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 refere nced supplemental proprietary information submitted to the FAA under separate cover, Mr. Tim Ray and Mr. Scott Brink, Managing Partners, Pravia, LLC, 555 Falcon Trail, Nicev ille, Florida 32578, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an ex emption 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 agricu ltural 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 a pprovals, production appr ovals, 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, re stricted, or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the opera tor must also display on that2

aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockp it, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the wo rds “limited,” “restric ted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provi sional,” as applicable.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may ope rate 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 avai lable information concerning that flight, to

include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an ai rport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alterna tives 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 air ports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing dist ance 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 co ntained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specifi ed 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, an d wind and temperature.

Section 91.109 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may opera te a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight in struction 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 f eet 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-cont rol 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 airpor t 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 (consid ering 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 opera te a civil aircraft unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness ce rtificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration certi ficate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Ai rcraft registration Applicatio n as provided for in § 47.31(c).

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

unless the airworthiness certificat e or a special flight author ization 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 al terations 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 documen tation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents:

1) E384 Operations Manual4

2) E384 Maintenance Manual 3) Event 38 Training Syllabus 4) Domestic agricultural seed company site information

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s inform ation 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/opera ted 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 tw o lithium polymer batteries that drive an electric propeller. It is hand launched, has a maximum f light time of 100 minutes, and operates at a cruising speed of 27 mph. The gr ound control station consists of a Turnigy 9XR remote and PC computer which have a ma ximum data link range of 5.4 nautical miles (NM). If the E384 loses link with the ground contro l station or detects a low battery state at any time it will initiate a return-to-launch sequence.

Regarding airworthiness certification, the peti tioner requests an exemption from part 21, subpart H, Airworthiness Cer tificates, (§§ 21.171-21.199). The peti tioner states that an equal level of safety will be achiev ed with the operational limitatio ns 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 propose d, combined with the E384’s lightweight airframe and Pravia’s pilot requirements, the petiti oner states that the E384 can safely operate without cr eating 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 th at because the E384 would always be within VLOS of the PIC ( positioned at the ground st ation) 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 certifi cation 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 pe titioner states that it will achieve an equal5

level of safety by following the pre-flight pr otocol 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 equiva lent level of safety by ma ndating 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 passe d back and forth between the student and

instructor.

Regarding the requirement in § 91.203 that all ci vil 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 alrea dy seeking an exemption from airworthiness certification requirements and therefore requires an exemption from this regulation as well. Moreover, due to its si ze and design, the E384 ha s no cabin or cockpit and therefore no ability to affix or carry cert ificate 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, registrati on, and contact information.

The petitioner requests an exemption from th e maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations requirements in part 91, S ubpart E (§§ 91.401 through 91.417). The petitioner proposes that the PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the aircra ft according to the operating documents, which are supplemental, proprietary operations and maintenance procedures submitted to the FAA under sepa rate cover to its pe tition. The petitioner proposes that the PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airw orthy condition prior to flight and approve its return to service. Additional maintenance will be performed by the manufacturer. The petitioner states “all main tenance 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 si gnature...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 servi ce for all maintenance covered in the E384 Operations Manual

and Maintenance Manual and the manufacturer w ill authorize the E384 fo r 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 Safe ty Observer will be located next to the6

PIC and will ensure the aircraft remains with in 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 licen sed commercial pilots as pilot in command, the proposed operations will not adversely affect safety beca use of the confined and controlled area of operations. The petitioner also stated that th e 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 w ill immediately land the E384 and operations will only resume after the hazard is clear of the area.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states the aircra ft 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 footpr int and built-in safety prot ocol provide a much safer alternative for aerial imaging and would pos e a minimal hazard to the NAS or public.

The petitioner states that the E384 will only operate over agricultu ral plots for the purpose of collecting aerial imagery. There are 10 sites over which the petitione r 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 petiti oner to conduct E384 f lights. The petitioner

notes that there are a few small office a nd maintenance buildings located among the agricultural plots and the petiti oner will ensure all E384 operations avoid overflight of these structures. In addition, ther e are no commercial airports within 5 NM and no general aviation airports within 3 NM of any of the site s. The E384 will also opera te 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 al titudes over agricultural plots th e 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 fli ghts at each site, providing at a minimum radial/DME, radius, and a date/time group.

The petitioner indicates the E384 will be flow n 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 altit ude of 400 feet AGL or less. The Safety Observer will be responsible for ensuring that the E384 remains w ithin 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 petitione r 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. Acco rding to the petitioner, the E384 Operations Manual contains information comparable to that found in FAA-approved flight manuals.

With respect to operating altitudes, the peti tioner 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 ai rcraft 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 agricu ltural plots, which the petitioner asserts can be categori zed as “other than congested ar eas”. The petiti oner states an equivalent level of safety will be mainta ined 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, th e petitioner states that the E384’s small size and foam airframe is less hazardous to persons and st ructures on the ground than a manned fixed-wing aircraft performing the same service. The peti tioner adds, moreover, that by operating at an

altitude of 400 feet AGL or less the E384 will not be in conf lict with manned aircraft that are subject to this mini mum altitude regulation.

Regarding the altimeter settings requirements in § 91.121, the petitioner states that the E384 is not equipped with a programmable altimete r; rather, the E384 determines location and altitude using an onboard GPS. Moreover, be cause 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 abov e reasons, the petitioner seeks exemption from this regulation. The petitioner st ates that it will attain an equal level of safety by using the onboard GPS. The E384’s alti tude 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 dura tion of flight from a full battery charge is 100 minutes. Further, the oper ating documents describe the in-flight battery monitoring system and suggest landing the E 384 when the voltage drops below 14.5V. The petitioner also notes that co mpliance with this regulation would leave the E384 with 70 minutes of flight time, which w ould be sufficient to carry out imaging of agricultural plots. However, the petitioner request full exemption fr om this requirement, asserting that it is unnecessary because there are no intended landi ng points associated with these operations, and because the E384 is capable of landing safe ly anywhere in its designated operating area once battery power is exhausted. The petitioner a sserts 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 safe ty can be attained because the E384 does not8

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 E 384 operations, the FAA would advance the public interest by reducing the number of manned aircraft in th e 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 lis ting a number of benefits of E384 operations compared to manned aircraft operations that are used for the same agricultural applications. The petitioner asserts that al lowing E384 operations would reduce the burden on air traffic controllers; would reduc e air and noise pollution from th e 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 an d property on the ground, as the E384 contains no pilot and is constructed of a small, lightwei ght foam airframe.

Finally, the petitioner suggests that the high-resolution image data generated from E384 flights would provide scientists with important information th at 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 (hereaf ter the Coalition) discussed the UAS Pravia’s proposed to use in its ot her 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 addre ss 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 issu es and risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artifici al distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles (hereinafter refe rred to as UAS) based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the partic ular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerab ly less safety risk than larger UAS used for defense and aerospace purposes. The Coali tion asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safe ty, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations.9

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors 1 in section 333 as a minimum. The Coalition stated the peti tion shows the FAA should consider factors other than those specified in section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, a nd pilot training and experience. The Coalition main tained that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the

seven factors in section 333 and include severa l 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 contex t of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA shoul d 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 operati on proposed. The Coalition also asserted that Congress intended the section 333 national securi ty 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. Th e 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 fo r 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, Internati onal (ALPA) and the Na tional Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) submitted commen ts opposed to a grant of exemption. ALPA reviewed the anticipated operati ons 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 th e 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 CF R § 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 Transp iration’s finding regarding airw orthiness 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 airpor ts and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace syst em 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 ar e not able to maintain a visual observation of both the aircraft and the area per F AA N 8900.227. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual observer communications.

ALPA commented that the lithium polymer batte ries that serve as the power supply have numerous associated fire and explosi on 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 th at 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 batte ry cells react in a fi re 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 mitigati ons should require safe modes to prevent fly-aways or other scenarios.

The FAA acknowledges the potential safety hazard s related to C2 failu res identified by ALPA and carefully examined the proposed opera tion to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s supporting documentation addres sed these potential hazards. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner has suffi cient 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 fl own 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 s econd-class medical certificate to conduct commercial operations. The FAA has reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments regarding knowledge, training, a nd medical certification require d by holders of commercial

certificates. Additional details ar e 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 re garding the qualificati ons of the persons providing instruction per 14 CFR § 61.195 whic h 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 b ecause 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 fli ght instruction because § 61.31( l ) allows for operation of the UAS11

by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.5 6 without a category an d class rating. Of course, any instruction provide d toward obtaining the pilot certificate re quired by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor.

ALPA expressed concern that because the waiv er request is not for a single specific operation but rather for all opera tions 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 en sure 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 poten tial impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each operator secure a Certificate of Authoriza tion or COA which covers specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recogni zes 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 conc ern in its analysis of the exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternativ e means of compliance proposed by the petitioner does not adversely affect safety.

ALPA stated its position on 14 CFR § 91.119 Mini mum 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 analyz ed 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 marg ins are based, and requires more regulator exploration to determine best safety practices. This comment is addr essed 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 th e interests of small business ow ners and pilots licensed as commercial applicators. NAAA noted its member s operate in low-leve l 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 commercia l aircraft, manned and unmanned, receive

airworthiness certificatio n 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 Ou t, 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 Associat ion to the North Dakota Department of Commerce; the organization awarded the North Dakota UAS test site.

Concerns raised in this comment section ar e addressed in the FAA’s analysis below and where necessary appropriate risk mitigations are implemented thr ough 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 considera tion of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft a nd its operation, the Secret ary of Transportation

has determined that this airc raft 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 requirement s 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 ma y carry other onboard crewmembers, as well as carry 100-200 gallons or mo re 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 fi re following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to land safely after experien cing certain in-flight contingencies or failures and uses an auto-p ilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS is also able to respond to a lost-link event with pr e-coordinated automated landing maneuvers. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a restricted ai rworthiness 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 re lief under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” will be require d as a condition of a grant of exemption. However, this marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experiment al certificates under 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore the “experimental” marking is not re quired. Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, a grant of exem ption for § 45.23(b) is not necessary.

The petitioner’s UA must be identified by seri al 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 main tenance, 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 cau se for exemption to these requirements is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitione r’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 advers ely affected. In accordance with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordk eeping 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 petiti oner’s training requirements in accordance with the operating documents. The PIC must comple te all manufacturers’ recommended training and appropriate flight currency requirements. The PIC must also m eet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an ai rcraft 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 CF R § 61.23(a)(2), a pilot must hold at least a

second class medical certificate when exerci sing 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 peti tioner’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 be14

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 medica l 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 certi ficate 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 requi red 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 accor dance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a conditi on for safe flight. Alth ough 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 wi th § 91.7(b). The FAA finds th at 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 determ ined in Grant of Exemption 11062, Astraeus Aerial, that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location immediatel y accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 petitione r 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 complia nce with § 91.103(b). The PIC will take all actions including reviewing w eather, flight battery require ments, landings, and takeoff

distances and aircraft performance data before initiati on of flight. The FAA has imposed stricter requirements with rega rd to visibility and distance fr om clouds; this is to both keep the UA from departing the VLOS and to prec lude the UA from operating in the NAS. The

FAA also notes the risks associated with s un glare; the FAA believes that the PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combin ed 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 proce dures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 woul d be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other compa ny-designated individual, that would require that individual to have fully functioning dual contro ls. The petitioner did, however, assert that because the E384 ground co ntrol 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 stude nt, 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 it s operations without the requested relief from § 91.109.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 unwarrant ed. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applic able, because the petitioner states that operations will be conducted only over priv ate and/or controlled access properties.

The petitioner proposes to fly at low altitude s 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 inform ation about congested areas from the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the ai rcraft will be operate d 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 th e surface over “other than conge sted areas,” except over open water or sparsely populated ar eas. Section 91.119(c) provides th at in operations over water or sparsely populated areas, th e aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

The petitioner did not describe stand-off di stances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. Section 91.119(c) requires that aircra ft operate no closer th an 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 esse ntial persons, or objects that would not be possible without additional relief. Therefore, the FAA is requi ring that prior to conducting UAS operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonpa rticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than e ssential 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. If16

barriers or structures are pres ent that can sufficiently protec t nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, th en the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operato r must also ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a s ituation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, f light operations must cease immediately. When considering how to immedi ately 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 pe rmission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those obj ects and determines that it doe s 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 th e FAA’s additional conditions and limitations outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarra nted as the FAA expects the petitioner to be able to perform an emergency landing w ithout 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 request ed relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings , the UAS will not have a typical barometric alti meter onboard the aircraft. Rather, it uses information generated from GPS to transmit altit ude information to the PIC. The petitioner

states:

An equal level of safety will be achiev ed 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 ch ecking 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 a nd limitations below, the FAA re quires any altitude reported to ATC to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choo se 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 ma nually. The FAA notes th at the petitioner’s operating documents do not address GPS failure and that the operating documents must be amended to include emergency procedures fo r loss of GPS prior to operating under this exemption in accordance with the conditions an d limitations below. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed oper ations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.1 21 is granted to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitati ons stated below.

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted 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 Exem ption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been gr anted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The UA batteries pr ovide approximately 100 minutes of powered flight. Information provided in the operati ng documents discusses procedures regarding17

remaining battery power, including the requi rement for the PIC to land the E384 when battery voltage drops below 14.5 volts. Thos e documents provide explanation of the automatic return to launch pr ocess 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, whic h 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 si nce the FAA is requiring that the PIC return the UA to a suitable landing zone when the battery level r eaches 14.5 volts as stated in the E384 Flight Procedure section of the operating documents, th ere is sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in acco rdance with the conditions and limitations below, that prohibit the PIC from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is e nough power to fly to the intend ed 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 Organi zation (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, bu t also provides ATC the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS opera tions. 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 limita tions below prescribe the requirement for the petitioner to obtai n an ATO-issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Th e UA carries an onboard camera that provides high-resolution image data th at would provide scien tists with important information to assist efforts to maximize crop yi elds. According to the petitioner, this would result in increased economic growth. In addi tion, the petitioner asse rts that carrying out these operations using a battery-powered E384 ra ther than a manned aircraft would result in reduced air and noise pollution, less fuel use, lower burdens on air tra ffic control, and less risk to life and property on th e ground. The enhanced safety achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the operator and ca rrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportio ns, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that th e 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 91.1 51(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, pur suant to the authority contai ned 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 a nd 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 documen tation 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 information19

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspensi on or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of ex emption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents wh ich 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 AT C must be in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of th e 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 he r designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functi ons 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 reques t. If a discrepancy exists

between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and lim itations 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 ex tension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that a ny update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exempti on, then the operator must petition for amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may20

be contacted if questions arise regard ing 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 reveal s a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until th e 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 a lterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight cri tical component, must undergo a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functi onal test flight must make an entry

in the aircraft records.

11. The pre-flight inspection must account for a ll 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 manufact urer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspecti on, and life limit requirements.

13. The operator must carry out its maintena nce, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of re placement/overhaul component pa rts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in se rvice, 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 di scovered 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 th e 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 ope rate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria and demonstrates the abili ty to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be opera ted under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining a ppropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualificati on flight hours must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The VO is al so required to complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of traini ng must be documented and made available21

upon request by the Administrator. Flights fo r the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, a nd experience-building), are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, traini ng operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During traini ng, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are consider ed nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropr iate 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 conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

19. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s 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. Th e 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 ope rating 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 f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is e nough power to fly at normal crui sing 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 Or ganization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to c onducting 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 airspa ce, altitude level a nd potential transponder requirements.

25. All aircraft operated in accord ance 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 fr equency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government ove rsight 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 Ad ministrator 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 congest ed or densely populated areas.

31. Flight operations must be conducted at leas t 500 feet from all nonpa rticipating 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 pr otect 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, operat or trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

32. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representa tive. 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 Trans portation 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 al l 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 supers eded or rescinded.

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

/s/
John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, F light Standards Service