AFS

– 14

– 385

– E Exemption No. 11109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

CLAYCO, INC.

for an exemption from part 21 and §§ 45.23(b ); 61.113(a) and (b ); 91.7(a ); 91.9(b)(2 ); 91.103 ; 91.109 ; 91.119 ; 91.121 ; 91.151(a ); 91.203(a ) and (b ); 91.405(a ); 91.407(a)(1 ); 91.409(a)(2 ); and 91.417(a ) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2014

– 0507

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 19, 2014

, which included supplemental proprietary information submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under separate cover

, Ms. Caroline Saunders, General Counsel

, Clayco, Inc. , 2199 Innerbelt Business Center Dr ive St. Louis, M issouri 63114, and Mr. Gabriel Dobbs, Skycatch, Inc., Agent for Clayco, Inc.,

524 3 rd Street, San Francisco, California 94107 petitioned the FAA on behalf of Clayco, Inc. (Clayco) for an exemption from part 21 and §§ 45.23(b)

, 61.113(a ) and (b)

, 91.7(a)

, 91.9(b)(2)

, 91.103

, 91.109

, 91.119

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)

, 91.203(a ) and (b)

, 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(1)

, 91.409(a)(2)

, and 91.417(a ) and (b) of Title 14, Code of the Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow commercial operation of s mall Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) for aerial imaging to monitor and ensure safety of construction sites

.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 , Certification Procedures for Products and Parts

, prescribes

, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, prod uction approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertine nt part, that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted

, or2

light

- sport 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 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) an d (b) prescribe that

—
(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircr aft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate
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 91.103 prescribes that each PIC shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight . This information must

include

— (b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance informa tion:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in para graph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and

runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Section 91.109 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, e xcept when necessary for ta keoff 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 cong ested 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 ab ove 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. I f 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 paragraph (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies w ith 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 91.121 prescribes , in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by referenc e to an altimeter that is set “ to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

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 cruisi ng speed

—
(1 ) D uring the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes ; or

(2 ) A t night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

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

aircraft unless it has within it

—
(1) A n appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and

(2 ) A n effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft R egistration 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 i s legible to

passengers or crew.

Section 91.405(a) prescribes , in pertinent part, that each owner of an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and

shall

, between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 , Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration

.4

Section 91.407(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate any aircraft that has undergone ma intenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter

.
Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an

aircraft u nless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for

the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21.

Section 91.417(a ) and (b) prescribe , 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 re quired 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

t he 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.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft that 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) for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.5

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the

p eriods 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.

(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 shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved

for return to service

.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

T he FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections : ( 1 ) the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

, ( 2 ) the UAS pilot in command ( PIC )

, ( 3 ) the UAS Operating

P arameters , and (4) the Public Interest

. The petitioner provides a supplemental proprietary Skycatch UAS Flight Manual (the Manual) in support of its exemption request.

Unmanned Aircraft System ( UAS )

The petitioner states t he sUAS proposed by Clayco is a multirotor vehicle manufactured by Skycatch, Inc., a San Francisco

, CA

- based company. The petitioner states that given the size and speed of the aircraft and the limited operating area associated with their proposed use, an exemption from p art 21, s ubpart H

, Airwor thiness Certificates, subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety

under p art 11 and s ection 333 of P

. L. 112

– 95. The petitioner asserts an analysis of these operating conditions demonstrates sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the

restricted environment and under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or helic opter) operating with an airworthiness certificate

issued under 14 CFR p art 21, s ubpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions

and limitations.

The petitioner states the unmanned aircraft (UA) it seeks to operate weigh no more than 10 pounds when ful ly loaded, operate, under normal conditions, at speeds no greater than 50 mph/ 43.4 kn ots

, carry no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operate exclusively within a secured area detailed in the Manual

, without any pilots or passengers on

boa rd

. Additionally, the petitioner states that in the event of Global Positioning System ( GPS ) or communication signal loss, the UA possess es the ability to return to a pre

determined location within the s ecurity p erimeter, as defined in the Manual, and land. The petitioner states t he UA have the capability to abort a flight in case of emergenc y
, facilitated in part by on

- board parachute s that can be deployed in the event of motor loss or other emergency. Parachut e deployment deactivates the aircraft’s motors and enables the vehicle to float to the ground.6

The petitioner states even though its sUAS will have no airworthiness certificate s , an exemption may be needed from § 45.23(b) as there is no entrance to the cab in, cockpit

, or pilot station on which the word “Experimental” can be placed. The petitioner states that given

the size of the UA

, 2

- inch lettering would be impossible. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the word “Experimental” marked on the fuselage in accordance with § 45.29(f), enabling the pilot s and others working with the UAs

to see and observe the aircraft’s “Experimental” markings.

The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b) apply only to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate and are therefore inapplicable to its sUAS operations. The petitioner states, i n place of these requirements, it will perform maintenance by following procedures outlined in the Manual

. The Manual prescribes required maintenance and requires the operator to keep a Meta data diagnostic log pertaining to each flight . The petitioner notes that because of the aircraft’s limited size, payload, and operational constraints, immediate landings can be performed in

case of mechanical issues

. The petitioner further asserts that the monthly and yearly maintenance use of this diagnostic data w ill allow Clayco to efficiently maintain UAS

components by the data system alerts to Clayco should a component require service. Th e Meta data diagnostic system used to monitor the UAS components will provide an equivalent level of safety in the maintenance and operation of the S k ycatch UAS

.

UAS Pilot In Command ( PIC )

The petitioners asserts because the UAs are remotely controlled, operate within a secured

area
, and do not carry pilots or passengers, and because operations are planned and coordinated in advance, the level of risk associated with their proposed operations is significantly lower than that associated with commercial operations of conventional aircraft. The petitioner asserts a level of s afety equivalent to that provided by the pilot certification requirements of § 61.113(a) and (b) can be achieved by requiring pilot s to complete a UAS flight training course. T he petitioner states t he proposed course is 100 hours in duration and

is outlin ed in s ection F of the Manual.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states all operations will be conducted in accordance with the Manual and local public safety requirements. The petitioner further states all flight operations will be

conducted wi thin visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot

, in controlled environments at least

5 miles from an airport and at least 3 miles from any city or densely populated area, and at an
altitude of 200 feet above ground level ( AG L ) , never exceeding 400 feet AGL. Operations

will be limited to confined sterile areas within security perimeters as defined in the Manual. The petitioner will provide noti fication to the local Flight Standards District Office ( FSDO ) and airport controller in of all operations within fi ve miles of an airport

. The petitioner states a daily briefing regarding planned operations will take place , with mandatory attendance by all personnel who will be performing duties within the safety perimeter. In addition, all onsite personnel must cons ent to UA flyover s by signing a waiver, with an additional requirement to obtain verbal or written consent from any individual allowed within 100 feet of the operation

. The petitioner emphasizes that the use of sUAS on Clayco construction sites reduces the risk7

of worker injury because of the aircraft’s ability to inspect, photograph, and collect data in challenging areas. Because of these factors, the petitioner asserts that sUAS operations will result in a significant safet y increase for personnel and the general public compared to the use

of ground

- based inspection methods

, helicopters

, and small aircraft.

The petitioner states it may need an exemption from § 91.7(a) because its sUAS do not have

airworthiness certificate s

. Consequently, there is no applicable regulatory standard available to determine airworthiness. The petitioner asserts an equivalent level of safety will be provided through adherence to maintenance and safety checklist usage standards prescribed by secti ons B and G of the Manual.

The petitioner notes that given the size, configuration, and unmanned nature of the UA , it is impossible to carry a flight manual on board the aircraft. Additionally, because of the same limiting factors, there is no ability to carry certification and registration documents, or display

them on the UA

. Therefore, the petitioner requests an exemption from §§ 91.9(b)( 2) and 91.203(a) and (b). The petitioner states an equivalent level of safety will be provided by storing the flight manual and applicable certification and registration documents at the ground control point where the sUAS pilot will have immediate access to them

. The petitioner explains it requires an exemption from § 91.103 because preflight actions for

sUAS vary from those outlined by the regulation. The Manual requires the pilot to take preflight actions prescribed by the Preflight Checklist that incl ude an analysis of weather conditions, checking flight battery requirements, and an assessment of takeoff and landing distances. The petitioner asserts that these actions will provide an equivalent level of safety.

The petitioner requests an exemption fro m the requirement to have fully functional dual controls in aircraft used for flight instruction

, prescribed by § 91.109. The petitioner explains that, by design, sUAS do not have fully functional dual controls, and are controlled instead through the use of a control box that uses radio communications for aircraft control. The petitioner argues that an equivalent level of safety is provided because the aircraft are unmanned, can be controlled remotely, are relatively small, and operate at slower speeds th an the aircraft envisioned by the regulation.

The petitioner details the need for an exemption from § 91.119

, which outlines minimum safe altitudes for aircraft. The petitioner specifically emphasizes paragraph (d) of this regulation

, which allows helicop ters to be operated at lower minimums provided operations are

conducted along certain routes at specific altitudes prescribed by the FAA for helicopter operations. The petitioner asserts that its UA are similar to helicopters in flight characteristics, noting their vertical takeoff and landing abilities. The petitioner also emphasizes that the aircraft will nev er operate outside of a restricted area with a security perimeter, and that all individuals and buildings exposed to their operation will be required to consent to the operation beforehand. Advance notice will be provided to the property owner, local officials, and onsite personnel in accordance with the provisions of the Manual. Additionally, the petitioner states that the low

- altitude nature of their operations will ensure separation with conventional aircraft complying with § 91.119. The petitioner asserts an equivalent level of safety will be achieved because of the limited size, weight, s peed, and8

operation location of the sUAS compared to flight operations with larger aircraft and/or

rotorcraft.

The petitioner notes it may require an exemption from the requirements of § 91.121 , as its sUAS may have GPS altitude read

- outs instead of barome tric altimeters. The petitioner states

t he read

- out will be verified by the operator prior to flight by comparing it to the launch site altitude in accordance with the Manual and Safety Check l ist. The petitioner asserts these procedures will result in an equivalent level of safety.

The petitioner states its UA are battery powered and are limited to approximately 35 minutes of powered flight. As a result, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.151(a). The petitioner explains that mandating a 30 minute fuel reserve would effectively limit its operations to 5 minutes of flight time , negatively impacting efficiency and utility

. Additionally, because of the limited area of operation, size, and speed of the UA , as well as the fact that all individuals within the controlled area have signed waivers, the level of risk does not rise to the level that the regulation is intended to mitigate. The petitioner also notes

similarities between its operations and exemp tions granted to other parties. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be provided by limiting flights to 30 minutes, or enough battery reserve to ensure that the UA lands at the ground station with at least

20 percent of battery po wer (as determined by the onboard monitoring system and the pilot),

whichever occurs first

.
Public Interest

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted sterile operating environment, its proposed operation “falls squarely within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of sUAS to commence immediately.” Also because of the size

of the UA and the restricted areas in which they will operate, approval of the application presents no national security issue. The petitioner argues that, given the clear direction in

Pub lic L aw 112

– 95 § 333 , the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant public benefit, including enhanced safety and reduction in environmental impacts, granting the requested exemptions is in the public interest.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on Aug ust 18, 2014 (79 FR

48818 ). The FAA received 3 comments regarding the notice of petition for exemption.

Of the three comments, one expressed support of the petition, one was opposed, and one was

neutral but raised issues and concerns. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) submitted comments in opposition to the petition. T he National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) expressed various issues and concerns regarding the petition . The

Small UAV Coalition submitted a comment in favor of the petition

. The Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition) outlined its members’ support for advancing regulatory and policy changes permitting operation of sUAVs for commercial, recreational, and philanthropic purposes. In suppo rt of Clayco’s petition, the Coalition states that the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than required, and that9

the sUAS in question pose a considerably lower safety risk than larger UAVs used for defense and other aerospace pur poses. The Coalition asserts the petitioner “demonstrates that its small UAS operations can be conducted safely on privately owned or controlled property, with a number of voluntary safety precautions.”

The Coalition describes the aircraft’s characteristi cs and various safety measures detailed in the petition, including the limited weight of the aircraft, secured operations area, and pilot training procedures. The Coalition emphasizes that Clayco will not conduct operations within 5 miles of an airport, a nd will have informed consent from all persons in the vicinity of operations, opining that the FAA should grant Clayco’s petition in advance of a small UAV rulemaking.

The Coalition notes that pilot certification requirements for manned aircraft are unnece ssary and inappropriate for operators of small UA

. It assert s that Clayco’s proposed training program will result in an equivalent level of safety.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of Clayco’s petition. ALPA states that the petitioner’s reference to operations conducted within a “sterile area” is not defined in publicly available materials, nor does Clayco publicly detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA states “there must be means both to ensure the UA remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.”

ALPA also shared its belief that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or

hire ,” and ALPA beli eves that the pilot must hold at least a current FAA c ommercial p ilot

c ertificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used.

S imilarly, a current s econd c lass FAA m edical c ertificate should be required for a UAS pilot operating an aircraft for compensation or hire commercial operations as is required in the National Airspace System ( NAS ) today. NAAA also commented on pilot qualification, stating

— Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too must sUAS operators. Holding a commerci al certificate holds sUAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and ment al acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a sustained period of time.

ALPA cites the petitioner’s statement that the aircraft “may not have a barometric altimeter”,

and asserts that the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addre ssed.

ALPA also commented on the petitioner’s claims related to the sUAS’ ability to return to a safe landing area in the event of certain failures or malfunctions . ALPA states that Command and Control (C2) link failures are one of the most common failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly

- aways or other scenarios . ALPA doubts the ability of the petitioner’s aircraft to perform in such a manner in the event of a GPS

failure.10

NAAA stated that it repr esents the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed as commercial applicators. NAAA members operate in low

- level airspace, and clear low

- level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators.

NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other air craft 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 believes that UA operations at low altitudes w ill increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural

aircraft. NAAA proposes sUAS aircraft be painted a color that is highly visible, be equipped with strobe lights

, and use Automatic Depend e nt Survei l lance

- Broadcast ( ADS

- B ) or other

similar location reporting technology. Similarly, ALPA expressed concern regarding the ability of the operator to comply with the s ee

- and

- a void concept of § 91.113, stating that no method of compliance was specified by the petitioner

.

The FAA ’ s analysis is as follows :

Unmanned aircraft system (UAS)

T he petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21

, Certification procedures for products and

parts

. 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. Therefore, the FAA

finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

Manned helicopters conducting aerial filming can weigh 6,000 lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in add ition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 10 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or 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 UA for the aerial filming operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. The Skycat ch UA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.

This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with other aircraft, such as transponders or sense a nd avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating the risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand

- off distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within VLOS and yield right of way to all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that the operator will request a notice to airmen (NOTAM) prior to operations to alert other users

of the NAS. These mitigations address concerns raised by NAAA and ALPA regarding

aw areness of UAS operations occurring in the airspace.11

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 a lso 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 performing a similar operation and address ALPAs comment on mitigating risk of command and control link failures.

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”

wil l 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 “experiment al” 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) O pe ration 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 petitione r’s Skycatch UAS Flight Manual contain daily, preflight, monthly and yearly checks for the UAS. The FAA finds that adherence to the Skycatch Flight Manual, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not

adv ersely 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

cond itions 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

, Clayco requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an

FAA

- certifica ted pilot. 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 49 USC. The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. For further information see Exemption No. 11110 , Trimble Navigation, Ltd. Unlike operations pursuant to public COAs, the FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations for two reasons, the first of w hich is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated above. The second is because pilots holding a n FAA issued private or commercial 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 333.12

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

incidenta l to a business or employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), 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

h azard to persons or property on the ground.

Clayco’s petition received two comments registering concern about pilot certification. ALPA

stated its opposition to Clayco ’s proposed operation by a non

- certificated pilot without a required medical certificate and believes 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 Clayco’s proposed operation and has determined that it does not differ significantly from the situati on described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeus Aerial)

. Clayco plans to operate over private property with controlled access in the NAS . Given: 1) the

similar nature of Clayco’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus’, 2) the parallel

n ature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062], and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commer cially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for Clayco’s specific proposed operations. Therefore, t he FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate

and a third

- class airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operations.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS (item #3 stated above), Clayco has proposed a 100 hour training program and 6 month currency requirements. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that C layco may not permit any PIC to operate

unless that PI C has demonstrated through Clayco’s training and currency requirements that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third

- class airman medical certificate, and wh o has completed Clayco’s UAS training and currency requirements , can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the overall safety case presented by th e petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted.13

In its discussion of 14 CFR § 45.23(b), Clayco has indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual observer ( VO )

. T he 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 requireme nt 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 medica l 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 responsibi lity 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 and the requirement for a VO is included in the conditions and limitations below

.

T he 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) Civ il aircraft airworthiness

, Clayco’s request is based on its belief that “no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining airworthiness ,” of the Skycatch UAS. It claims an equivalent level of safety will

be provided, “given the size of the aircraft an d the requirements contained in the Manual for maintenance and use of safety checklists prior to each flight, as set forth in the Section B and

Section G.” While the UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subp art H, the FAA considers the petitioner’s compliance with its Flight

Manual (hereinafter referred to as the operator’s manual) to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition in accordance with § 91.7(a). 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 manuals and checklists identified above

– prior to every flight.

Additionally, i n accordance 14 CFR 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS i s responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. Although the p etitioner did

not seek relief from § 91.7(b) in their petition, t he FAA, as in grant of Exemption No. 11062

to Astraeus , has determined that the operator’s manual include procedures to be used prior to each flight that can ensure compliance with § 91.7(b). Therefore, relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is i n a condition for safe flight

– based on compliance with the operator’s manual

– prior to every flight.14

T he petitioner 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) Civi l aircraft: Certifications required

. Based on the FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an UA ’s control station,” dated August 8, 2014, the requested relief

from §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) is n ot necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.103 Preflight Action

, t he petitioner requires each PIC to take certain actions before flight to ensure the safety of the flight. The exemption is needed because the pilot will take separate preflight actions as referenced in the operator’s manual. A lthough there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual available, the FAA believes that the petitioner can comply with the other applicable requirements in 14 CFR 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the operator’s manual address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). The

PIC will t ake all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requiremen ts , landings, and takeoff distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The FAA has imposed stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to both keep the UA from departing the VLOS and to preclud e the UA from operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare ; the FAA believes the that PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return

- to

home sequence, are suffici ent mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account for all

relevant site

- specific conditions in their preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption for 14 CFR 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief fr om 14 CFR 91.109(a) Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests, 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 flig ht instructor or other company

- designated individual, that would require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, Clayco accomplishes training through the procedures referenced in the operator’s manual. Furthermore, the FAA is requi ring that the UAS PIC’s possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. The currency requirements expressed in the conditions and limitations below ensure that a PIC training on

the Skycatch has the authority to operate the UAS during training flights as PIC in accordance

with § 61.31( l ). The FAA will impose a limitation that those training operations are only conducted during dedicated training sessions. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations with out the requested relief from § 91.109.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.119

, Minimum safe altitudes , the petitioner failed to specify the part (s) of 14 CFR 91.119 from which they require relief. Relief

from 14 CFR 91.119(a ), whic h requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency landing if a power unit fails, is unprecedented and unwarranted. Relief from 14 CFR 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because the petitioner states that operations will only be conducted within the sterile area described in the operator’s manual

.

T he petitioner propose s to operate the UA within 100 feet of certain persons directly involved in the construction activity however; they failed to provide an explanation for exposing those

persons to increased risk

. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting UAS15

specific operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. the PIC and VO). The FAA has

also considered that the UA in this case will weigh 10 pounds or less. If barriers or structures

are present tha t can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from debris in the event of an

accident then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protectio n . If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately

. The primary concern when considering how to immediately cease operations is the safety of those nonpa rticipating persons

. In addition, t he FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels,

vehicles and structures when the land owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.121 Altimeter Settings , the FAA believes that an altitude reading is a critical safety component of the petitioner’s proposed operation. Although the petitioner will not ha ve a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft, the FAA finds the petitioner’s intention to operate the UA within VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL, combined with the petitioner’s intention to provide altitude information to the UAS pilot via a rad io communications telemetry data link , which downlinks from the

aircraft to the PIC for active monitoring of the flight path , to be a sufficient method for ensuring the UAS operations do not adversely affect safety. The altitude information will be

generat ed by GPS equipment installed onboard the aircraft. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS PIC. The FAA has determined that good cause exists for granting the requested relief to 14 CFR 91.121 and this approach satisfies ALPAs concern about the ability of the UAS to ac c u rately maintain

altitude

. Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151 (a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, Clayco believes that an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) is safe and does not engender the type of risks that Section § 91.151(a) was meant to prevent given the size and speed at which the UAS operates. In the event that the UAS should run out of power, it

woul d simply land within the access controlled operating area. Given its weight and construction material, the risks are less than contemplated by the current regulation. Prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums p rescribed in § 91.151 (a), including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS

specific relief has been granted an Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The Skycatch provides a batte ry failsafe that commands the UA’s return to the launch point when critical minimum voltage is reached.

The U AS batteries provide approximately 3 5 minutes of powered flight. The FAA agrees with Clayco’s proposal to limit U AS flights to not more than 3 0 mi nutes, or enough battery reserve to ensure that the sUAS lands at the ground station with at least 20% battery reserve power
, whichever happens first. Given the limitations on its proposed operations and the location of those proposed operations, a reduce d minimum power reserve for flight in daylight VFR conditions is reasonable. Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to VLOS and a safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered16

operations from a moving device o r 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 Author ization (COA), t he 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 AT C the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM), which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being co nducted. Theref ore, the FAA believes that adherence to this process is the safest and most expeditious way to permit Clayco to conduct their proposed UAS operations. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for Clayco to obtain an ATO

- issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact 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 th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. The FAA also finds that UAS provide an additio nal tool for the aerial imagery i ndustry, adding a greater degree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.

The following table 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 n ot necessary

45.23(b) Relief n ot necessary

61.113(a) and (b) Relief g ranted with conditions and

limitations

91.7(a) Relief g ranted

91.9(b)(2) Relief n ot necessary

91.103 Relief n ot necessary

91.109 Relief n ot necessary

91.119 Relief from p aragraph (c) granted with

conditions and limitations

91.121 Relief g ranted with conditions and17

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

limitations

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

with conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief n ot necessary

91.405(a) Relief g ranted with conditions and

limitations

91.407(a)(1) Relief g ranted with conditions and

limitations

91.409(a)(2) Relief g ranted with conditions and limitations; relief from 91.409(a)(1) also granted with conditions and limitations

91.417(a) and (b) Relief g ranted 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 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113,

and 44701 , delegated to me by the Administrator, Clayco, Inc., is granted an exemption from

14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b ), 91 .119 (c ), 91.121

, 91.151(a ), 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 Clayco, Inc. to operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of aerial imaging . This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

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

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limit ations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

The Clayco Skycatch Flight Manual is hereafter 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 quad rotor aircraft weighing less than 10 pounds: Skycatch Unmanned Aircraft System. 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 43

. 4 knots

.18

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 observe r (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 d esignation for the duration of the flight.

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 operator’s manual and this grant of exempti on 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 pr ecedence 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. Th e operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. 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 their 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 P IC 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 U AS 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 mu st be properly documented in the aircraft records.

8) Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alter ations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristi cs, 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 en try 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.19

9) The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to incl ude 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) Clayco must carry out their 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 o f work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized U AS technician returning the U AS to service.

12) Clayco U AS 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) Clayco 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 lea st 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) The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated through Clayco’s training and currency requirements that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive a nd emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

17) UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditio ns (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

18) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the airport reference point of a n airport as denoted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart. The UA may not operate within 3 nautical miles from any city or densely populated area.20

19) The UA m a y not be op era t e d l e ss th a n 5 00 fee t b e low or l e ss th a n 2,000 fee t
ho r i z ont a lly fr om a c loud or wh e n visibility is l e ss th a n 3 st a tute mil e s fr om the P I C

.

20) 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 accord ance with the operator’s manual.

21) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operator’s manual.

22) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a U AS flight unless (considering wind and

forecast weather conditions and assuming normal cruising speed ) there is enough power to fly to the first point of intended landing prior to utilizing battery reserve

power.

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

Waiver or Authorization (COA) pr ior 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.

24) 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 (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as pr acticable.

25) 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.

26) The documents req uired 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.

27) The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned aviation operations and activities at all times

.

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

29) The UA may not be operated over congested or densely popu lated 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, it21

is the PIC’s responsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required by § 91.119.

30) Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons (persons other than the PIC or VO) , vessels, vehic les, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation a rises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/ or; b. t he aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the land owner/controller has granted permiss ion and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and;

c. operations near the PIC or VO do not present an undue hazard to the PIC or VO, per § 91.119(a).

31) 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 prior to the beginning of every flight.

32) 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 Transpo rtation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply w ith 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