Alas - rejected by FAA - need some help and guidance please

[mjw]

Much to my dismay the FAA has rejected my exemption request and has given me 30 days to provide more info. Here is what the want:
1. the reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest, how it would benefit the public as a whole
2. Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request

(this is such a joke, all I want to do is photograph high pitched roofs (to steep to walk on) for my property inspection business)

Any help or references to approved exemptions would be appreciated
MJW

 

[Buckaye]

Much to my dismay the FAA has rejected my exemption request and has given me 30 days to provide more info. Here is what the want:
1. the reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest, how it would benefit the public as a whole
2. Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request

(this is such a joke, all I want to do is photograph high pitched roofs (to steep to walk on) for my property inspection business)

Any help or references to approved exemptions would be appreciated
MJW

Well... You did just provide a pretty compelling argument for public interest. (The safety of yourself and others by not requiring them to walk on high pitched roofs). I don't know if that's enough, but it certainly seems like a valid argument.

 

[msinger]

mjw, the FAA has an easy-to-follow set of instructions for submitting a petition on their website. See #3 here.

 

[Sagebrush]

It would help if you shared your application number. "FAA–2015–5692" for example.

I'm fairly sure that the only reason the FAA can grant a rule exemption is with a compelling argument about why the public will benefit –especially from a safety standpoint.

But let us take a peek!

S

P.S. here's the wording they use to justify an exemption:

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection1 and closed set motion picture and filming. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0642), and 12645 to Allied Drones (see Docket No. FAA-2014-0804), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

 

[msinger]

I'm fairly sure that the only reason the FAA can grant a rule exemption is with a compelling argument about why the public will benefit

In most cases, it's very easy to explain how using a drone would benefit the public. It seems the issue is that the OP completely neglected to include that information.

 

[Noble 1]

Like all government red tape- they want the questions answered simply. It's a formality. It's also CYA since they are liable if you crash you're quad into a jet after they give an exemption.

I have no doubt if you said this quote and gave a simple 2 sentence for each # they will except you. I had to do this for my patent application. Simplest changed wording.

(this is such a joke, all I want to do is photograph high pitched roofs (to steep to walk on) for my property business)

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app