AFS-15-018-E 

Exemption No. 11166 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

PRAVIA, LLC 

for an exemption from part 21 subpart 

H (§§ 21.171–21.199) and §§ 45.23(b), 

91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103, 91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) 

and (b), and Part 91 Subpart E (91.401–

91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0790 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated September 30, 2014, which referenced supplemental proprietary information 

submitted to the FAA under separate cover, Mr. Tim Ray and Mr. Scott Brink, Managing 

Partners, Pravia, LLC, 555 Falcon Trail, Niceville, Florida 32578, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21 subpart H (§§ 21.171–

21.199) and §§ 45.23(b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), and Subpart E (91.401–91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The exemption would allow Pravia, LLC to operate the E384 Unmanned Aircraft 

System (UAS) (hereinafter referred to as the E384) for the purpose of providing highresolution aerial imagery to a domestic agricultural seed company, for agricultural analysis 

including biomass estimation, yield monitoring, leaf area indexing, and overall crop health 

to help maximize crop yields. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Part 21, subpart H (§§ 21.171-21.199), prescribes in pertinent part, the procedural 

requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness 

certificates, and airworthiness approvals. 

Section 45.23(b) prescribes that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and 

the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted, or light-sport category aircraft or 

experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that 
2

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

airworthy condition. 

Section 91.9(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a 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, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before 

beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, to 

include— 

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports 

and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight 

cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in 

command has been advised by ATC; 

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following 

takeoff and landing distance information: 

(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 paragraph (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, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may 

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: 

 

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

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or 

over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest 

obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. 
3

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft 

may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or 

structure. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the 

operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— 

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the 

helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for 

helicopters by the FAA; and 

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

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

Section 91.121 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person operating an aircraft shall 

maintain the cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set when operating below 

18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) 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 

cruising speed, (1) during the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes [emphasis added]. 

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

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

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

States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c). 

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

unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is 

displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew. 

Part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.401-91.417), prescribes, in pertinent part, rules governing the 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft 

operating within or outside of the United States. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the 

operating documents: 

1) E384 Operations Manual 
4

2) E384 Maintenance Manual 

3) Event 38 Training Syllabus 

4) Domestic agricultural seed company site information 

The 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 

parameters, and (4) the public interest. 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

The petitioner states it plans to operate a UAS, the E384, which is manufactured by Event 

38 of Akron, Ohio, and includes a lightweight battery-powered/operated aircraft, ground 

control station, and associated data link equipment. The E384 airframe is constructed of 

EPO foam with a carbon fiber tail and weighs 5.9 lbs., with a wingspan of 6.2 feet and total 

length of 4.3 feet. The E384 is powered by two lithium polymer batteries that drive an 

electric propeller. It is hand launched, has a maximum flight time of 100 minutes, and 

operates at a cruising speed of 27 mph. The ground control station consists of a Turnigy 

9XR remote and PC computer which have a maximum data link range of 5.4 nautical miles 

(NM). If the E384 loses link with the ground control station or detects a low battery state at 

any time it will initiate a return-to-launch sequence. 

Regarding airworthiness certification, the petitioner requests an exemption from part 21, 

subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates, (§§ 21.171-21.199). The petitioner states that an equal 

level of safety will be achieved with the operational limitations described in the petition. 

Specifically, all flights will occur within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and visual 

observer (VO), at an altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or less, only over 

designated agricultural plots. As a result of the operating limits proposed, combined with the 

E384’s lightweight airframe and Pravia’s pilot requirements, the petitioner states that the 

E384 can safely operate without creating a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or structures 

on the ground. 

Regarding aircraft markings, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23(b) because 

the E384 is unmanned and therefore does not have an entrance on which the required 

markings could be displayed. In addition, the petitioner may not have a registration number 

assigned to it by the FAA. The petitioner proposes to achieve an equivalent level of safety 

by including the word “EXPERIMENTAL” in the largest lettering possible on the top of the 

aircraft. The petitioner adds it will display at the ground control station a flag with the words 

“EXPERIMENTAL UAS” in 3-inch lettering. The petitioner adds that because the E384 

would always be within VLOS of the PIC (positioned at the ground station) and would be 

flown at 400 feet AGL or lower, the markings on the airframe and the flag at the ground 

station would allow parties to be visually informed of the UAS’s operating status. 

Regarding civil aircraft certification required under § 91.7(a), the petitioner notes that it is 

already seeking exemption from airworthiness certification and, thus, that no FAA standard 

will exist for determining airworthiness. The petitioner states that it will achieve an equal 
5

level of safety by following the pre-flight protocol for each flight, safety checks, and 

comprehensive maintenance procedures prescribed in the operating documents. 

Regarding keeping an approved civil aircraft flight manual aboard the UAS, the petitioner 

states it may need an exemption from § 91.9(b), because the aircraft is too small to carry 

documentation and that documentation would not be available to the crew. The petitioner 

proposes to obtain an equivalent level of safety by mandating that current operating 

documents be available to the crew at the ground station anytime the aircraft is in flight or 

preparing for flight. 

Regarding the requirements in § 91.109 for fully functioning dual flight controls aboard the 

aircraft, the petitioner notes the E384 ground control station is computer-based; while it does 

not offer a second set of “controls,” both the student and instructor can and will operate the 

single set of controls, which could be passed back and forth between the student and 

instructor. 

Regarding the requirement in § 91.203 that all civil aircraft have “an appropriate and current 

airworthiness certificate” that must be “displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is 

legible to passengers or crew[,]” the petitioner notes that it is already seeking an exemption 

from airworthiness certification requirements and therefore requires an exemption from this 

regulation as well. Moreover, due to its size and design, the E384 has no cabin or cockpit 

and therefore no ability to affix or carry certificate or registration documents. The petitioner 

proposes that an equivalent level of safety can be attained by keeping any FAA-required 

documents at the ground control station and by affixing a small placard to the E384 airframe 

with manufacture, registration, and contact information. 

The petitioner requests an exemption from the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 

alterations requirements in part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.401 through 91.417). The petitioner 

proposes that the PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the aircraft according to the 

operating documents, which are supplemental, proprietary operations and maintenance 

procedures submitted to the FAA under separate cover to its petition. The petitioner 

proposes that the PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to flight 

and approve its return to service. Additional maintenance will be performed by the 

manufacturer. The petitioner states “all maintenance performed on the E384 by the PIC and 

manufacturer is documented in accordance with 91.407 (a) (1).” Further, the petitioner states 

“that the records will include ‘a description of the work performed; and the date of 

completion of the work performed; and the signature...of the person approving the aircraft 

for return to service.’” (omission in original). The petitioner states “the PIC will authorize 

the E384 for return to service for all maintenance covered in the E384 Operations Manual 

and Maintenance Manual and the manufacturer will authorize the E384 for return to service 

for all maintenance that is outside the scope of these two documents.” 

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) 

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated over designated agricultural plots with both 

a PIC and a ground-based Safety Observer. The Safety Observer will be located next to the 
6

PIC and will ensure the aircraft remains within VLOS of the PIC and Safety Observer. The 

petitioner states that all E384 operations will be conducted by commercially certified pilots 

who have completed the training in accordance with the operating documents. The petitioner 

suggests that by utilizing licensed commercial pilots as pilot in command, the proposed 

operations will not adversely affect safety because of the confined and controlled area of 

operations. The petitioner also stated that the PIC will have additional qualifications and 

training prior to operations conducted under this exemption. Additionally, anytime the PIC 

or Safety Observer spots a potential hazard, such as a manned aircraft within close proximity 

to the designated flight area, the PIC will immediately land the E384 and operations will 

only resume after the hazard is clear of the area. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated with both a PIC and a ground-based Safety 

Observer. The E384 is hand-launched on-site, requiring no runway for takeoff and landing 

and no transit to or from the site. Once airborne, the E384 will fly at an altitude of 400 feet 

AGL or less over the designated agricultural plot. Prior to flight, the PIC will set a 

designated flight area and flight parameters to ensure that the E384 will remain within the 

confines of the approved site and not exceed a maximum altitude of 400 feet AGL. If a 

critical issue is detected at any time, such as a low battery state or loss of data link, the E384 

will immediately execute preprogrammed safety procedures. The petitioner states that the 

E384’s small operational footprint and built-in safety protocol provide a much safer 

alternative for aerial imaging and would pose a minimal hazard to the NAS or public. 

The petitioner states that the E384 will only operate over agricultural plots for the purpose of 

collecting aerial imagery. There are 10 sites over which the petitioner proposes the E384 

will be flown. All sites are owned and operated by a domestic agricultural seed company 

which has already granted approval to the petitioner to conduct E384 flights. The petitioner 

notes that there are a few small office and maintenance buildings located among the 

agricultural plots and the petitioner will ensure all E384 operations avoid overflight of these 

structures. In addition, there are no commercial airports within 5 NM and no general 

aviation airports within 3 NM of any of the sites. The E384 will also operate at an altitude of 

400 feet AGL, or less, and as a result will be laterally de-conflicted from manned aircraft 

operations. By operating at low altitudes over agricultural plots the petitioner asserts that the 

E384 will pose no threat to individuals or structures on the ground and will remain well 

clear of any and all air traffic. The petitioner’s operational limitations require the PIC to file 

a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for E384 flights at each site, providing at a minimum 

radial/DME, radius, and a date/time group. 

The petitioner indicates the E384 will be flown in accordance with day Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) and only in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) during daylight hours. The 

E384 will operate within 1 NM and VLOS of the PIC (and the Safety Observer positioned 

next to the PIC) at an altitude of 400 feet AGL or less. The Safety Observer will be 

responsible for ensuring that the E384 remains within VLOS at all times and will also assist 

in spotting potential hazards. 
7

Regarding the requirement in § 91.103 that the PIC be familiar with specific information 

before each flight such as weather and fuel requirements, as well as information found 

within approved flight manuals relating to aircraft performance and take-off and landing 

distances, the petitioner notes that the E384 has no FAA-approved flight manual and that 

therefore the petitioner seeks exemption from this requirement. The petitioner proposes to 

attain an equivalent level of safety by following the operating documents, submitted to the 

FAA as an appendix under separate cover. According to the petitioner, the E384 Operations 

Manual contains information comparable to that found in FAA-approved flight manuals. 

With respect to operating altitudes, the petitioner requests an exemption from the minimum 

safe altitude requirements in § 91.119. The petitioner notes § 91.119(c) provides that over 

sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, 

vessel, vehicle, or structure. The petitioner maintains because the aircraft will be operating 

at a maximum of 400 feet AGL, it cannot comply with this requirement. The petitioner notes 

that the sole function of the E384 is to fly at low altitudes over agricultural plots, which the 

petitioner asserts can be categorized as “other than congested areas”. The petitioner states an 

equivalent level of safety will be maintained by operating the E384 only over designated 

domestic agricultural seed company sites, the details of which were provided in Appendix A 

to the petition. Additionally, the petitioner states that the E384’s small size and foam 

airframe is less hazardous to persons and structures on the ground than a manned fixed-wing 

aircraft performing the same service. The petitioner adds, moreover, that by operating at an 

altitude of 400 feet AGL or less the E384 will not be in conflict with manned aircraft that 

are subject to this minimum altitude regulation. 

Regarding the altimeter settings requirements in § 91.121, the petitioner states that the E384 

is not equipped with a programmable altimeter; rather, the E384 determines location and 

altitude using an onboard GPS. Moreover, because the E384 will be operating at or below 

400 feet AGL, the petitioner states that there is no need to maintain hemispherical cruising 

altitudes for de-confliction with manned aircraft. For the above reasons, the petitioner seeks 

exemption from this regulation. The petitioner states that it will attain an equal level of 

safety by using the onboard GPS. The E384’s altitude will also be monitored by the PIC and 

VO. 

Regarding the fuel requirements in § 91.151, the petitioner states the E384 is 

battery-operated, does not carry “fuel,” and the maximum duration of flight from a full 

battery charge is 100 minutes. Further, the operating documents describe the in-flight battery 

monitoring system and suggest landing the E384 when the voltage drops below 14.5V. The 

petitioner also notes that compliance with this regulation would leave the E384 with 70 

minutes of flight time, which would be sufficient to carry out imaging of agricultural plots. 

However, the petitioner request full exemption from this requirement, asserting that it is 

unnecessary because there are no intended landing points associated with these operations, 

and because the E384 is capable of landing safely anywhere in its designated operating area 

once battery power is exhausted. The petitioner asserts that the risk or danger associated 

with failing to reach a safe landing point with 30 minutes of extra “fuel” does not exist with 

the E384, and that an equivalent level of safety can be attained because the E384 does not 
8

have to return to a landing point but can be safely put down anywhere over the agricultural 

plot. 

Public Interest 

The petitioner states that by authorizing E384 operations, the FAA would advance the public 

interest by reducing the number of manned aircraft in the NAS; reducing air and noise 

pollution; reducing the risk to life and property on the ground; and increasing agricultural 

economic growth. 

The petitioner supports these assertions by listing a number of benefits of E384 operations 

compared to manned aircraft operations that are used for the same agricultural applications. 

The petitioner asserts that allowing E384 operations would reduce the burden on air traffic 

controllers; would reduce air and noise pollution from the manned aircraft that would 

otherwise be used; would reduce fuel use, as the E384 is battery-powered unlike the manned 

aircraft it would replace; and would reduce the risk to life and property on the ground, as the 

E384 contains no pilot and is constructed of a small, lightweight foam airframe. 

Finally, the petitioner suggests that the high-resolution image data generated from E384 

flights would provide scientists with important information that would assist efforts to 

maximize crop yields. The petitioner asserts that this would result in a major increase in 

economic growth, which would be in the public interest. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2014 

(79 FR 62513). The FAA received three comments in regard to the petition for exemption. 

One commenter supported Pravia, LLC’s petition and two opposed it. 

In support of Pravia’s petition, the Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition) discussed 

the UAS Pravia’s proposed to use in its other petition for exemption (Docket No. FAA2014-0789). However, the Coalition’s comments were not limited to the merits of one 

particular UAS, and the FAA will therefore address those comments that are relevant to this 

petition. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations 

under section 333 of Pub. L. 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 (hereinafter referred to as UAS) based on commercial and 

noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be 

proportionate to the risks posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing 

between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS used 

for defense and aerospace purposes. 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. 
9

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors1 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, and pilot training and 

experience. 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’s certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exception 

from part 61 and approve training and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial 

operations pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserted that 

Congress intended the section 333 national security criterion to focus on the operation rather 

than on the pilot and that shifting that focus imposes an unnecessary burden. 

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 11110), 

neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found in 

49 USC § 44701(f), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the statutory requirement to 

hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA notes that under this 

exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding commercial certificates and it will be 

able to use the training program it proposed. Finally, the FAA does not agree that relying on 

the pilot certificate for a national security finding poses an unnecessary burden because 

pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted previously to section 333 requests, 

are already required to hold a pilot certificate to satisfy 49 USC § 44711. 

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural 

Aviation Association (NAAA) submitted comments opposed to a grant of exemption. ALPA 

reviewed the anticipated operations expected to occur below 400 feet above the surface and 

stated that there must be a means both to ensure that the UAS 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 AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not 

adversely affect safety. 

ALPA opposed the petitioner’s request for exemption from airworthiness certification 

requirements under 14 CFR part 21 and 14 CFR § 91.203. ALPA suggested that small UAS 

should be certified to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the 

NAS. The Secretary of Transpiration’s finding regarding airworthiness certification is 

discussed below. 

 

1

 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; ...” 
10

ALPA asserted that the petition does not clearly state how the pilot and the observer will be 

able to communicate with each other, and that voice communication with the pilot is a 

limited mitigation if both the pilot and observer are not able to maintain a visual observation 

of both the aircraft and the area per FAA N 8900.227. The FAA has inserted a condition 

regarding PIC and visual observer communications. 

ALPA commented that the lithium polymer batteries that serve as the power supply 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. 

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 

fly-aways or other scenarios. 

The FAA acknowledges the potential safety hazards related to C2 failures identified by 

ALPA and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and 

the petitioner’s supporting documentation addressed these potential hazards. The FAA finds 

that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner has sufficient design features to address these 

hazards. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below. 

ALPA noted the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,” and ALPA 

believed 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 intended to be used. NAAA also favored UAS operators 

holding a commercial pilot certificate and second-class medical certificate to conduct 

commercial operations. The FAA has reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments 

regarding knowledge, training, and medical certification required by holders of commercial 

certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this issue with regards 

to 14 CFR part 61. 

ALPA stated that although petitioner asked for an exemption from § 91.109 Flight 

instruction, they failed to provide any information regarding the qualifications of the persons 

providing instruction per 14 CFR § 61.195 which defines the 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 
11

by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category and class rating. Of 

course, any instruction provided toward obtaining the pilot certificate required by this 

exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor. 

ALPA expressed concern that because the waiver request is not for a single specific 

operation but rather for all operations of the same general type, the FAA’s oversight task is 

considerably increased. According to ALPA, specific details of every operation must be 

communicated to the FAA for approval to ensure that operation- and location-specific 

mitigations result in the same current level of safety being maintained. 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. 

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

14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed, and 

processes or mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail-safe systems, backups 

and specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place. The 

FAA agrees with ALPA and addresses this concern in its analysis of the exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance proposed by the 

petitioner does not adversely affect safety. 

ALPA stated its position on 14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General, asserting 

ALPA’s long-held position is all aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) must 

operate to the same high level of safety, this include maintaining a safe altitude for both 

airplanes and helicopters. The FAA has analyzed the proposed operations and, as discussed 

below, determined they will not pose an adverse impact to safety. 

Regarding 14 CFR § 91.151 Fuel Requirements, ALPA believes the use of batteries as the 

only source of power for an aircraft in the NAS is a substantial shift from traditional 

propulsion methods on which current safety margins are based, and requires more regulator 

exploration to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in detail below. 

Regarding use of the NAS, ALPA noted there must be means to ensure the UA remains 

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

operation is mitigated. ALPA stated given the absence of an onboard pilot, the means to 

meet the requirements to “see and avoid” must be specified. The FAA notes these concerns; 

additional detail is provided in the analysis of the UAS below. 

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

commercial applicators. NAAA noted its 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 aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone of agricultural aviation 

safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-andavoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UA operations at low altitudes will 

increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural aircraft. 
12

NAAA believed it is vital that commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned, receive 

airworthiness certification by the FAA to ensure they can safely operate in the NAS without 

posing a hazard to persons or property. NAAA believed UAS should have equipage such as 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Out, strobe lighting, and marking to ensure 

the aircraft is visible to law enforcement, the public, and manned and unmanned aircraft. 

NAAA proposed that small UAS comply with 18 measures similar to those presented by the 

North Dakota Agricultural Aviation Association to the North Dakota Department of 

Commerce; the organization awarded the North Dakota UAS test site. 

Concerns raised in this comment section are addressed in the FAA’s analysis below and 

where necessary appropriate risk mitigations are implemented through the conditions and 

limitations on the operations. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates. 

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Pub. 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, Subpart H, and any associated noise 

certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary. 

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

more, are operated by an onboard pilot and may carry other onboard crewmembers, as well 

as carry 100-200 gallons or more of fuel. The petitioner’s UA weighs approximately 5.9 

pounds. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight 

and construction reduces the potential for harm to persons or damage to property in the 

event of an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or 

accident is eliminated with the use of a UAS for the proposed operation. 

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

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

fuel spillage is eliminated. 

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

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

control. The UAS is also able to respond to a lost-link event with pre-coordinated automated 

landing maneuvers. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to 

a manned aircraft holding a restricted airworthiness certificate performing a similar 

operation. 
13

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

petitioner requests this relief under the assumption that marking with the word 

“experimental” will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. However, this 

marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 

14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and 

therefore the “experimental” marking is not required. Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be 

certificated under § 21.191, a grant of exemption for § 45.23(b) is not necessary. 

The petitioner’s UA 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 practicable per § 45.29(f). 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91 subpart E, the relevant parts of 

subpart E include: 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) Operation 

after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 91.409(a)(1) and (2) 

Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has evaluated the 

petitioner’s request and determined that cause for exemption to these requirements is 

warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating documents contain sufficient 

information for the preparation and care of the UAS equipment. The FAA finds that 

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

sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. In accordance with the petitioner’s 

UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, the FAA finds that 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and 

(b) is warranted subject to the conditions and limitations below. 

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) 

As described in the petition, the PIC will be a commercially rated pilot with appropriate 

flight currency who has completed the petitioner’s training requirements in accordance with 

the operating documents. The PIC must complete all manufacturers’ recommended training 

and appropriate flight currency requirements. 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. 

Although the petitioner specifies that its PICs will hold commercial pilot certificates, the 

petition did not specify the class of medical certificate the class of medical certificate that its 

PICs will possess. In accordance with 14 CFR § 61.23(a)(2), a pilot must hold at least a 

second class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot 

certificate. Therefore, the PICs are required to possess a current second class medical 

certificate. 

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual 

observer (VO), referred to in the petition as a Safety Observer. As in Exemption No. 11062, 

Astraeus Aerial, the FAA agrees with the petitioner’s proposed use of a VO and requires 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. The UA must never be 
14

operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the VO, and the VO and PIC must have 

the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It is the responsibility of the PIC to 

be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of the UA to distances within 

the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. The conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the 

operating documents. Lastly, as discussed in Exemption No. 11109, Clayco, Inc., there are 

no regulatory requirements for VO medical certificates. A medical certificate is not 

required for a VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in 

Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a medical 

certificate necessary for the VO. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

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

airworthiness, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is necessary. While the petitioner’s 

UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, 

Subpart H, the FAA considers the petitioner’s compliance with its operating documents to 

be a sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from 

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

airworthy condition – based on compliance with the operating documents—prior to every 

flight, and as stated in the conditions and limitations below. 

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

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

not seek relief from § 91.7(b), the 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). The FAA finds that the PIC can comply with 

this requirement, therefore relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary. 

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

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

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined in Grant of Exemption 11062, 

Astraeus Aerial, that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant materials may be 

kept in a location immediately accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight action, although 

there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1), the FAA believes that the petitioner can comply with the other applicable 

requirements in § 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the petitioner’s documents 

address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). The PIC will take all 

actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, 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 preclude the UA from operating in the NAS. The 

FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes that the PIC’s and 

VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return-
15

to-home sequence, are sufficient mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account for all 

relevant site-specific conditions in his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds 

that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 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 flight instructor or other company-designated individual, that 

would require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. The petitioner did, 

however, assert that because the E384 ground control station consists of a RX9 controller 

and PC computer, it will be accessible to both an instructor and a student at all times, as the 

controls can be passed back and forth between the instructor and student, thus achieving an 

equivalent level of safety as having two sets of controls. The FAA finds an equivalent level 

of safety will be achieved by the training as outlined in the operating documents. As such, 

the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from 

§ 91.109. 

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

relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency 

landing if a power unit fails, is unprecedented and unwarranted. Relief from § 91.119(b), 

operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because the petitioner states that 

operations will be conducted only over private and/or controlled access properties. 

The petitioner proposes to fly at low altitudes over agricultural plots, which can be 

categorized as “other than congested areas.” Accordingly, this exemption prohibits 

operations over congested or densely populated areas as stated in the conditions and 

limitations below. Pilots may obtain information about congested areas from the local 

Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). 

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes below 

400 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below an 

altitude of 500 feet above the surface over “other than congested areas,” except over open 

water or sparsely populated areas. Section 91.119(c) provides that in operations over water 

or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any 

person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

The petitioner did not describe stand-off distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and 

structures. Section 91.119(c) requires that aircraft operate no closer than 500 feet to these 

persons or objects. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that 

the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or objects that would not be 

possible without additional relief. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting 

UAS 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. PIC, VO, operator trainees or 

essential persons). The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 5.9 pounds. If 
16

barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from 

the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to 

persons afforded such protection. The operator must also 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. When considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concern 

is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. In addition, the 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 and determines that it does not present an undue hazard. 

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

procedures in the operating documents and the FAA’s additional conditions and limitations 

outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarranted as the FAA expects the petitioner to 

be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the 

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

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings, the 

UAS will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft. Rather, it uses 

information generated from GPS to transmit altitude information to the PIC. The petitioner 

states: 

An equal level of safety will be achieved through the E384's GPS, which provides 

altitude and location data to the PIC via the ground control station. The E384 

Operations Manual specifically addresses checking the GPS read-out to ensure that 

it's within tolerance prior to commencing flight operations. This, combined with the 

fact that the aircraft's altitude will be visually monitored by the PIC and Safety 

Observer, ensures an equal level of safety is attained in lieu of referencing an 

altimeter setting. 

As stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to 

ATC to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the GPS altitude indicator to zero 

feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. The petitioner 

also states that the E384 can be flown manually. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s 

operating documents do not address GPS failure and that the operating documents must be 

amended to include emergency procedures for loss of GPS prior to operating under this 

exemption in accordance with the conditions and limitations below. Considering the limited 

altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the extent 

necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. 

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

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

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

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

daytime, VFR conditions. The UA batteries provide approximately 100 minutes of powered 

flight. Information provided in the operating documents discusses procedures regarding 
17

remaining battery power, including the requirement for the PIC to land the E384 when 

battery voltage drops below 14.5 volts. Those documents provide explanation of the 

automatic return to launch process that is executed when the E384 battery power reaches 

14.3 volts. The petitioner states, however, that compliance with this regulation would leave 

the E384 with 70 minutes of flight time, which the petitioner concedes would be sufficient 

to carry out imaging of agricultural plots. The petitioner is still requesting relief since the 

UA carriers no “fuel” and does not have to return to a “landing point,” but rather can be 

safely put down anywhere over the agricultural plot. 

Given the factors above and since the FAA is requiring that the PIC return the UA to a 

suitable landing zone when the battery level reaches 14.5 volts as stated in the E384 Flight 

Procedure section of the operating documents, there is sufficient reason to grant the relief 

from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations 

below, that prohibit the PIC from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the intended landing point and land with 

a battery level of not less than 14.5 volts. 

In evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to VLOS and a 

safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving device or vehicle. 

Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the conditions and 

limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles. 

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

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

through ATC by the issuance of a COA. This is an existing process that not only makes 

local ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC the ability to consider 

airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to 

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

activities being conducted. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement 

for the petitioner to obtain an ATO-issued COA. 

Public Interest 

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The UA carries an onboard 

camera that provides high-resolution image data that would provide scientists with important 

information to assist efforts to maximize crop yields. According to the petitioner, this would 

result in increased economic growth. In addition, the petitioner asserts that carrying out 

these operations using a battery-powered E384 rather than a manned aircraft would result in 

reduced air and noise pollution, less fuel use, lower burdens on air traffic control, and less 

risk to life and property on the ground. The enhanced safety achieved using a UA with the 

specifications described by the operator 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. 
18

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief: 

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary 

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.9(b) Relief not necessary 

91.103 Relief not necessary 

91.109 Relief not necessary 

91.119 Paragraph (c), relief granted with conditions 

and limitations 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

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

conditions and limitations 

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary 

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

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

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

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

The FAA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Pravia, LLC is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 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 Pravia, LLC to 

operate UAS for the purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. This exemption is 

subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

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

The petition and the following supporting documentation are hereinafter referred to as the 

operating documents: 

1) E384 Operations Manual 

2) E384 Maintenance Manual 

3) Event 38 Training Syllabus 

4) Domestic agricultural seed company site information 
19

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 operating documents which is a fixed-wing aircraft weighing 

approximately 5.9 pounds: E384, manufactured by Event 38 of Akron, Ohio (E384). 

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

amend this grant. 

2. UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting operations for the 

purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. 

3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated ground speed exceeding 39 knots (20 m/s). 

4. 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 operating documents. All 

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

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. 

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

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

PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. 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 functions prescribed in the operating documents. 

 

7. The VO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and 

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not 

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments. 

8. The operating documents and this grant of exemption 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 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 

amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may 
20

be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating 

documents. 

9. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe 

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

aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed 

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

must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be 

properly documented in the aircraft records. 

10. 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. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry 

in the aircraft records. 

11. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the 

operating documents. 

12. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, 

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

13. The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, 

alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the 

aircraft records, including total time in service, description of work accomplished, and 

the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service. 

14. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety 

Bulletins. 

15. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action 

taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

16. The PIC must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate and at least a current 

second-class 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. 

 

17. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s 

qualification criteria and 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 must be logged in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The VO is also required to complete the operator’s 

training requirements. A record of training must be documented and made available 
21

upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s 

PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building), 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. 

18. 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. 

19. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted 

on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that 

airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a 

NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport 

management must be made available to the Administrator upon request. 

20. 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. 

21. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended 

landing point and land with a battery level of not less than 14.5 volts. 

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

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

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

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

operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in 

the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder 

requirements. 

25. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

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

large as practicable. 
22

26. 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. 

27. The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC 

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

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

upon request. 

28. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation operations 

and activities at all times. 

 

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

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

31. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons 

(persons other than the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential 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 and/or; 

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission and 

the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and; 

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do not 

present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a). 

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

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

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

conducted. 

33. 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. 
23

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 January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2015. 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service