AFS-14-307-E

Exemption No. 11110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LTD. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0367

 

for an exemption from Part 21; 

§§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b); 

61.133(a); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2);

91.109(a); 91.119; 91.151(a);

91.203(a) and (b); 91.319(a)(1);

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);

91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated May 30, 2014, Mr. Jonathan B. Hill and Ms. Anne Swanson, of Cooley 

LLP, Counsel for Trimble Navigation Ltd., 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700, 

Washington, DC 20004 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Trimble Navigation, Ltd. (Trimble) for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and

(b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a) and (b), 91.9(b)(2), 91.109(a), 91.119, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b),

91.319(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow operation of unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) for the purpose of precision aerial surveys. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and 

changing design approvals, productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, and 

airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman 

capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or lightsport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator 

must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot 
2

station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words 

“limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

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

(a) no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that 

person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. 

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

in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Section 61.133(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person who holds a commercial 

pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft: (i) Carrying persons or 

property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with 

this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) 

For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part 

and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an 

airworthy condition. Section 91.7(b) prescribes that the pilot in command of a civil 

aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe 

flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, 

electrical, or structural conditions occur.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is 

available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 

approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

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

aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless 

that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

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

may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

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

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
3

(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

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

than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under 

visual flight rules (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 [emphasis added].

Section 91.203(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person operate a civil aircraft 

unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an 

effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the 

United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for 

in § 47.31(c). 

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under 

§ 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers 

or crew.

Section 91.319(a)(1), Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations, 

prescribes in pertinent part that no person may operate an aircraft that has an 

experimental certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued. 
4

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall 

have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall,

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, 

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

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

that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of 

the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes that no person may operate any aircraft unless, within 

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the 

periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(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 the Administrator) of the

work performed; and

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

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

aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

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

and each rotor.

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

rotor, and appliance.
5

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

are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

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

last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft 

and its appliances are maintained.

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

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

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

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

appliances.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

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

proprietary supporting documentation: 1) Trimble UX5 Safety Checklist, 2) Training Manual, 

3) UX5 Maintenance and Inspection Manual, and 4) Trimble UX5 Aerial Imaging Solution 

User Guide (User Guide), – in support of its exemption request. The petitioner submitted 

additional information dated September 4, 2014 that included 1) FAA Experimental 

Airworthiness Certificate for its UX5, and 2) "Permission" issued by the Civil Aviation 

Authority of the United Kingdom (CAA), which grants Gatewing NV, a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of Trimble that manufactures the UX5, authority to conduct "Aerial Work" using 

the UX5.

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: 1) the UAS, 2) the 

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC), 3) the UAS operating parameters and 4) Public Interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

Trimble Navigation Limited developed and proposes to operate the UX5 UAS. The petitioner 

states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft 

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

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

requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of P.L. 

112-95 (Section 333). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the limited environment and under the conditions and limitations 

proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed 
6

wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21, 

Subpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations.

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

fixed-wing aircraft, weighs less than 6 pounds fully loaded, flies at a maximum speed of no 

more than 74.5 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and a cruise speed of 49 KIAS, carries 

neither a pilot nor passenger, carries no flammable fuels, and operates exclusively within a

pre-disclosed area. Operations under this exemption will be tightly controlled and monitored 

by both the operator and local public safety requirements. 

In addition, the UX5 has a semi-autonomous navigation and control system comprised of a 

Ground Control Station (GCS) and auto-pilot system. All flights are pre-programmed with 

precise global positioning system (GPS) guidance and do not require human intervention. The 

flight mission area and routing cannot be changed after launch. Flights are not directed by 

positive manual control by the operator, nor are evasive maneuvers. In the case of unplanned 

events, the operator inputs pre-programmed evasive maneuvers from the GCS and the UX5 

executes that maneuver. Pre-programmed operator interventions include diversion to the 

right; initiation of holding at present position; suspension of mission; fly back to launch point; 

fly to point and hold; abort mission and land; and emergency power cut off and land.

Additional automated safety functions and safety enhancing features of the UX5 include:

a. Auto-pilot detection of lost GPS or of insufficient satellites initiates an immediate 

spiral landing; 

b. Low power on the aircraft triggers escalating alarms at GCS at 35% and 10% levels;

c. If the auto-pilot detects a lost-link to the GCS for longer than 30 seconds, landing 

procedure begins;

d. The UX5 is inherently unstable; auto-pilot failure will result in a rapid exit from flight;

e. The UX5 has an on-board fail safe that limits speed of a dive to no more than 14 m/s;

f. The UX5 weighs less than 6 pounds and is constructed of EPP foam or similar 

material which is intended to absorb impact energy; and

g. The UX5’s motor is driven by a pulse width modulated signal, not an analog signal.

Regarding the display of appropriate aircraft markings (14 CFR 45.23), the petitioner states 

that the UX5 has no entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word

“experimental” can be placed. Further, given the size of the UA, two-inch lettering would be 

impossible. The petitioner states that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having 

the UX5 marked on its forward fuselage as required by § 45.23(f) where the pilot, observer 

and others working with the UA will see the identification of the UAS as “experimental.” 

The petitioner states that maintenance of the UX5 will be accomplished by the owner/operator 

in accordance with the UX5 Maintenance & Inspection Manual. The UAS is small in size, 

carries no external payload, and is not a complex mechanical aeronautical device. The 
7

provided UX5 Maintenance & Inspection Manual, the Safety Checklist, and the UX5 User 

Guide, serves to ensure the UX5 is in a safe condition for operation. Furthermore, the 

petitioner states that the UX5 operator has attended a manufacturer’s training program, is the

most familiar with the UX5, and is best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy 

condition. Additionally, the UX5 Maintenance & Inspection Manual contains procedures for 

periodic inspections and replacement intervals for UX5 airframe and component parts, 

including instructions for the performance of inspections, maintenance and record keeping. In 

a separate endeavor, Trimble has been issued an FAA Special Airworthiness Certificate in the 

Experimental Category for the UX5. Lastly, the UX5 has accumulated more than 200 

registered test flights and more than 475 registered production flights, amounting to a total of 

more than 170 flight hours of testing.

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that operators of the UX5 should not be required to hold a commercial 

or private pilot certification. The petitioner notes that unlike a conventional aircraft that 

carries a pilot, passengers, and cargo, the UX5 is remotely controlled with no passengers or 

property of others on board. The petitioner proposes that operator requirements should take 

into account the characteristics of the particular UAS. The petitioner states that the UX5 has a 

high degree of pre-programmed control and various built-in technical capabilities that strictly 

limit the potential for operation outside of the operating conditions set forth in its petition for 

exemption.

The petitioner states that given the UX5 safety features, it proposes that the operators of the 

UX5 should be required to (1) have successfully completed FAA private pilot ground 

instruction and passed the FAA Private Pilot written examination or FAA-recognized 

equivalents; and (2) have successfully completed the manufacturer’s training program for 

operation of the UAS which has been approved by the FAA through its Special Airworthiness 

Certificate process. 

The petitioner notes that the FAA has found that safety factors permitted operation of UASs

by operators with these qualifications in the case of operations pursuant to public COAs when 

the mandatory operating conditions specified above were present. The petitioner argues that 

given these conditions and restrictions, an equivalent level of safety will be provided by 

allowing operation of the UX5 without a private pilot’s certificate or a commercial pilot’s 

certificate.

Trimble also states that the FAA has the statutory authority to grant exemptions to the 

requirements for, and privileges associated with, the grant of airmen’s certificates and then 

references 49 USC § 44701 (f).
8

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that the UX5 will remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) of the pilot 

or observer which guarantees a cylinder of operations around the operator of no greater than 1⁄2 

nautical miles. The petitioner further states that the cylinder walls may be expanded by an 

observer with the ability to control aircraft. The petitioner notes that the UX5 will be restricted

to an altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) and will occur in Class G airspace. The 

petitioner states that all operations will occur during daylight hours and the FAA will have 

advance notice of all operations through the filing of notices-to-airmen (NOTAMs). The 

petitioner asserts that all operations will avoid congested or populated areas, which are 

depicted in yellow on VFR sectional charts. The petitioner further asserts all operations will 

be conducted over private or controlled access property. The petitioner notes that it will 

obtain permission from land owner/controller prior to the beginning of every flight. All 

operations will occur under Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions (VMC) only. The 

petitioner asserts that the size of the aircraft, the lack of flammable fuel, and the fact that the 

aircraft is carried to the location and not flown there all establish the equivalent level of 

safety. The petitioner states that the UX5 construction with energy absorbent material 

provides at least an equivalent level of safety compared to operations being conducted with 

conventional aircraft that would be orders-of-magnitude larger and would be carrying 

passengers, cargo, and flammable fuel.

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

reserve requirements in 14 CFR 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to 

approximately 20 minutes. The petitioner states that limiting UX5 flights to 20 minutes would 

greatly reduce their utility. The petitioner argues that, given the limitations on the UA’s 

proposed operations and the location of those proposed operations, a longer time frame for 

flight in daylight VFR conditions is reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent

level of safety can be achieved by maintaining 10 minutes of reserve fuel, which, allowing 40 

minutes of flight time, would be more adequate to return the UAS to its planned landing zone 

from anywhere in its operating area. 

Public Interest:

The petitioner states that approval of the exemption allowing commercial operations of the 

UX5 for precision survey work will enhance safety by reducing risk and providing 

environmental benefits and thus is in the public interest. Conventional aerial survey 

operations, using jet or piston-powered aircraft present risks associated with aircraft that 

weigh in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 7,000 pounds or more, carry large quantities of fuel, 

passengers, and, in some cases, cargo. Such aircraft must fly to and from the survey location.

In contrast, a UX5 weighs less than 6 pounds and is powered by batteries eliminating a portion

of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. Further, the 
9

UX5 is carried to the survey location, not flown there; it will carry no passengers and thus will 

not expose any individuals to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. Thus, the 

petitioner states it is in the public interest to grant this petition.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2014 (79 FR 

36859). The petition received ten comments.

Of the ten comments received, including four from associations, six comments supported the 

exemption request, and four opposed it. The petition received comments on the following 

topics: safety, economic impact, UAS, PIC requirements, operational capabilities, airspace, 

sense and avoid, and lost link.

Comments supporting the exemption request came from individuals and industry groups, 

including the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA), North Dakota State University, Aims Community College, and 

the Newmont Mining Corporation. Supporting comments cited the low weight of the UX5 

and the increased safety using the UX5 for the proposed operations relative to the same 

operations conducted by manned aircraft. Comments also cited the safety benefits relative to 

the petitioner’s intent to limit operations to above private and controlled access properties, in 

daylight VFR conditions, within VLOS, at low altitude, and only after issuing a NOTAM. 

Comments also noted the UX5 safety and control design features, the Trimble training 

program, public interest, and the economic benefits derived from the proposed operations.

Two trade organizations and two individuals submitted letters to the docket expressing 

various issues and concerns with the Trimble petition for exemption, including the Air Line 

Pilots Association International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NAAA).

Several commenters expressed concerns about the certification requirements for the pilots 

involved in Trimble’s proposed UAS operation. ALPA noted that the proposed operations 

will be for “compensation or hire,” and believes the UX5 pilot must hold at least a current 

FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of 

aircraft being flown and a current second-class airman medical certificate. ALPA also noted 

that this is the requirement for compensation or hire operations in the national airspace system 

(NAS) today. NAAA also commented on pilot qualification. NAAA stated that the part 61 

regulations currently in effect do not address the licensing of pilots of an UA used for 

commercial purposes and believes it is necessary for the FAA to evaluate pilots of these 

aircraft on their knowledge and skills in unmanned aerial vehicle operation. NAAA asserted 

that the operator should hold a pilot certificate and be thoroughly familiar with the limitations 
10

of manned aircraft flight. NAAA further stated that requirements for UAS pilot licensing 

should be developed along with other rigorous rules and qualifications to ensure safe 

integration of the UA into the NAS. An anonymous commenter stated that the ability to sense 

and avoid other aircraft is key to the safe operation of UAS in the NAS and acknowledged the 

widely approved practice of using a ground-based visual observer (VO) to provide an 

equivalent level of safety. The commenter further stated that the observer and pilot must be 

able to visually acquire the small UAS they are responsible for and other incoming aircraft, 

and asserted that at a minimum, both the pilot and observer should be required to obtain a 

third-class airman medical certificate for vision requirements, and other basic health 

requirements.

NAAA stated that the UX5 is designed to operate with pre-programmed GPS guidance and 

does not require human intervention and according to the application, the aircraft’s mission 

area and routing cannot be changed after launch. NAAA further stated that if an unplanned 

event occurs, the operator inputs pre-programmed evasive maneuvers into the control unit and 

asserted that the pilot/operator of the UX5 may become less vigilant and complacent since he 

or she has no piloting duties to perform during normal flight operations.

The FAA has carefully reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments and the discussion 

regarding knowledge, training, and medical certification required by holders of both private 

and commercial pilot certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of 

this issue with regard to 14 CFR part 61.

ALPA commented that Communication and Command (C2) (typically referred to as 

command and control) link failures are one of the most common failures on UAS and lost link 

mitigations require safe modes to prevent fly‐a‐ways or other scenarios, including mitigations 

such as, auto‐land, return‐to‐home and geo‐fencing boundary protection, incorporated into the 

navigation and control systems for a UA to safely land or re‐establish C2. ALPA further stated 

that the radio frequency spectrum that is commonly accessed for small UAS is unprotected 

and asserted that mitigations for spectrum interference, weather, terrain and obstacles 

(man‐made or natural) should be developed to ensure safe operations. Also, an individual 

commenter stated that a System Safety Assessment for the specific failure modes that can 

result in lost link or failure to recover within a safe area would be needed.

The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle 

design and the petitioner’s supporting documentation addressed potential hazards related to 

C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by Trimble has sufficient design 

features to address these hazards. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

NAAA requested that operators of UAS develop ways of making the presence of UAS known 

to VFR air traffic if they are to be integrated into the NAS and for areas with less UAS

activity, recommended a procedure for issuing NOTAMs when they are present. The FAA 
11

agrees and has incorporated this into the conditions and limitations of this exemption. 

NAAA’s notification concerns are addressed by the conditions and limitations that will 

require an Air Traffic Organization issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to 

address airspace requirements and notification. Further detail is contained in the analysis of 

the UAS operating parameters below.

NAAA commented that the UA should have assigned numbers that can be read from a 

suitable distance to aid in identification when enforcement of flight regulations is required. 

The FAA partially agrees with NAAA. The UA operated under this exemption will be marked 

in accordance with 14 CFR part 45 or as otherwise authorized by the FAA. Further detail is

contained in the analysis of the UAS below. 

NAAA stated that it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed as 

commercial applicators and ensuring safe low-level airspace includes minimizing obstructions 

which are difficult to be seen and identified by the pilots. NAAA members operate in lowlevel airspace, and clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA 

stated that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for 

agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their 

see and avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believed that UA operations at 

low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural aircraft.

Related to the operation of the UA within VLOS of the pilot and/or observer, NAAA believed

that the UA should remain within line of sight of the pilot/operator so that a person can take 

immediate evasive action if a collision is imminent and asserted that this duty not be delegated 

to an observer that will be less qualified than the pilot/operator. Also, an anonymous 

commenter stated that the key to the safe operation of UAS in the NAS is the ability to sense 

and avoid aircraft. The commenter noted that in lieu of the ability to do this onboard, and in a 

widely approved practice, a ground-based VO is used to provide an equivalent level of safety. 

The commenter asserted that paramount to this concept, the observer and pilot must be able to 

visually acquire not only the small UAS they are responsible for, but also other incoming 

aircraft. 

Regarding 14 CFR 91.113 Right of Way, “See and Avoid” requirements, ALPA also stated 

that given the absence of an onboard pilot, a means to meet this statutory requirement is 

necessary. The FAA notes these concerns; additional detail is provided in the analysis of the 

UAS below.

Regarding the ability to carry out maneuvers to avoid other aircraft, an anonymous commenter 

stated that the UX5 does not give the operator the ability to maneuver the aircraft in normal 

operation, and further stated that the operator only has the following options in flight: “Preprogrammed operator interventions include diversion to the right; initiation of holding at 

present position; suspension of mission; fly back to launch point; fly to point and hold; abort 
12

mission and land; and emergency power cut off and land (Flight Termination System).” The 

commenter stated that Trimble’s case for safety is in part based on the assumption that an 

aircraft flying under 400 feet over “non-populated” areas will have less possibility for 

conflicts with manned aircraft. The commenter asserted that this argument is misleading, 

given that the proposed areas of flying (farmland) are actually more routinely serviced by 

manned aircraft at low altitudes, such as aerial crop spraying. The commenter further asserted

that this type of “pop-up” target gives observers very little warning time to alert the operator 

and take corrective action to avoid the incoming aircraft, and that when this happens it is 

paramount that the operator has a full range of options to divert the aircraft completely as 

necessary.

The FAA shares these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations 

into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for all UX5 operations, b) operations 

conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO, and c) the UX5 PIC must always yield rightof-way to manned aircraft

The petition received several comments expressing concerns regarding the UX5 operating 

areas. For example, ALPA stated that the petitioner’s anticipated operations are expected to 

occur in Class G Airspace below 400 feet above the surface while remaining more than 2.5 

nautical miles (NM) either side of all of runway centerline azimuths from all runway 

thresholds at the airport, and as written it is difficult to understand the actual area that is to be 

avoided, introducing risk inherent to operating within an Airport Traffic Area. ALPA further 

asserted that since the petitioner proposes no separation capabilities to mitigate the risk of 

collision, the proposed operation increases the likelihood of unanticipated safety impacts to an 

already burdened NAS. ALPA also states that there must be means both to ensure that the UA 

remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on 

the operation is mitigated.

The FAA has addressed these concerns by adding operating conditions and limitations 

regarding operations in the proximity of airports (the UA may not operate within 5 nautical 

miles of the geographic center of an airport as denoted on current FAA-published aeronautical 

charts unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained), stand-off 

distance from clouds, altitude restrictions, and operating distance from non-participating 

personnel. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below.

The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or 

below 400 feet AGL) and the UAS emergency procedures as outlined in the petitioner’s 

supplemental documentation are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will 

not adversely affect safety. Further information is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.
13

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration 

of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its 

operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the 

conditions of Section 333. Because the Secretary of Transportation has determined that no 

airworthiness is required the requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise 

certification and testing, is not necessary.

The FAA has issued an experimental airworthiness certificate for the UX5 under 14 

CFR 21.191 following the process in FAA Order 8130.34C for the purposes of research and 

development, crew training, and market survey. The UX5 aircraft and its operation was 

subject to a comprehensive safety risk assessment by the FAA, as part of that process, and it 

was determined that the UAS could be operated safely subject to certain operating limitations 

to ensure the safety of persons, property, and other aircraft in the NAS. Those operating 

limitations prescribed as part of the experimental airworthiness certification process that are 

appropriate and necessary to ensure safety will be included in the exemption conditions and 

limitations below (including condition and limitation nos. 15 and 16 below).

Manned aircraft conducting aerial surveying operations can weigh 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. or more 

and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. 

The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 6 lbs. The pilot and crew will be remotely located 

from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction with impact absorbent materials 

significantly reduces the potential for 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 

UX5 carries no fuel and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel 

spillage is eliminated. 

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight 

contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. 

The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, 

predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of 

safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a restricted airworthiness certificate performing 

a similar operation.
14

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 45.23(b) Display of marks, the 

petitioner requests this relief under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” 

will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. However, this marking is reserved for 

aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 14 CFR 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS 

will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore the “experimental” marking is not

required. Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, a grant of 

exemption for § 45.23(b) is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.405 (a) Maintenance required, 

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

alteration, § 91.409(a)(2) Inspections, and § 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records, the FAA 

has determined that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) is also necessary because it is an alternate 

inspection requirement of § 91.409(a)(2). The FAA has carefully evaluated the petitioner’s 

request and determined that cause for granting the exemption is warranted. The FAA notes 

that the petitioner’s Maintenance and Inspection Manual, Safety Checklist, and User Guide 

contain sufficient information for the preparation and care of UX5 equipment; the petitioner’s 

extensive UX5 flight testing further validates these procedures. The FAA finds that adherence 

to these documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure 

that safety is not adversely affected. In accordance with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, 

inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted subject to 

the conditions and limitations below.

Pilot In Command of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot 

privileges and limitations and 14 CFR 61.133(a) Commercial pilot privileges and limitations, 

Trimble requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an FAA-certificated pilot. In 

support of its request, Trimble states that “the FAA has the statutory authority to grant 

exemptions to the requirements for and privileges associated with the grant of airmen’s 

certificates.”1 Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 

49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, it does not provide flexibility 

relative to other sections of Title 49. The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from 

the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.2

 1 Trimble references 49 USC § 44701(f) in support of this statement which states that “[the] Administrator may 

grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation prescribed 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.” 

[emphasis added]. .

2 49 USC § 44711 prohibits a person from serving “in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft, 

aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance used, or intended for use, in air commerce...without an airman certificate 

authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued . . . .”. 
15

Unlike operations pursuant to public COAs, the FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS 

operations for two reasons, the first of which is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated 

above. The second is because pilots holding a private pilot certificate are subject to the 

security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo.

As previously determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate 

ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with 

Section 333.

Given these grounds, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot certification for 

Trimble’s proposed operation. 

Under current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a 

commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in 

accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot 

certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only 

incidental to a business or employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to 

Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus) (see Docket FAA-2014-0352), the FAA determined that a PIC with

a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in 

the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground. 

As discussed above, Trimble’s petition received two comments registering concern about pilot 

certification. ALPA stated its opposition to Trimble’s proposed operation by a non-certificated 

pilot without a required medical certificate. ALPA believes that the operation should be 

conducted by a PIC holding a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate 

category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown and a current second-class airman 

medical certificate. NAAA stated that “the operator should hold a pilot certificate and be 

thoroughly familiar with the limitations of manned aircraft flight.” 

The FAA has analyzed Trimble’s proposed operation and has determined that it does not 

differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062. Trimble 

plans to operate in uncontrolled airspace – Class G airspace – over private property with 

controlled access. Given: 1) the similar nature of Trimble’s proposed operating environment 

to that of Astraeus, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements 

to those of commercial requirements as discussed in Exemption No. 11062, and 3) the limited 

airmanship skills necessary to operate the UX5, the FAA finds that the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the 

airmanship skills necessary for Trimble’s specific proposed operations. The FAA finds that a 

PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate, and who 

has completed Trimble’s UX5 training program, can conduct the proposed UX5 operations 

without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS. Upon consideration of the overall safety 

case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that 

granting the requested relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), provided the conditions and 
16

limitations outlined below, is warranted. Furthermore, the FAA finds that the requested relief 

from 14 CFR 61.133(a) is not necessary for Trimble to conduct its operations.

Trimble has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual observer 

(VO). The FAA also received a comment regarding the appropriate level of medical 

certification for the VO, asserting that the VO’s responsibilities necessitate a third-class 

airman medical certificate. In Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the FAA agreed with the 

petitioner’s proposed use of a VO and required a VO to be used in all UAS operations; 

however, the FAA considers the PIC’s ability to maintain VLOS with the UAS to be of 

primary significance and thus the medical certification requirement falls on the PIC. In 

accordance with regulations, a third-class airman medical certificate is the appropriate level of 

certificate to exercise the privileges of a private pilot certificate. There are no regulatory 

requirements for visual observer medical certificates. Although a medical certificate is not 

required for a VO, the UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the 

VO, and the VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It 

is the responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations 

of the UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the 

VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the 

FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO. 

Related to VO duties, Trimble’s petition states that, “Aircraft to remain within Visual Line of 

Sight (VLOS); VLOS guaranteed with a cylinder of operation around operator of 1⁄2 nautical 

miles (NM); and, cylinder walls may be expanded by observer with ability to control 

aircraft.” [Emphasis added.] The petitioner does not describe how control of the UA could be 

safely passed to the VO to facilitate expansion of the “cylinder walls.” Nevertheless, the FAA 

considers the PIC to be designated for the duration of the flight. Therefore, per the conditions 

and limitations below, the PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or 

her designation for the duration of the flight.

Operating parameters of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, 

Trimble’s request is based on its belief that “no standard will exist for airworthiness of the 

UX5.” It claims “an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by insuring compliance with 

the Trimble manuals prior to each flight.” While the UX5 will not require an airworthiness 

certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, the FAA considers the petitioner’s 

compliance with its manuals, UX5 User Guide, UX5 Maintenance and Inspection Manual, 

and Training Manual, and the Safety Checklist (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 

operator’s manual) to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, 

relief from § 91.7(a) is granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in 

an airworthy condition – based on compliance with the operator’s manuals identified above –

prior to every flight, and as stated in condition and limitation number 6.
17

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for 

determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. Although the petitioner seeks

relief from § 91.7(b), as in grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA finds that the 

PIC is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in condition for safe flight. 

Therefore, relief from § 91.7(b) is not warranted. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) Civil aircraft flight 

manual, marking, and placard requirements and 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) Civil aircraft: 

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined that relief from these sections is 

not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location accessible to the PIC in 

compliance with the regulations.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.109(a) Flight instruction; 

Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests and 91.319(a)(1) Aircraft having 

experimental certificates: Operating limitations, the petitioner did not describe training 

scenarios in which a dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight 

instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other company-designated individual, that would 

require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, Trimble intends to 

accomplish training through the procedures referenced in the operator’s manual. Furthermore, 

the FAA is requiring that PIC’s of the UX5 possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. This 

exemption will require that training operations only be conducted during dedicated training 

sessions. The FAA finds an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the manufacturer 

providing the training as outlined in the operator’s manual. As such, the FAA finds that the 

petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109. With regard 

to § 91.319(a)(1), aircraft operating under this grant of exemption will not possess an 

experimental airworthiness certificate. Therefore, relief from § 91.319(a)(1) is not required.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes, the 

petitioner specifies that relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because “aerial survey work must 

be accomplished at relatively low altitudes and at altitudes less than 500 feet AGL.”

Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes; 

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. Trimble states that it will operate pursuant 

to the following, self-imposed, restrictions related to § 91.119:

• All operations will avoid congested or populated areas, which are depicted in yellow 

on VFR charts.

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

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

flight.

• Operator will file a NOTAM for each flight.
18

Relative to Trimble’s proposal to “avoid” congested or populated areas, which are depicted in 

“yellow” on VFR charts; the FAA acknowledges that avoidance of these areas is a practicable

step in assuring that operations are not conducted over congested or densely populated areas. 

However, using these “yellow” areas only, to make this determination, is not sufficient. The 

FAA has stated that there is no precise definition of a “congested area” and official U.S.

Government aeronautical charts and NOTAMs provide general guidance for developing a 

proposed route that complies with § 91.119. Furthermore, aeronautical charts would not be 

expected to reflect all required local information. Pilots may obtain such information in a 

briefing from the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). This information along with 

the pilot’s prior knowledge of the area and information the pilot obtains from other sources 

may require an adjustment to the planned flight path before or during flight. Ultimately, it is 

the pilot’s responsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required by § 91.119. See

Legal Interpretation to Melvin O. Cintron, from Rebecca B. MacPherson (Aug. 28, 2012).

Therefore, operations within “yellow” areas as shown on World Aeronautical Charts (WAC), 

Sectional Aeronautical Charts (Sectionals), or Terminal Area Charts (TAC) are prohibited as 

proposed by Trimble. In addition, operations over congested or densely populated areas other 

than those depicted in “yellow” are also prohibited as stated in the conditions and limitations 

below.

Flight operations will be required to be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. However, the FAA finds that the UA may be 

operated at distances less than 500 feet from unoccupied vessels, vehicles or structures owned 

by the land owner/controller when the land owner/controller grants such permission and the 

PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects. With regard to 

operations near persons, operations closer than 500 feet from the UAS PIC or VO are 

permitted when operationally necessary. However at no time can operations be conducted so 

close to present an undue hazard to the PIC or VO, per § 91.119 (a).

The FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted provided adherence to the procedures

in the operator’s manual and the FAA’s additional conditions and limitations outlined below. 

Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarranted as the FAA expects the petitioner to be able to 

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

Relief from §§ 91.119(b) and 91.119(d) are not applicable.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in 

VFR conditions, prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the 

prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar 

UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, 

VFR conditions. The UAS provides battery power remaining in percent and battery time 

remaining in minutes and seconds to the PIC. The UX5 batteries provide approximately 50 
19

minutes of powered flight. The FAA agrees with Trimble’s proposal to limit UX5 flights to 

not more than 40 minutes, maintaining 10 minutes of reserve power which is adequate to 

return the UAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere in its operating area. In the event 

that the UX5 should run out of power, it would simply land within the access controlled 

operating area. Given the limitations on its proposed operations and the location of those 

proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve for flight in daylight VFR conditions 

is reasonable. These factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 

CFR 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, that 

prohibit the PIC from beginning a UX5 flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather

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

normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10 minutes.

Regarding basic VFR weather minimums, Trimble proposes to operate exclusively within 

Class G airspace, which normally requires that no person operate an aircraft when the flight 

visibility is less than one statute mile and operations must remain clear of clouds (14 CFR

91.155). The FAA is requiring, through the conditions and limitations below, that the UA 

may 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. The FAA is imposing these stricter 

requirements on Trimble’s operations to both keep the UA from departing VLOS and to 

preclude the UA from operating so close to a cloud as to create a hazard to other aircraft 

operating in the NAS. These requirements, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return 

to a preplanned position, are sufficient mitigations to ensure the safety of the NAS is not 

adversely affected.

Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to 

VLOS and a safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving device 

or vehicle. Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the 

conditions and limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles.

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA), the majority of current UAS operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated 

through Air Traffic Control (ATC) by the issuance of a COA. This is an existing process that 

not only makes local ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC the 

ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require 

the operator to request a NOTAM, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS 

to the UAS activities being conducted. Therefore, the FAA believes that adherence to this 

process is the safest and most expeditious way to permit Trimble to conduct its proposed UAS 

operations. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for Trimble to 

obtain an ATO-issued COA.
20

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety 

achieved using a 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. The FAA also finds that UAS provide an 

additional tool for the agricultural, mining, and professional surveying industries, adding a 

greater degree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned 

aircraft.

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding the relief sought by the 

petitioner:

Relief sought by petitioner (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

Part 21 Relief not necessary

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

61.133(a) Relief not necessary 

91.7(a) and (b)

Relief granted from 91.7(a), with conditions 

and limitations

91.7(b), relief not necessary

91.9(b) (2) Relief not necessary

91.109(a) Relief not necessary

91.119 Relief granted from paragraph (c) with 

conditions and limitations

91.151(a)

Relief granted from 91.151 (a) (1), day, with 

conditions and limitations

91.151 (a) (2), night, not applicable

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.319(a)(1) Not applicable 

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.409(a)(2)

Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations; relief from 91.409(a)(1) also 

granted with conditions and limitations

91.417(a)

Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations; relief from 91.417 (b) also 

granted with conditions and limitations

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 USC 106 (f), 40113, and 44701, delegated 
21

to me by the Administrator, Trimble Navigation, Ltd. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR

61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.119 (c); 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 Trimble to operate the UX5 UAS 

for the special purpose of precision aerial surveys that consist of still photographs taken by an 

onboard camera. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Trimble is hereafter referred to as the operator.

The Trimble UX5 Safety Checklist (Petition Exhibit 1), the Training Manual (Petition Exhibit 

2), the UX5 Maintenance and Inspection Manual (Petition Exhibit 3), and the UX5 User 

Guide (Petition Exhibit 4), are hereafter collectively referred to as the operator’s manual.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1) Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft 

described in the operator’s manual which is a fixed-wing aircraft weighing less than 6 

pounds: Trimble Navigation Limited UX5 UAS. Proposed operations of any other 

aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2) The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 74.5 knots.

3) The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes 

reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4) The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. 

This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate.

5) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy the 

VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and 

PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. The PIC must be designated 

before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the 

flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the 

operator’s manual.

6) Provided the additional requirements identified in these conditions and limitations are 

added or amended, the operator’s manual is considered acceptable to the FAA. The 
22

operator’s manual and this grant of exemption must be maintained and made available 

to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operator’s manual, the 

conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, 

the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.

The operator may update or revise its operator’s manual. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the 

Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised 

documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of this exemption. If the 

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

FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to its 

exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if 

questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s manual.

7) Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS 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 aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground 

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and 

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.

8) Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation 

or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a 

functional test flight in accordance with the operator’s manual. The PIC who conducts 

the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. 

The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft record entry 

must be added to the operator’s manual.

9) The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to include 

the following requirement: The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, 

i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight 

inspection sections of the operator’s manual.

10) The operator must follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, 

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements, with particular 

attention to flight critical components that may not be addressed in the manufacturer’s 

manuals.

11) Trimble must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements 

in accordance with the operator’s manual. Maintenance, inspection, and alterations 

must be noted in the aircraft logbook, including total flight hours, description of work 
23

accomplished, and the signature of the authorized UX5 technician returning the UX5 

to service.

12) UX5 technicians must receive and document training referenced in the operator’s 

manual.

13) Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer System 

and Safety Bulletins.

14) Trimble UX5 maintenance personnel must make a record entry in the UAS logbook 

or equivalent document of the corrective action taken against discrepancies 

discovered between inspections.

15) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman 

medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified 

in 14 CFR 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

16)Prior to operating for hire, the PIC must have completed Trimble’s five-day UX5 

Training Syllabus as outlined in the Safety Checklist. The Training Manual must also 

be updated to reflect the specific five day Training Syllabus presented by Trimble. 

The Training Manual specifies the minimum flight and skill requirements for the 

Remote Pilot, Instructor Pilot and Examiner. Those Manuals and records of those 

requirements must be documented and made available upon request by the 

Administrator. Those minimum flight requirements are repeated here as conditions 

and limitations:

Remote pilot [PIC]

• Minimum 2 flights on the UX5 as a remote pilot during the Type

Rating module 

• Minimum 2 flights on the UX5 as visual observer during the Type

Rating module 

• When failed: Minimum 4 flights on the UX5 for the failed part

Instructor pilot

• A minimum of 25 flights and 4 hours where:

o The flights occurred on 4 different calendar days.

o Two long endurance flights that last near the maximum 

permissible endurance (40 min for operations conducted under 

this exemption) or have a minimum duration of 45 min for 
24

previously logged flights or flights not conducted under this 

exemption (per the Trimble operation’s manual).

o One flight with a minimum measured wind speed of 30 kph

(18.64 mph). If the wind speed cannot be measured, you can

provide proof from METAR as close as 25km from the weather 

station.

o One flight with a minimum programmed leg distance of 1 km

(if possible by CAA regulations, otherwise as long as possible.)

o 11 flights with a different selected height where:

o 2 flights are at the minimum height

o 2 flights are at the maximum allowable height

Examiner

• 100 flights and 20 hours (regardless of aircraft type) or as approved

by a team of examiners.

Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable 

regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights can also be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the 

required flights and flight time.

17) If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must 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.

18) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in 

accordance with the operator’s manual.

19) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UX5 flight unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the first point of intended 

landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10 minutes.

20) The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman 

(NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the 

operation. 
25

21) All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be 

as large as practicable. 

22) Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

23) The documents required under 14 CFR 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC 

at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These 

documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request. 

24) The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned operations 

and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute 

activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).

25) The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle. 

26) UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR 1.1.

27) All operations shall be conducted in Class G airspace.

28) All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). 

The UA may 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.

29) During operations in Class G airspace, the UA may not operate within 5 nautical 

miles of the geographic center of an airport as denoted on a current FAA-published 

aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is 

obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by 

the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be 

made available to the Administrator upon request. 

30) The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated areas. These areas

include but are not limited to the yellow areas depicted on World Aeronautical Charts 

(WAC), Sectional Aeronautical Charts (Sectionals), or Terminal Area Charts (TAC). 

However, aeronautical charts may not reflect pertinent local information. Ultimately, 

it is the PIC’s responsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required by 

§ 91.119.
26

31) Operation of the UA must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. 

32) 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. Operations closer than 500 feet 

from the PIC, VO, operator trainees and essential persons, are permitted when 

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

§ 91.119(a). 

33) Operations of the UA may be conducted at distances less than 500 feet from 

unoccupied vessels, vehicles or structures owned by the land owner/controller when 

the land owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety 

assessment of the risk from operations closer to these objects.

34) All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission 

from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each 

flight to be conducted.

35) Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported 

to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be 

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. 

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the unmanned aircraft system (UAS),

pilot in command (PIC), and operator must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR 

including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2014.

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service