April 2, 2015 

 Exemption No. 11274 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2014−0796 

Mr. Michael Burns 

Assistant Vice President 

USAA 

9800 Fredericksburg Road 

San Antonio, TX 78288 

Mr. Greg Cirillo 

Counsel for USAA 

Wiley Rein LLP 

7925 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 6200 

McLean, VA 22102 

Dear Mr. Burns and Mr. Cirillo: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 2, 20141

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of United Services Automobile Association (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for 

an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) to conduct research and development. 

 

1

 By letter dated December 19, 2014, and posted to the public docket, USAA responded to the FAA’s request for 

information. 
2 

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2014, 

(79 FR 64241). Three comments were received. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) 

commented in support of the petition. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) 

and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it. 

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger 

safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition 

stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures should be required for the 

petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition urged the 

FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under Section 333 of 

Public Law 112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and 

operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial 

vehicles based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The petitioner’s UAS pose 

considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that because UAS 

operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal 

and appropriate regulations. 

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors2

 in Section 333 as a minimum. 

The Coalition stated the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those 

specified in Section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, restricted operating areas, and 

the Certificates of Authorization the HawkEye UAV has received from the FAA. The 

Coalition maintained that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven factors in 

Section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security 

of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the FAA must evaluate each 

factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations. 

The Coalition also commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold 

an airman certificate. The Coalition further stated that if an airman certificate is required then, 

at a minimum the, FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing 

requirements in part 61 in favor of requirements pertinent to the aircraft and operation 

proposed. The Coalition also asserted that in section 333 Congress intended for the FAA to 

consider national security with respect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through 

pilot certification. 

 

2

 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112−95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary 

shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, 

weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line 

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to 

national security; ...” 
3 

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

(Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333, nor the FAA’s exemption authority3 allows the 

FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as 

prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. 

The Coalition commented that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small 

UAS operations. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may 

allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command 

(PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) within VLOS 

of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. 

The FAA notes that one of the determinations for operations under section 333 is operation 

within visual line of sight. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA 

finds that a VO complements the PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including 

when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an 

additional level of operational safety. 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated “there must 

be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that 

the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” 

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

below 400 feet above ground level (AGL)) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the 

operations will not adversely affect safety. 

ALPA noted the petition does not detail how the pilot and observer will be able to 

communicate. ALPA stated the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual 

observation of the aircraft and area of operation when using voice communication. NAAA 

stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the 

most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual 

observer communications. 

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and 

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR−09/55, “Flammability Assessment of 

Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage 

(January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for 

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine 

how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given the size of 

the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a 

lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations. 

 

3

 49 USC § 44701(f) 
4 

ALPA commented 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 flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption 

to mitigate the risk associated with such failures. 

Regarding the petitioner’s request for exemption from part 21, § 91.7, and § 91.203, ALPA 

stated the UAS should be certified and operate to the same level of safety as other 

commercially operated aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). ALPA also stated 

they oppose the attempt to avoid certifying the airworthiness of the sUAS. 

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” and 

therefore contends the 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, as well as specific 

and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

asserted a current second-class airman medical certificate should be required. 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 UAS operators. 

Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS 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 mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a 

sustained period of time. 

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training requirements of sport, recreational, private 

and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot 

certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the 

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

FAA’s review is found in the FAA’s Analysis section of this exemption. 

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA noted the 

petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the 

absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of 

the PIC and VO. 

ALPA mentioned the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by 

14 CFR § 91.121. ALPA stated that processes or mitigations must be in place to ensure the 

UA can accurately maintain altitude including engineering processes, software development 

and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and 

design assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the National Airspace System (NAS). 
5 

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only 

source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and 

requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in 

detail below. 

ALPA stated that the petitioner did not specify requirements for flight instructors. A 

certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instruction required for the 

certificates or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to 

operate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated 

flight instructor because the instruction is not being provided for a certificate or rating listed 

in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such 

flight instruction because § 61.31(l) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is 

current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category and class rating. Instruction provided toward 

obtaining the pilot certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a 

certificated flight instructor. 

Regarding the minimum safe altitude requirements of § 91.119, ALPA stated all aircraft in the 

NAS must operate to the same high level of safety. ALPA argued this includes the 

maintenance of a safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters. 

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposed 

the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and 

recordkeeping requirements. ALPA states the UAS should comply with the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. The FAA finds that adherence to 

the petitioner’s operating documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is 

sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. 

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s waiver request is not for a single specific 

operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated that this 

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs 

concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each 

operator secure a Certificate of Authorization or COA which covers specific details of the 

petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS 

access demand and will review and adjust accordingly. 

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore 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 that 

agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions 

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. 

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and 

limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all 
6 

operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO; 

and (c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft. 

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned 

aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or 

similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high-visibility markings and 

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned 

aircraft. 

As discussed below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of factors laid 

out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain operations. The 

Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the 

petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

Airworthiness Certification 

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a PrecisionHawk Lancaster HawkEye. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 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. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest. 
7 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213; 

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our 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, United Services Automobile Association is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 

91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform 

aerial data collection. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

In grant of exemption, United Services Automobile Association is hereafter referred to as 

the operator. 

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 PrecisionHawk 

Lancaster HawkEye when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed 

operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this 

exemption. 

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

not permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer. 

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

(AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 
8 

5. 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 or 

U.S. driver’s license. 

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. 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; 

electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. 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 duties 

required of the VO. 

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations 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 operating documents, 

the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. 

Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the 

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of 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 an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or 

revisions to the operating documents. 

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 prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property. 

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation. 

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the 

UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 
9 

potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. 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. 

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft 

components. 

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety 

bulletins. 

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. 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. 

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability 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 persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

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

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

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

under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 
10 

17. 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. 

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property. 

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. 

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the 

intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The 

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct 

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA. 

22. 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. 

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any 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 give way to all manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times. 

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

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and 
11 

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of 

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not 

present an undue hazard. 

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption. 

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

28. 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. 

If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and 

television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply. 

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) 

as documented in this grant of exemption. 

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following: 

a. Dates and times for all flights; 

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption; 

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS; 

d. Make, model, and serial or N-Number of UAS to be used; 

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming; 

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners 

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request; 

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and 

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation. 
12 

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM. 

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 
7925 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 6200 9800 Fredericksburg Road

McLean, Virginia 22102 San Antonio, Texas 78288 

Michael P. Huerta, Administrator 

Office of the Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW October 2, 2014 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Reference: USAA Petition for Section 333 Exemption: Re: Research & Development of 

Methods to Use Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Property and Casualty Insurance 

Dear Administrator Huerta, 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), United 

Services Automobile Association (USAA) is petitioning for an exemption from the Federal 

Aviation Regulations and other rules/statutes pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems. Section 

333 of the FMRA addresses special rules for certain unmanned aircraft systems and grants the 

FAA authority to allow for the safe operation of certain unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) within 

the national airspace. 

Since 1922, United Services Automobile Association has served the military community and 

their families providing a full range of highly competitive financial products and services to our 

membership. We have world class employees that are personally committed to delivering 

excellent service and guidance regarding insurance, banking and investments. USAA focuses 

its innovation on developing products and new technology to assist its membership from policy 

inception to fulfilling our service commitment during a claims event. USAA has over ten million 

members that look to USAA to help them restore and rebuild after a wide range of natural and 

other disasters, and USAA is always seeking ways to improve the timing and quality of its 

responses to members’ needs. Property and casualty insurers play a major role in funding the 

restoration of businesses and communities after major incidents, and the integration of 

unmanned aircraft into USAA’s operations will have immediate, positive effects on the lives of 

Americans and the business community. 

We have identified the unmanned aircraft system as a technology which can alleviate safety 

concerns associated with manned inspections in the air and on the ground, and provide 

enhanced service and experience to our membership in a safe and efficient environment. At 

USAA’s Innovation Lab in San Antonio, Texas, since 2010, we have been thoroughly 

researching new small unmanned aircraft systems technology to improve our existing 

processes, invent new ones to benefit our membership, and improve efficiency and safety. Over 

the last four years, we have conducted significant research and developed business plans for 

utilization of unmanned aircraft systems within our organization, including, but not limited to: 

• Identifying operational areas where unmanned aircraft systems will improve safety 

relative to manned operations; 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 2 of 7 

• Research regarding privacy best practices and existing laws; 

• Research and development of small unmanned aircraft systems in partnership with the 

manufacturers to develop excellent safety protocols and procedures; and 

• Development of an internal research and development team at USAA with a wide 

expertise in aeronautics, flight instruction, mechanical and software engineering and 

business applications, along with external partnerships with public entities that further 

our knowledge in robotics, aerospace, and engineering. 

USAA shares Congress’s vision of integrating small unmanned aircraft systems for civil use into 

our national airspace and providing economic benefits and growth from this rapidly developing 

technology. Current law does not provide adequate authority to extend these research and 

development activities, and this application seeks interim authority from the FAA to allow USAA 

to continue the activities it began in 2010. 

USAA has also partnered with other public entities, such as the FAA UAS Test Sites and 

selected universities, to further our research and development as well as seeking to obtain a 

Special Airworthiness Certification in the Experimental Category with the collaboration of the 

Test Sites and our UAS manufacturer. Obtaining a Section 333 exemption would allow USAA 

the authority to do further research and development in a safe and efficient manner without 

burdening the FAA with additional requests for each of our UAS platforms and operations. 

Currently, the FAA does not allow civil operations (meaning operations other than public aircraft 

operations or model aircraft / “hobbyist” activities which include research and development); 

therefore USAA has not been able to fully develop its UAS flight research. 

Through this petition, USAA seeks an exemption to operate small unmanned aircraft systems to 

further develop its research and development of this emerging technology. 

 

USAA’s small unmanned aircraft systems are aircraft weighing significantly less than 55 lbs 

(details are provided within). They operate at slow speeds (under 45kts) and within line of sight 

within the areas described in this petition. Such operations will ensure that the small unmanned 

aircraft systems operated by USAA will not create a hazard to other aircraft operating in the 

national airspace, to the general public or pose a threat to national security as dictated by the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

One of USAA’s business partners and UAS platforms is PrecisionHawk, and its Lancaster 

HawkEye. PrecisionHawk is a leader in the small UAS community and through their impressive 

research and development have successfully obtained several FAA Certificates of Authorization 

for their platform through various FAA UAS test sites and public entities. This demonstrates the 

confidence in operation and safety that the FAA already has for this UAS manufacturer and its 

platform. PrecisionHawk continues its advancement in safety and UAS integration into the 

national airspace by researching and developing sense and avoid technology to benefit the UAS 

community, the FAA and other users of the national airspace. 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 3 of 7 

14 CFR 11.81 (a) – Name and address of the Petitioner:

United Services Automobile Association 

9800 Fredericksburg Road 

San Antonio, Texas 78288 

Phone: 703.905.2808 

E-mail: gcirillo@wileyrein.com 

14 CFR 11.81 (b) – Exemptions Requested: 

The FAA considers unmanned aircraft as “aircraft” flown by a “pilot” regardless of the location of 

the pilot. All aircraft and pilots must comply with applicable sections of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to operate within the National Airspace. Unmanned aircraft are 

unable to comply with certain sections of 14 CFR as the regulations were written prior to the 

consideration of small UAS operating within the national airspace. Therefore USAA is 

requesting an exemption from certain parts of 14 CFR cited below in addition to such further 

exemptions and relief as the FAA may determine is necessary to permit the operations 

described herein. 

14 CFR Part 21.191 (a) – Experimental Certificates 

14 CFR Part 45.23 (b) – Display of marks; general 

14 CFR Part 61.113 (a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command 

14 CFR Part 91.7 – Civil Aircraft Airworthiness 

14 CFR Part 91.9 (b) – Civil aircraft flight manual, marking and placard requirements 

14 CFR Part 91.109 – Flight Instruction 

14 CFR Part 91.119 – Minimum safe altitudes 

14 CFR Part 91.121 – Altimeter settings 

14 CFR Part 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions 

14 CFR Part 91.203 (a) and (b) – Civil Aircraft; Certifications Required 

14 CFR Part 91.405 – Maintenance required 

14 CFR Part 91.407 – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or 

alteration 

14 CFR Part 91.409 – Inspections 

14 CFR Part 91.417 – Maintenance Records 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (c) – The extent of relief USAA seeks, and the reason USAA seeks the 

relief: 

USAA seeks relief pursuant to this exemption from applicable parts of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations to the extent necessary to permit civil flight operations within the national airspace 

and USAA seeks authorization to conduct small UAS flight operations within the perimeters of 

this exemption request. 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 4 of 7 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (d) – The reasons why granting USAA’s request would be in the public 

interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole: 

Granting the exemption for USAA would allow the organization to safely and efficiently conduct 

small UAS flight operations to gain valuable information and experience with USAA’s research 

and development in this technology. Gaining this information and experience would enable 

USAA, in the future, to utilize UAS technology to conduct safe and efficient operations both 

before and after claim events to assist its membership in preparing for natural disasters and 

post-disaster recovery and relief operations, and reduce the time it takes communities to rebuild 

after natural disasters. Without this exemption, USAA would be unable to conduct the proper 

research and development to build a successful small UAS operation which would assist its 

over ten million members and their communities. USAA believes such UAS research can lead 

to safer, quicker, and more economical and effective claims service for its policy holders and 

their communities. 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (e) – The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely 

affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that 

provided by the rule from which USAA seeks the exemption: 

USAA requests that the exemption be granted with the following limitations and operational 

conditions. These limitations and conditions will provide an enhanced level of safety and will be 

the guiding principles when USAA is conducting R&D operations under this exemption: 

A. The small unmanned aircraft systems maximum take-off weight will be less than 55 lbs. 

Detailed specifications are included in the attachments. USAA is willing to have its 

authorization restricted below the 55 lb. threshold to the operating weight of the 

unmanned aircraft identified. One of the fixed winged UAS platforms that USAA is 

seeking to utilize through this exemption is currently operating safely within the national 

airspace pursuant to several Certificates of Authorization (COA) granted by the FAA to 

Texas A&M College Station and other public entities. One of the COAs was for the 

PrecisionHawk Lancaster HawkEye to provide aerial imagery and mapping for 

authorities at the recent Washington state mudslides in Oso, WA. Other COAs have 

been approved for this particular platform through other public entities demonstrating the 

confidence that the FAA has for this manufacturer’s operational and safety protocol. 

USAA has attached and will be operating in accordance with PrecisionHawk Lancaster’s 

Flight Manual, Maintenance Schedule, and training documents for review within this 

exemption application. Although this platform is one that USAA is utilizing within its 

current research and development, USAA asks that the exemption be granted with 

respect to this aircraft and other aircraft of like size, weight and capabilities; however, we 

want to demonstrate our commitment to safety and the continuance of strong UAS 

partnerships. 

B. All pilot in command (PIC) and ground observers (also known as the air crew) will 

receive FAA certified private pilot ground school and have taken and passed the FAA 

Private Pilot Written Exam. This ensures that all air crew members (PIC and ground 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 5 of 7 

observers) have the knowledge regarding the Federal Aviation Regulations, Airspace, 

and other pertinent knowledge to conduct safe operations of small unmanned aircraft 

systems. A USAA employee with a FAA commercial pilot certificate and flight instructor 

certificate that has been trained on UAS operations will oversee all training and ensure 

all air crew receive proper training and abide by all pertinent regulations. All pilot in 

command and ground observers will be trained in detail to each of the unmanned aircraft 

system platform’s operations, systems and emergency procedures. Every air crew 

member will obtain an FAA Class 2 medical certificate. 

C. All flight operations will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 ft above the 

ground (AGL) and within Class G (uncontrolled airspace) and some Class E (with prior 

approval). No flight operations will be operated within Class A, B, C, or D airspace or 

special use airspace. All flight operations are to be conducted during daylight hours, 

under 30 mph winds and within line of sight. Areas of operation will be on USAA’s 

secured campus in San Antonio, Texas and other designated remote, unpopulated 

areas around the San Antonio, Texas area within Class G airspace. These areas are 

located a sufficient distance from any airport, heliport, military base/airspace or other 

location with aviation activity. All flights will be communicated to FAA Flight Service with 

posted NOTAMS prior to the flight(s). 

D. All flight operations will be conducted within line of sight of the pilot in command and 

ground observer(s). Maximum total flight time for each flight will be 90 minutes or less in 

duration. All flight operations will be terminated when the aircraft has less than 20% 

battery life remaining. 

E. Flight operations and safety briefings will be conducted prior to all planned small 

unmanned aircraft system flights and will be mandatory for all air crew. Briefings will 

include weather reviews, take off, landing and aircraft performance data for those real 

time conditions, and full pre- and post-flight inspections/checklists and briefings for each 

specific unmanned aircraft system being operated. 

F. In the event of a communication lost link, the UAS will return to a specific predetermined 

location and once the UAS is safely recovered, all flight operations will cease until any 

communication/data link issues are properly resolved. 

G. Regarding privacy concerns, USAA will have land use agreements in place for all areas 

of operations. The land utilized is USAA-owned or privately owned remote/unpopulated 

land with owner agreements in place for UAS operations. 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 6 of 7 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (f) A summary the FAA can publish in the Federal Register, stating: 

(1) The rule from which you seek the exemption 

Petitioner: United Services Automobile Association 

Sections of 14 CFR that USAA seeks an exemption: 

14 CFR Part 21.191 (a) 

14 CFR Part 45.23 (b) 

14 CFR Part 61.113 (a) and (b) 

14 CFR Part 91.7 

14 CFR Part 91.9 (b) 

14 CFR Part 91.109 

14 CFR Part 91.119 

14 CFR Part 91.121 

14 CFR Part 91.151 

14 CFR Part 91.203 (a) and (b) 

14 CFR Part 91.405 

14 CFR Part 91.407 

14 CFR Part 91.409 

14 CFR Part 91.417 

 (2) A brief description of the nature of the exemption you seek: 

USAA seeks relief from the applicable parts of 14 CFR 21, 45, 61 and 91 as requested within 

this petition to allow USAA to safely and efficiently conduct commercial UAS flight operations on 

its secure campus and other remote private land within Class G and Class E (with prior 

approval) airspaces for R&D purposes. 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (g) – Any additional information, views or arguments available to 

support USAA’s request: 

Allowing USAA this exemption would give USAA the ability to continue our UAS research and 

development beyond the limits imposed today. Additional testing would benefit not only USAA 

and its membership, but would serve as a partnership with the FAA and others within the UAS 

community to advance this new and emerging technology in a safe and controlled environment. 

Recently, USAA employees in partnership with Texas A&M Roboticists Without Borders were 

invited to the Oso, Washington mudslide area to assist Snohomomish County and other public 

entities with aerial surveys and mapping. Under the approval of an FAA COA (Certificate of 

Authorization), USAA and Roboticists Without Borders were able to fly their platforms 

successfully and provided valuable data to government entities. This demonstrates the value of 

our request to continue our UAS research and development to help communities rebuild after 

disasters and maintain the safety of our employees, business partners and the general public. 
Federal Aviation Administration 

October 2, 2014 

Page 7 of 7 

14 CFR Part 11.81 (h) – Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the 

United States, the reason why the petitioner needs to do so: 

USAA does not seek to exercise the privileges of this exemption, should it be granted, outside 

the United States. Our request is strictly to be granted authority for civil UAS R&D operations at 

specified locations within the national airspace system. 

Sincerely, 

 

Greg Cirillo 

Wiley Rein LLP 

Counsel for USAA 

Michael Burns 

Michael Burns 

Assistant Vice President 

USAA 

Attachments: PrecisionHawk Flight Manual, Maintenance Schedule and training documents.