sUAS operations over 

client owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours under visual meteorological 

conditions to assist in the safe evaluation of terrain, infrastructure and operations. The sUAS 

operations contemplated will be conducted in remote areas that are sparsely or not populated 

and distant from airports. The operations to be conducted will be flown by a current FAA 

certificated airman as Pilot in Command (PIC) at altitudes below 400 feet AGL at speeds below 

50KTAS and within 75 feet of the highest structure along the flight path. All operations will be 

under continuous visual observation of both the PIC and a trained Visual Observer (VO) with 

two-way communications established and continuous. Accordingly, the risk of interference with 

other aircraft or objects on the ground is extremely minimal.
19

Appendix B, Aircraft 1

DJI Phantom 3 Professional
20

Appendix B, Aircraft 1

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

Specifications
21

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

Specifications (continued)
22

Appendix B, Aircraft 2

DJI S1000
23
24

Appendix B, Aircraft 3

DJI Inspire 1 Professional
25

DJI Inspire 1 Professional

Specifications
26

DJI Inspire 1 Professional

Specifications (continued)
27

Appendix B, Aircraft 4

Aibotix Aibot X6 Multicopter
28

Appendix C

V-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.

Operations and Safety Manual

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Part I: Administrative

1. Table of Revisions and Approval

2. Responsibilities

3. PIC and Aircraft Logbook Entries

4. Telemetry and Imagery/Sensor Data Download

Part II: Mission Readiness

1. Operational Coordination

2. Operational Risk Register

3. Operational Tasking Order

4. Flight Planning

5. Filing D-NOTAM

6. Support Equipment Readiness Check

Part III: Pre-Launch Phase

7. Site Security Confirmation

8. Personal Protective Equipment and Measures

9. Two-Way Voice Confirmation

10.sUAS Pre-Flight Readiness Check

Part IV: Mission Phase

11.Activation Clearance (Takeoff to Hover)

12.Leg Clearance (Hover to Straight & Level Flight)

13.Deactivation Clearance (To Hover and Landing)

14.Shut-down

Part V: Emergency Procedures

15.Emergency Procedures
29

Table of Contents (continued)

Part VI: Appendices

Appendix A: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

Appendix B: DJI S1000 User Manual

Appendix C: Aibotix Aibot X6 User Manual

Appendix D: Operational Coordination (Form)

Appendix E: Support Equipment “Field Box” (Checklist)

Appendix F(a-c): sUAS Pre-Flight (Checklist)

Appendix G: Flight Plan (Form)

Appendix H: PIC Logbook (Form)

Appendix I(a-c): Aircraft Logbook (Form)

Appendix J: Mission Debrief (Form)