Ok so they have given a 333 exemption to a particular real estate company but you get my drift.

Here's the sUAS News story

This is the money statement.

The FAA’s Decision
In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Mr. Douglas Trudeau, Realtor®, of Tierra Antigua Realty, is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121,91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography and augment real estate listing videos. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • This is kind of like the new Canadian sUAS (<2 kg) rules.  On the surface it sounds promising.  Then you read the fine print and realize it's quite the opposite.

    Just more proof of what the FAA is all about.  No, not safety.  Bureaucracy.  

    Unfortunately they are bureaucrats with no practical experience.  They sit in conference rooms, read reports from Defense contractors and imagine what any rules should look like.  All they understand is manned aviation so that's their template.  Of course they do take into account the needs of special interest groups.  Since these often conflict it does make it hard for them.  As for what's best for the general public?  That's the lowest priority for the FAA.

    There's the usual tortured logic that all FARs apply to small unmanned craft no matter how absurd they seem on their face.  That all of them must be addressed in some fashion.  So I found it kind of odd that one FAR which would seem applicable and helpful to this petition was simply dismissed as not applicable.  I'm talking about 91.119(d).  This is the one that basically states that helicopters can fly closer than 500 feet to people or buildings.  In the FAA logic of applying manned FARs to model aircraft I would call a Phantom a helicopter.  It's a rotary wing craft which can hover and as such is much more maneuverable than a fixed wing craft.  It can operate in more confined quarters.  Hence the reason for the existence of 91.119(d).  For some unexplained reason the FAA just says "...91.119(d) is not applicable".  Why?  All FARs apply ... unless they don't.  In this exemption the FAA is declaring that a manned helicopter, like a Bell 206, is safer to operate near people than a Phantom.  Seems like more making it up as you go along.

  • @Doug. You nailed it.

  • I'll ask the dumb question:  What's ASTM F-38?

  • Moderator

    This one is weird its a real estate type and he is not permitted to fly over the bits where houses are, congested areas (bits in yellow on the map) But plenty of big places out on the farm. No requirement for STANAG manuals is the huge thing. ASTM F-38 must be pretty mad also no big C2 talk another amazing thing. 

  • Dumb.  But I'll still take that over a 5 mile exclusion zone from all structures to fly a Phantom.

  • A private pilot license is still required for the pilot in charge.

  • Moderator
    Ha I beat the FAA to their press release ;-) They also gave a 333 to an Ag company with the SenseFly eBee Ag
  • Huh, seems like all of a sudden, commercial operation in the US is easier than in Canada (which has been falsely lauded as leading the way in integration).

  • hmmmm...... Waiting with popcorn....

This reply was deleted.