1

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC. (FS)

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

JACOB HINTON

WILLIAM TANNER

40 HARKINS ST

MCDONOUGH, GA 3025-3

Phone: 678-614-7129 / Fax: 678-

559-0286 

JAKE@FLYOVERSERVICES.COM

BILL@FLYOVERSERVICES.COM

DATE: 7/23/15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC

Petitioner.
2

Page

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER ..................................................................- 3 -

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST...............................................- 3 -

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................- 4 -

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS............................................- 4 -

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ........................- 5 -

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training.......................................................................- 11 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding FS manuals related to UAS

operations.........................................................................................................................- 12 -

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA........................................- 14 -

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION...........................................................................................................................- 15 -

5.1 Contact information.........................................................................................................- 15 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which FS seeks an

exemption .........................................................................................................................- 15 -

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought.........................................- 15 -

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ...........................- 30 -

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the 

exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule 

from which exemption is sought....................................................................................- 31 -

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which 

exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of

the exemption sought......................................................................................................- 33 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request...............................................................- 33 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................- 33 -

5.9 Attachments......................................................................................................................- 34 -

6. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................- 34-
3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

FLYOVER SOLUTIONS, LLC. (“FS”), is headquartered in McDonough, GA. FS intends to 

provide aerial mapping and surveying to customers in the mining, construction, and municipalities 

management businesses, as well as other uses. FS was founded in 2015 by William Tanner and 

Jacob Hinton. Mr. Tanner has much experience in the grading business, and Mr. Hinton is a civil 

engineer by trade. Both Mr. Hinton and Mr. Tanner are avid private pilots, both having their private 

license for over 10 years. Both Mr. Hinton and Mr. Tanner are also avid recreational RC pilots. FS 

recently purchased a Topcon Sirius Pro from Topcon Positioning Solutions. Topcon has previously 

received an exemption for their operations, which are almost identical to FS’s operations.

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14 

C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, FS requests that the FAA grant FS an exemption 

from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below) so that FS may commercially operate one or more 

small Sirius Pro UAS for aerial surveying. As explained below, FS’ proposed UAS operations, as 

conditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but rather will provide an equivalent or 

greater level of safety than that provided by the current rules and large manned aircraft operations. 

See FAR § 11.81.
4

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions 

and limitations. Each of these conditions and limitations is consistent with previously granted small 

UAS Section 333 exemptions and FAA guidance. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11110 (December 10,

2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”); Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014;

Docket FAA-2014-0352) (“Astraeus Exemption”); Exemption No. 11109 (December 10, 2014;

Docket FAA-2014-0507) (“Clayco Exemption”); Exemption No. 11136 (January 5, 2015; Docket FAA2014-0508) (“AAS Exemption”). Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed 

small UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of 

safety to the current rules and large manned aircraft operations.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

FS intends to operate the small Sirius Pro UAS under the requested exemption. The Sirius

Pro UAS uses a battery-powered, single electric brushless 680 W motor system and a single propeller. 

Its payload is a Panasonic GX1 camera or the FUJIFILM X-M1; its navigation system is GPS/IMU 

aided; and it has three available flight modes – automatic, autopilot-assisted, and full manual.

Each Sirius Pro UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions

and limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the Sirius Pro UAS. 

The free-flying unmanned aircraft part of the Sirius Pro UAS (“the UA”) 

will have a gross weight of not more than 7 pounds, including energy 

sources, equipment, and payload. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 1.]

3.1.2 The UA has maximum dimensions of approximately 48 inches (l) x 65 

inches (w) x 12.2 inches.

3.1.3 The UA will have a maximum ground speed of 70 knots indicated air 

speed. It has a typical cruise speed of 35 knots indicated air speed.

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 2.]
5

3.1.4 The UA will have a maximum total flight time of 50 minutes.

3.1.5 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 

21.]

3.1.6 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 21.]

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization

(“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). 

3.2.2 The UA will operate only in Class G airspace. [Trimble Exemption 

Limitation No. 27.] It will not operate in Class B, C or D airspace without 

written approval from the FAA. [Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center 

of a non-towered airport as denoted on a current FAA-published 

aeronautical chart unless a letter agreement with the airport’s 

management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance 

with a NOTAM as required by FS’ COA. FS will make this letter 

agreement available to the FAA upon request. [Astraeus Exemption 

Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.4 Each UA will remain at least 3 nautical miles from any public towered

airport to the extent possible.

3.2.5 Prior to each UAS operation in which the UA will operate within 3 nautical 

miles of a public towered airport, the PIC will ensure that the FAA Air 
6

Traffic Control officials with responsibility for that airport are notified in 

advance of the UAS operation; that, subject to the airport’s

and ATC’s agreement, the PIC will maintain two-way radio

communications with the airport’s ATC tower facility during such flight 

operations; and that the operation is conducted in accordance with a 

NOTAM as required by FS’ COA.

3.2.6 Prior to UAS operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation 

and control of the UA (2.4 GHz) will comply with Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and other appropriate government 

oversight agency requirements. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.2.7 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer/Flight Assistant (“VO/FA”). 

The PIC will be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his/her 

designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the

VO/FA can perform the functions prescribed for the VO/FA in the 

Operator’s Manual. [Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5.]

3.2.8 The UA will be operated within visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC at 

all times. The VLOS will be unaided, except for corrective lenses as set 

forth on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate. The

VO/FA may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the

PIC always maintains VLOS capability. [Trimble Exemption Limitations 

Nos. 4 and 5.]

3.2.9 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO/FA must be able to 

communicate verbally with each other at all times. [Trimble Exemption 

Limitation No. 5.]

3.2.10 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering 

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at 
7

normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 

at least 30% battery power remaining. [AAS Exemption Limitation No. 

22.]

3.2.11 Prior to each UAS operation, each member of the crew who will be

conducting the UAS operation will participate in a safety briefing about 

the UAS operation, as outlined in the Operator’s Manual, and the crew 

will complete the UA preflight inspection and preflight checklist per the

Operator’s Manual.

3.2.12 Prior to each UAS operation, the PIC will inspect the UAS (including the 

Ground Control Station) to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the 

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, 

the UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance 

has been performed and documented, and the UAS is found to be in a 

condition for safe flight. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.2.13 Prior to each UAS operation, the PIC will review the weather, the UAS 

battery requirements, the UA takeoff and landing distances, and the UAS 

performance, and will account for all relevant site-specific conditions per 

the Operator’s Manual.

3.2.14 All maintenance and alterations will be properly documented in the UA 

records. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7.] FS’ Sirius 

Pro UAS maintenance personnel will make a record entry in the UAS 

logbook or equivalent document of the corrective

action taken against discrepancies discovered between 

inspections. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

3.2.15 Prior to each UAS flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established 

and confirmed for accuracy by the PIC. [Astraeus Exemption, at 21; AAS 

Exemption, at 17.]
8

3.2.16 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet 

above ground level (“AGL”). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 3.]

3.2.17 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access 

property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized 

representative. Permission from the land owner/controller or authorized 

representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. [Trimble 

Exemption Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.18 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

(a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect 

nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the 

event of an accident. FS must ensure that non-participating 

persons remain under such protection; and if a situation arises 

where non-participating persons leave such protection and are 

within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease 

immediately; and/or

(b) The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where 

the land owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC 

has made a safety assessment of the risk of

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does 

not present an undue hazard.

[AAS Exemption Limitation No. 30.]

3.2.19 Operations of the UA may be conducted at distances less than 500 feet 

from participating persons, vessels, vehicles or structures that perform 

an essential function in connection with these special purpose 

operations or are otherwise necessary for such operations. Operations 

closer than 500 feet from the PIC, VO/FA, operator trainees, essential 
9

persons, and potential customers are permitted when operationally 

necessary, but never so close as to present an undue hazard, per FAR

§ 91.119(a). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 32.]

3.2.20 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological 

conditions (VMC) only. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.2.21 FS will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR). 

[Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 31.]

3.2.22 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS operations 

will not be conducted during night, as defined in FAR § 1.1. [Trimble 

Exemption Limitation No. 26.]

3.2.23 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and yield 

right-of-way to all manned aerial operations and activities (including, but 

not limited to, ultralight vehicle, parachute, parasailing, and hang glider 

activities). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 24.]

3.2.24 Each UAS operation will maintain a safe distance from any structure or 

facility that has a national security implication that is known to FS and 

whose airspace is identified as Special Use Airspace on the most recent 

Sectional Map.

3.2.25 The UA will not be operated 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. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.2.26 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from a moving device or

vehicle. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 25.]

3.2.27 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the 

UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight 

critical component) must undergo a functional maintenance test flight in 

accordance with the Operator’s Manual.
10

3.2.28 The PIC who conducts the functional maintenance test flight will make 

an entry about the flight in the UA records. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 8.]

3.2.29 For each UAS operation, the UAS will be programmed so that if the UAS 

loses its communications, the UA will return to a pre-determined location 

within the private or controlled-access property, and land or be recovered 

in accordance with the Operator’s Manual. [Trimble Exemption Limitation 

No. 17.] For each UAS operation, the UAS will be programmed so that if 

the UAS loses its GPS signal, the UA will circle down at its current 

location or will circle in its then-current position at its established safety 

altitude in accordance with the Operator’s Manual.

These actions are part of the Sirius UAS’ Lost Link Procedures. 

Alternatively, the PIC can take over control of the UA using the RC 

controller and execute safe landing procedures in accordance with the 

Operator’s Manual.

3.2.30 The PIC will adhere to the written emergency procedures in the Manuals 

and suspend the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of unpredicted 

obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the Operator’s Manual. 

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

3.2.31 The documents required by FAR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 will be available to 

the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS at any time the UA is 

operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law

enforcement official upon request. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

23.]

3.2.32 The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated 

areas. These areas include but are not limited to the yellow areas
11

depicted on World Aeronautical Charts (WAC), Sectional Aeronautical 

Charts (Sectionals), or Terminal Area Charts (TAC). However,

aeronautical charts may not reflect pertinent local information. It will be 

the PIC’s responsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required 

by FAR § 91.119 (subject to an exemption granted herein). [Trimble

Exemption Limitation No. 30.] 

3.2.33 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or 

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable 

COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 

24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National

Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the 

NTSB website. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 35.]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training

The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption

will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC will possess at least an FAA private pilot certificate and a 

thirdclass airman medical certificate. The PIC also will satisfy the flight 

review requirements of FAR § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is 

rated on his or her pilot certificate. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

15.]

3.3.2 The PIC and VO/FA will have successfully

completed the manufacturer’s authorized training for the Sirius 

UAS.

3.3.3 Each PIC will have demonstrated throughthe 

manufacturer’s authorized training program that he or she is able to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under the exemption, including evasive and emergency 

maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, 
12

vessels, vehicles, and structures. FS must document and make a record 

of such training and make such documentation available upon request 

by the FAA. Flights for the purposes of training FS’ PICs and VO/FAs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) are permitted under the 

terms of this exemption. Said training operations, however, may only be

conducted during dedicated training sessions. [AAS Exemption 

Limitation No. 15.]

3.3.4 FS will not permit any PIC to operate its Sirius UAS unless that PIC has 

demonstrated through FS’ training and currency requirements that he or 

she is able to safely operate the UAS in accordance with

Limitation No. 3.3.3. [Clayco Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding FS manuals related to UAS operations

FS has two manuals containing procedures for the UAS operations under the exemption: the 

Sirius Aerial Image UAS & MAVinci Desktop Manual (“Operator’s Manual” or “Operations

Manual”) and the Sirius Aerial Image UAS & MAVinci Service Manual (“Service Manual”) (collectively, 

“the Manuals”). A confidential copy of each of the Manuals has been submitted to the FAA Assistant 

Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting documentation for this 

Petition by Topcon Positioning Solutions with their exemption request. The Manuals contain 

information that is highly proprietary to Topcon and/or FS, and FS requests that the FAA treat the 

Manuals as confidential and not disclose them to the public. The Manuals will be subject to the 

following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Manuals and the exemption must be

maintained and made available to the FAA upon request. If a 

discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the 

exemption and the procedures outlined in the Manuals, the conditions 

and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. 

Otherwise, FS must follow the procedures as outlined in the Manuals. 

[Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.4.2 FS may update or revise its Manuals, and it is FS’ responsibility to track 

such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the FAA 

upon request. FS must also present updated and revised documents if it 
13

petitions for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If FS 

determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which 

the FAA granted the requested exemption, then FS must petition for an 

amendment to the exemption. FS will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration 

Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the 

Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.4.3 The Manuals contain information about the Sirius UAS’ performance

and limitations.

3.4.4 The Manuals contain the procedures for UAS operations, including 

preflight inspections, which will account for all discrepancies, i.e., 

inoperable components, items or equipment. [Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 9.]

3.4.5 The Manuals contain the requirements and procedures for a functional 

maintenance test flight of the UAS and aircraft record entry. [Trimble 

Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

3.4.6 FS must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements in accordance with the Manuals. Maintenance, inspection, 

and alterations must be noted in the aircraft logbook, including total flight 

hours, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the 

authorized Sirius UAS maintenance personnel returning the Sirius UAS 

to service. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No.

11.]

3.4.7 The Sirius UAS maintenance personnel maintaining and servicing 

FS’ UAS must receive, and document, the training called for in the 

Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.8 Each UAS operated under the exemption will

comply with all manufacturer System and Safety Bulletins, and that 

requirement is set forth in the Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation 

No. 13.] FS will maintain copies of all manufacturer System and Safety 

Bulletins, and will make them available to the FAA upon request.
14

3.4.9 FS will follow the manufacturer’s UAS

aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement,

inspection, and life limit requirements. [Trimble 

Exemption Limitation No. 10.]

3.4.10 The Manuals contain procedures for performing and documenting of 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, status

of replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service 

of the UAS (and for maintaining the corresponding records).

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Sec. 333, FS requests that the Secretary of Transportation 

determine that FS’ proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the National 

Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security.

FS further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it 

did in the Astraeus Exemption, Clayco Exemption, and AAS Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21 

and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not necessary for 

the UAS operations proposed in this Petition.1

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, FS provides the following information in support of this

Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

 

1 Astraeus Exemption, at 14, 22; Clayco Exemption, at 10, 16; AAS Exemption, at 12, 18. If the FAA concludes that 

the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then FS requests 

that the FAA include that in the exemption.
15

Name: Flyover Services, LLC

Mailing address: Flyover Services, LLC

40 Harkins St

 McDonough, GA 30253

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 678-614-7129 (F) 678-559-0286

E-mail addresses:

jake@flyoverservices.com

bill@flyoverservices.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which FS seeks an 

exemption:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

FAR § 91.119(b) and (c) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, and inspections.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

FS proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for aerial surveying. In 

order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, FS petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b),

11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following FAR for the reasons noted:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(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 
16

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.

(c) ****.

FS requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit FS to conduct 

UAS operations using PICs who hold an FAA private pilot certificate. While FS recognizes that the 

FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation either 

to the pilot or for the operation, FS requests that the FAA exempt FS and its PICs from this requirement 

since the use of a private pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under this exemption will be more 

safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations. Unlike conventional aircraft, 

the Sirius UAS is remotely controlled, with no crew or passengers, and battery-powered. The fulfillment 

of the additional requirements for a private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not 

lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are

involved.

The differences between the aeronautical knowledge requirements for private pilots and for 

commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of manned aircraft. A pilot who wishes to 

operate flights that involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire is typically 

expected to improve his or her aeronautical knowledge with respect to the operation of those larger 

manned aircraft. For instance, the prospective commercial pilot is expected to be able to operate more 

complex aircraft and in conditions other than VMC. Pilots seeking to become commercial pilots for 

manned aircraft must acquire additional aeronautical knowledge about the use of performance charts 

and aeronautical charts (beyond that which a private pilot must obtain for VFR), night operations, and 
17

the use of air navigation aids/facilities.2 However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge 

is significant for the daytime, VMC small UAS operations over private or controlled access properties 

proposed in this Petition.

The differences between the aeronautical experience requirements for private pilots and for 

commercial pilots are also significant. However, the additional experience required for a commercial 

pilot certificate is required to a great extent to allow the upgrading pilot to acquire experience of a type 

that a commercial PIC of a manned aircraft must obtain in order to safely conduct commercial 

operations in a larger manned aircraft. For instance, the applicant for a commercial certificate with a 

single-engine land rating must obtain 50 hours of cross-country flight, 10 hours of instrument training, 

10 hours of time in a complex aircraft, 10 hours of solo time, and 5 hours in night VFR conditions.3In 

addition, a great deal of time is required for a pilot of a larger manned aircraft seeking to become a 

commercial pilot to ensure that the pilot’s takeoffs and landings can be conducted safely enough so 

as not to imperil the passengers and property aboard the manned aircraft. In this regard, there is a 

fundamental difference between the type of experience that the PIC of a manned aircraft should have, 

versus the type of experience that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling 

passengers or property. In FS’ case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be FS 

property. While the pilot will be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS 

itself) will be borne by FS. There is no expectation or need for the PIC of the UA to have the type of 

experience that a commercial pilot for a manned aircraft would have. In short, almost none of the 

aeronautical experience requirements, beyond those necessary for private pilots and as set forth in 

the Sirius UAS manufacturer’s written authorized training program, is relevant to the PIC who will 

operate the small UAS over private or controlled access property as proposed in this Petition. 

Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more

experience than that required for the private pilot certificate.

 

2 FAR § 61.125, Aeronautical knowledge for commercial pilots, paras. (b)(7) (use of performance charts), (b)(9) (use 

of aeronautical charts beyond that necessary for flight under VFR), (b)(10) (use of air navigation aids), and (b)(14) 

(night and high-altitude operations).

3 See FAR § 61.129.
18

The differences between flight proficiency requirements for private pilots and for commercial 

pilots involve areas such as “[h]igh-altitude operation” and other areas that have no bearing on the 

small UAS operations at issue in this Petition.4 To the extent that differences exist between the 

standards of performance for flight proficiency as demonstrated by prospective private versus 

prospective commercial pilots, those standards are not significant here where the operations will be 

conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no higher than 400 feet 

AGL.

Given that FS plans to operate its Sirius UAS in Class G airspace over private or controlledaccess property at altitudes of 400 feet AGL or less, the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical 

knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary 

to operate the Sirius UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS operations 

here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be required 

to hold a private pilot certificate and third-class airman medical certificate.

Such a condition would be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the 

Astraeus Exemption, Trimble Exemption, AAS Exemption, and Clayco Exemption.

For these reasons, FS requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit FS to use as PIC 

of the proposed UAS operations pilots who hold a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman 

medical certificate, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, 

including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy 

condition. . . .

 

4 Compare FAR § 61.127, flight proficiency for commercial pilots (in particular §§ 61.127(b)(1)(x) and (b)(2)(x)), with 

FAR § 61.107, flight proficiency for private pilots.
19

FS requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary.5 The Sirius UAS will not 

require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested from 

this regulation. See Trimble Exemption, at 16. An exemption is warranted because FS understands 

that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with 

[FS’] Manuals to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that FS must still 

determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. See 

Trimble Exemption, at 16.

FAR § 91.119(b) and (c) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

The regulation states:

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.

(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.

(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

 

5 FS requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption, at 16, 21. 

However, FS notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption was needed in the Astraeus Exemption, at 19, 

22.
20

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

may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (c) of this section.

FS requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit FS to conduct 

its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since such altitudes are 

one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at these low altitudes, FS’ UAS 

operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which would be achieved if larger 

manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR § 91.119.

With respect to paragraph (a), FS intends to comply with this requirement to the same extent 

as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such that the loss of a 

single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing “without 

undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” FS agrees with the FAA’s reasoning on this issue 

in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe that relief is required from paragraph 

(a).

With respect to paragraph (b), FS plans to operate these small UAS over private or controlledaccess properties, which are not themselves congested areas, but which may be located within a 

broader heavily populated and congested area. Accordingly, FS does not believe that an exemption 

is warranted from this paragraph covering “congested areas”. However, as the FAA has noted (Trimble 

Exemption, at 18), there is no precise definition of “congested areas,” and the PIC can obtain such 

information from the local Flight Standards District Office; but, even if these small

UAS operations were to operate over areas somehow construed as being “congested”, the proposed 

UAS operations will be far safer than operations by larger manned aircraft operating in compliance 

with the minimum altitude requirements (1,000 feet altitude). The operation of a much heavier, faster 

aircraft with an onboard pilot and other crewmembers, at 1,000 feet over a congested area, with a 

load of combustible fuel, unquestionably provides a lower level of safety than an operation conducted 

by a very small, extremely lightweight, battery-operated UA over private or controlled access property 

that, at all times from takeoff to landing, can be safely operated well below the altitudes used by 
21

manned aircraft and continuously within VLOS of the PIC on the ground. To the extent necessary, FS 

requests relief from paragraph (b).

With respect to paragraph (c), FS requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to the 

surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. FS’ UAS operations 

require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure at least an 

equivalent level of safety. For example,

• All operations will avoid congested or populated areas.

• All operations will be conducted over private or controlled access property.

• Permission from the land owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning of

each flight.

• FS will timely file a NOTAM for each flight.

• The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, vessels, 

vehicles, and structures unless:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating 

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. FS must ensure 

that non-participating persons remain under such protection; and if a situation 

arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and are within 500 

feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately; and/or o The UA is 

operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the land owner/controller has 

granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue 

hazard.

Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations 

by manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size, 

speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk relative to the use of a small UA, with a smaller size 

and weight, operating at much lower speeds, with batteries rather than a significant fuel load, and at 

all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view. Accordingly, as the FAA 
22

determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here provided that FS adheres to 

its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For 

these reasons, FS requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c).

FS does not request relief from paragraph (d), because it applies only to helicopters (and 

allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route) and powered parachutetype 

aerial vehicles.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the 

cruisingaltitude 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 

alongthe route and within 100 nautical miles of the 

aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed 

inparagraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported 

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio,the 

elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate 

altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg. 

(b) * * * *.

It is not clear to FS that an exemption from this section is required because, although the 

regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates the altimeter 

setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes for VFR flights do not begin 

– according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface”.6 Nonetheless, FS 

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit FS to conduct the small 

 

6 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1para. 3-1-2. (Jul. 24, 2014).
23

UAS operations described in this Petition. See Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22 (granting relief from this 

section with conditions and limitations).

FS recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by FS maintain 

altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on FS’s UAS to be 

operating as proposed. The Sirius UAS does not use a barometric altimeter. Instead, it determines 

altitude based on a GPS signal. To ensure the accuracy of the GPS signal, the PIC will check the UA 

altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff, 

to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local 

elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, 

FS requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR 

conditionsunless (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.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR 

conditionsunless (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.

FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit FS to plan its UAS operations as 

described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) involve operations in which 

one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the operational location, and 

(ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and landing all taking place 

within the immediate proximity to each other while remaining at all times within VLOS of the PIC.

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at 

their first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and at 
24

the first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an issue 

with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled access property, because there is 

virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are extremely 

unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended point of 

landing becomes unusable.

Given the relatively short operating time for the Sirius UAS (50 minutes), requiring a full 30 

minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up nearly all of the available time for UAS 

operations. FS believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will be at least 

as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. Using a reserve of 30% 

battery power for a daylight UA flight, for instance, will be adequate where the UA is essentially at its 

first point of landing from the moment it takes off (since there is no en route phase of flight), since the 

risks for delay at the intended landing area are not as great as for manned aircraft landings. To that 

end, and consistent with AAS Exemption Limitation No. 22, the PIC under the requested exemption 

will be prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and 

land the UA with at least 30% battery power remaining. FS believes that these limitations will further 

ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational requirements that FS is requesting to use 

under the exemption will provide at least an equivalent level of safety.

For these reasons, FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151(a) to permit it to plan and 

conduct UAS operations such that only 30% of the battery power (instead of 30 minutes) is available 

at the end of the planned UAS operation. FAR § 91.151(b) covers only rotorcraft and thus is not 

applicable to the small UAS operations FS is proposing.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of 

thispart and shall between required inspections, except as 
25

provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies 

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ****.

FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit FS to conduct the UAS operations 

proposed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required 

by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that 

the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of 

an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations, some of which were proposed 

by the petitioner and some of which were imposed by the FAA. These included requirements to 

develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements in the 

absence of manufacturer’s requirements; procedures to document and maintain maintenance records 

with regard to the petitioner’s UAS; UAS technician qualification criteria; and requirements to 

document comprehensive preflight inspection procedures.

FS has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to 

maintenance and inspections consistent with those in the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble 

Exemption. FS believes that these conditions and limitations provide a level of safety at least 

equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.405(a), the Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption. 

For this reason, FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit FS to conduct UAS 

operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed above, 

without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a).

FS does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is 

required, since FS will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in accordance 

with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment for which 

maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and appropriately placard 

listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph 

(d).
26

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding 

or alteration.

The regulation states:

(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; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as 

applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b)  .

(c) ** **.

FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit FS to conduct UAS operations 

as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person 

authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the FAA 

determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), and that 

achieving an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those in the Trimble 

Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption.

FS has proposed maintenance-related conditions and limitations in this Petition, which it 

believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1) and the 

conditions and limitations in the Trimble Exemption and Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, FS 

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit FS to conduct UAS operations as proposed 

in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7.

FS does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is 

required, since FS will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in compliance 

with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance performed on the 

UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.
27

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(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.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be 

substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is 

performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and 

is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance 

records.

(b)  .

FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit FS to conduct UAS 

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and 

airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Trimble

Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations 

required exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety 

required conditions and limitations similar to those set forth in those previously-granted exemptions.

FS has proposed maintenance and inspection-related conditions and limitations in this 

Petition, which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, FS 

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit FS to conduct UAS operations as 

proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to obtain 

the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

The regulation states, in relevant part:
28

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 

and91.413, 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 (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 

theAdministrator) of the work performed; and

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

(iii)The signature, and certificate number of the 

personapproving 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 onthe 

aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a 

specified time basis.

(iv)The current inspection status of the aircraft, 

includingthe 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 airworthinessdirectives 

(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 

thischapter 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 

theperiods 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.
29

(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.

(c) ** **.

FS requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit FS to conduct UAS 

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in FAR § 

91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption that 

the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate 

level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those set forth in those previously-granted 

exemptions.

FS has proposed maintenance, inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations in 

this Petition, which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 

91.417(a) and (b), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, FS requests 

an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit FS to conduct UAS operations as proposed in 

this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to keep the records 

described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).

Additional FAR Provisions.

The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and 

FAA precedent outlined below in the footnote.7

However, FS also requests that, to the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from 

one or more other provisions of the FAR would be required to permit the UAS operations

7

This Petition does not seek exemption from:
30

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and Clayco Exemption, at 10.

> FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17.

> FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum titled 

“Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station” 

(“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at 19-20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20.

> FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and Trimble Exemption, at 

14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to comply with FAR Part 45, Subpart C 

requirements are as large as practicable.

> FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum, and assuming 

that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.

> FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and Clayco Exemption, at 14, 

which concluded that an exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an 

exemption for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. FS proposes such 

conditions in this Petition.

> FAR § 91.109, based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and Clayco Exemption, at 14, which 

concluded that an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight 

testing is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or simulator 

training or flight testing.

described in this Petition, the FAA grant an exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to 

permit the UAS operations described in this Petition.7

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:

A grant of the exemption would be in the public interest because it would enhance safety for 

the general public, FS employees, and FS customers.

First, the ability to use a small UAS to conduct the operations described herein, subject to the 

conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, will enable FS to have access to more complete 

data about aerial surveys, topography, and maintenance flights, which – in turn – will enable FS to 

conduct safe and effective aerial surveyF or maintenance/repair flights that minimize the risk of harm 

to the general public, FS employees, and FS customers.

 

7 FS would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale underlying any such additional 

exemptions.
31

Second, the use of the small, lightweight, battery-powered Sirius UAS for these topographical 

aerial surveys and related operations is far less risky than undertaking those operations with a much 

heavier, much faster, much larger, manned helicopter or other aircraft loaded with fuel and a crew.

As the FAA acknowledged in the Trimble Exemption, at 13:

“The [FS] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight 

and construction with impact absorbent materials significantly reduces the potential 

harm to persons or damage to property in the event of an incident or accident. The 

risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the 

use of a UAS for the aerial surveying operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or 

accident. [The Sirius UAS] carries no fuel [it is battery-powered] and therefore the risk 

of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.”

These distinctions, coupled with the safety-related features of the Sirius UAS such as Loss Link 

Procedures, redundant flight control systems, real-time telemetry, airspace awareness system, and 

terrain following, demonstrate that the Sirius UAS operations proposed in this Petition are far less risky 

than if operated by larger and heavier manned aircraft.

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how 

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by 

the rule from which exemption is sought:

Throughout this Petition, FS has explained many reasons why granting an exemption from 

each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations that provide a level 

of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought. 

Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition also ensure at least an 

equivalent level of safety, as the FAA concluded in the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus 

Exemption.

In general, the risks of any proposed UAS operation interfering with a manned aircraft is 

minimized by the low altitude at which the UAS will operate; the locations at which the UAS will operate 

(e.g., Class G airspace, private or controlled access property, away from airports); the small size/low 

weight and relatively slow speed of the Sirius UAS; the restriction of UAS operations to VMC and 

daytime conditions; the requirement for the PIC to maintain VLOS of the UA at all times; and the 
32

condition to obtain a NOTAM before each UAS flight, among other conditions and limitations. The risks 

to persons or property on the ground are also minimized by the small size/low weight of the Sirius 

UAS; the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons or structures; the prohibition on flights over 

congested or densely populated areas; the PIC’s VLOS requirement; and limiting operations to private 

or controlled access property, among others. These parameters, conditions, and limitations proposed 

in the Petition provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft operations or 

with the safety of persons or property on the ground. In addition, under the proposed conditions and 

limitations in Section 3 of this Petition, FS will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with 

local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all UAS operations under the exemption are at 

least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes.

The Sirius UAS also has several safety-related protocols in case there is any lost link between 

the UA and the operator. These Lost Link Procedures are covered in the Operator’s Manual and can 

handle lost links alone or in combination. As an example, if a GNSS link is lost, the autopilot sends an 

error message to the computer notifying the computer operator, who can notify the PIC to take control 

of the UAS and land. If the PIC does not take over control within a preset time, the UAS will begin to 

circle slowly and descend to land. If an RC link and data link are both lost, the UAS will return to the 

takeoff position and circle. The “return home command” can return the UA to its takeoff position or to 

another location established as “home” during the creation of the flight plan at any time during a flight. 

FS can also end a UAS flight via a command from the computer telling the UA to land at a defined 

area automatically, or the PIC can take control of the UA using the RC controller.

In addition, another key safety feature of the MAVinci System is its dual control links. The 

MAVinci Ground Control Station (“GCS”) and MAVinci Remote Control (“RC”) consoles are dual, 

robust, and independent systems, affording a redundant means of controlling the UA – significantly 

increasing operational security. The 2.4 GHz RC console is connected wirelessly to the Sirius UA for 

piloting in autopilot assisted and fully manual modes. The MAVinci GCS functions from the laptop 

through the 2.4 GHz Connector antenna, providing fully autonomous flight. Should either system fail, 

the other system remains fully operational and is capable of providing safety of flight for the UAS.
33

For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is 

sought would not adversely affect safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or 

greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which 

exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought:

FS proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC.

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(b) and (c), 91.121, 91.151, 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to conduct small UAS 

commercial operations for aerial surveying.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

FS is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to answer 

questions in response to any FAA requests. A confidential copy of each of the Manuals and the Topcon 

Certified Training Program will be submitted to the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for

International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting documentation for this Petition. The 

Manuals and Topcon Certified Training Program contain information that is highly proprietary to FS 

and/or MAVinci, and FS requests that the FAA treat the Manuals and Topcon Certified Training 

Program as confidential and not disclose them to the public.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.:

FS does not request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United States.
34

5.9 Attachments

All required attachments/manuals are identical to those submitted by Topcon Positioning Solutions in 

their exemption request dated January 17, 2015 and approved April 17, 2015. Please refer to those 

items for any clarification.

6.0 CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, FS respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for Exemption .

Respectfully Submitted

Jacob Hinton

Flyover Services, LLC

40 Harkins St

McDonough, GA 30253