### April 1, 2015

Exemption No. 11266 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0733

Mr. Ryan Darling Darling Geomatics 9040 South Rita Road, Suite 2350 Tucson, AZ 85747

Dear Mr. Darling:

This letter is to inform you that we have gran ted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you th e conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 17, 2014, you petitio ned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Darling Geomatics (hereinaft er petitioner or operato r) for an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to ope rate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct mapping and surveying.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2014, (79 FR 60573). Two comments were receiv ed. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) commented in support of the petition, while th e Air Line Pilots Asso ciation, Inte rnational (ALPA) opposed it.

### 2

The Coalition stated th e petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircra ft. The Coalition stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures shoul d be required for the petitioner simply because

of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under Section 333 of Public Law 112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artific ial distinctions among unmanne d aerial vehicles based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition as serted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven 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 , proposed training regimen, the proven experience of the sUAS, and the approva ls obtained by SenseFly from the national

aviation authorities of nine countries. The Coa lition 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 shoul d grant relief from the requirement to hold

an airman’s certificate. The Coalition further stat ed that if an airman certificate is required, that at a minimum, the FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing requirements in part in favor of requirements pertinent to th e aircraft and operation proposed.

The Coalition also asserted th at in section 333 Congress inte nded for the FAA to consider national security with respect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through pilot

certification.

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the gran t of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (Exemption No. 11110), neither secti on 333, nor the FAA’s exemption authority 2 

### allows the FAA to exempt pilots from th e statutory requirement to hol d an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.

The Coalition commented that a visual observe r (VO) should not be required for all small UAS operations. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual li ne of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command

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 hazar d to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”

2 49 USC § 44701(f)

### 3

(PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) within VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted.

The FAA notes that one of the determinati ons for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA finds that a VO complements th e PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentar ily attending to other flyi ng tasks. The VO provides an additional level of operational safety.

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

be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airsp ace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on th e 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 noted the petition does not state an obser ver will participate in sUAS operations, and

therefore does not address th e communication method to be us ed by the pilot and observer. ALPA stated that text messaging could ha ve an unknown latency and extend to several minutes. ALPA also argued that voice communica tion with the pilot is a limited mitigation if both the pilot and observer are not able to maintain a visual ob servation of both the aircraft

and the area. The a conditions and limitations regarding PIC and VO communications address

those concerns.

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batte ries 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 situa tion aboard manned airpla nes. Given the size of the battery and the operating conditions of th e 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 flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk a ssociated with such failures.

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “comp ensation or hire,” and therefore contends the pilot mu st hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA

asserted a current second-class airman medical certificate sh ould be required.

### 4

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

and commercial certificate and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to pe rsons or property on the ground.

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a mean s to meet see and avoid requ irements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of

the PIC and VO.

Regarding the petitioner’s request for exem ption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of § 91.119, ALPA stated all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level of safety. ALPA argued th is includes maintaining a safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters.

ALPA mentioned the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 91.121.ALPA stated that processes or m itigations must be in place to ensure the UA can accurately maintain altitude including engineering proce sses, software development and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and design assurance to ensure the ai rcraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercia lly in the National Airspace System (NAS).

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from trad itional methods of propulsion, and requires further research to de termine best safety practices. The FAA has inserted a condition

and limitation that addresses this concern.

ALPA also expressed concern th at the petition makes no refere nce to compliance with, or a request for waiver from, 14 CF R 61.195, Flight instructor li mitations and qualifications, which defines the requirements for flight instru ctors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instru ction 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 li sted in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such flight instruction because § 61.31(l) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.5 6 without a category and class rating. Instruction provided toward obtaining the pi lot certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor.

ALPA expressed concern on whether the petitione r’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light requirements for night operati ons in § 91.209, given its limited el ectric power. The petitioner indicates that night operations will not be conducted and this exemption limits operations to daytime only.

### 5

ALPA stated that it opposed th e petitioner’s request for an exemption from the aircraft maintenance and record keeping requirements. ALPA asserted that the petitioner’s small UAS “should comply to the same level of safety as other aircraft opera ted commercially in the NAS.” The FAA finds that adherence to the pe titioner’s operating documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficien t to ensure that safety will not be adversely

affected.

ALPA also expressed concern th at the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of th e same general type. ALPA stated that this

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential im pact to the NAS, the F AA requires that each operator secure a Certificate of Authorization or COA which c overs specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a SenseFly eBee.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, C ertification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates . In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112

− 95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, a nd limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the S ecretary of Transportation has de termined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, th e FAA finds that the re quested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certific ation and testing requirements of part 36, is

not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial da ta collection. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those pr esented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption No s. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

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

FAA

− 2014

− 0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of signi ficantly greater proporti ons, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gi ves the FAA good cause to find th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

### 6

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

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously re quested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213 also apply to the situ ation you present; and

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant 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, Darli ng Geomatics is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a )(1), 91.409(a)(1) an d (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Darling Geomatic s is hereafter referred to as the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions an d 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 SenseFly eBee when weighing less than 55 pounds includi ng payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not permitted.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restricti on. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the

aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

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

### 7

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

U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PI C and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbal ly at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not perm itted 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 en sure that the VO can perform the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepa ncy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the pro cedures outlined in the operating documents,

the conditions and limitations herein ta ke precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the pr ocedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revi se its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and pr esent updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any la w enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revise d documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacte d if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical component, must undergo a functional test flight prio r to conducting further opera tions under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functi onal test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in a condition for safe flight. Th e pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e .g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is

### 8

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manu facturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requ irements for the aircraft and aircraft

components.

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

bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC mu st hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pi lot certificate. The PIC must also hold a

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the f light review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or he r pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a ma nner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distan ces from persons, vessels, vehi cles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and e xperience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted dur ing dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and expe rience-building flights, al l persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonpartic ipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparti cipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facil ity Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the ai rport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a lett er of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the ai rport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

### 9

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses it s GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the priv ate or controlled-access property.

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

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that fo r at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Author ization (COA). All operations shall be conducted in accorda nce with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted unde r the terms of the attached COA.

22. 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 CF R part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure th e safe operation and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the

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

documents must be made available to th e Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give wa y to all manned aviation operations and

activities at all times.

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

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently 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 in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and,

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or struct ures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of

### 10

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or es sential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/cont roller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS- 80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Sa fety Board (NTSB) per instructions

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

.

If this exemption permits operations for th e purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.

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

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction ove r the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived w ith the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person res ponsible for the on-s cene operation of the UAS;

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

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

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

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made av ailable to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holde r or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, includi ng maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which film ing will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.

### 11

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer th an 500 feet from pa rticipating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with al l applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

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

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards ServiceSeptember 17th

, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re : Exemption Request Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Mada m , Sir,

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and

14 C.F.R. Part 11, Darling Geomatics (“ Darling ”), an operator of the eBee Unmanned Aircraft System (“ eBee”) seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below :

 14 C.F.R. 21

 14 C.F.R. 45.23

 14 C.F.R 45.29

 14 C.F.R. 61.133(a)

 14 C.F.R. 91.7(b)

 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2)

 14 C.F.R. 91.109(a)

 14 C.F.R. 91.119

 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a)

 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b)

 14 CFR Subpart E (91.401

- 91.417)

The requested exemption would authorize commercial operations using the eBee for mapping and

survey applications . These operations will be subject to strict operating requirements and

conditions defined by the Safety C ode of the Academy of Model Aeronautics ( see Annex B )

, in

order to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety to currently authorized operations using

manned aircraft s.

The eBee will be operated by an individual who f ulfill s the following requirements:

 Has successfully passed a manufacturer’s training program for the eBee ;

 Has a commercial pilot certificate;

 Has a n AMA membership.

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AIRCRAFT

The eBee is a small (37.8 inches wingspan ) and ultra

- light ( max imum take

- off weight of 1. 7 pounds) platform made of flexible foam that performs precision aerial mapping mis s ions thanks to

the on

- board GPS and the related flight management software (eMotion ) that allows the operator to plan safely and efficiently a mission in 3D, and then monitor it in real

- time

. Thanks to the embedded camera, protected by a foam envelope , the eBee takes a collecti on of high

- definition still images

that are used later to generate maps and contour lines of the surveyed area.The four main characteristics of the eBee are:

a. Very light weight

The eBee is so light that the operator can launch it by hand and let it land on almost any surface without requiring a parachute or landing net (belly land). It s low impact energy ( 38 J i n case of a controlled emergency landing ) also significantly reduces the risk of hazardous situation s

. Finally,

t he wings of the eBee are detachable and made of flexible foam with no sharp or hard edges and

almost no internal str engthening structure.

b. Electric

- p owered

The eBee is electric powered. A brushless engine technology makes it silent and reliable. The propeller is attached with a rubber band to the body of the plane so that it can easil y flex away in

case of contact with any object.

c. Semi

- a utomatic flight

The artificial intelligence incorporated within the eBee autopilot system continuously analyzes data

from the Inertial Measurement Unit and from the onboard GPS and takes care o f all the aspects of the flight under the supervision of the operator.

d. Option for Manual control

Additionally, the eBee provides an override capability that allows the operator to take manual actions during the flight (Go to Home, Go Land, Hold and Resume the mission) and also susp end automated operations and take manual control of the aircraft should it become necessary to respond emergent circumstances, thanks to the remote controller provided with the system.

2. APPLICATIONS

Surveying and mapping for:

Federal and Local Flood Control Federal, State, and Local Disaster Management

Landfills Mining

Utilities Agriculture
Golf Courses

Construction Sites

3. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD UNDER SECTION 333

a

. Airworthiness assessment of the eBee

Darling notes that the airworthiness of the eBee has already b e en demonstrated for different projects in the U nited S tates , involving state/federal agencies or universities (among others the New Mexico State University : https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsu

- uas

- flight

test

- center

- conducts

- ebee

- airworthiness

- assessment , and the USACE New Orleans , who coordinated with the Dep artment of Army and the FAA to obtain all authorizations required in order to operate the eBee UAS

.Moreover, SenseFly obtained flight approvals for the eBee (delivered by national civil aviation

authorities) in many countries, among others:

 Switzerland (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 Canada (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 Australia (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 France (flight approval for Extended

- VLOS operations)

 Germany (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 United Kingdom (flight approval f or VLOS operations)

 Norway (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 Sweden (flight approval for VLOS operations)

 Denmark (flight approval for VLOS operations)

b

. Operating requirements

Grant of the exemption to Darling for the eBee will be subject to the following operating conditions,

based on the operating conditions set forth by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (s ee Annex B )

. The main restrictions are summarized below :

 Operations to be conducted over private, controlled

- access, or public property where approved;

 Permission from the land owner/authority required before commencing any flight;

 Operations over congested areas shall be avoided;

 Operations must not interfere with manned aircraft operations, must yiel d the right of way to manned aircraft, and operators must See & Avoid other aircraft and obstacles at all times

 Operations limited to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and daylight

hours

 Aircraft operations must remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and will be visually monitored at all times;

 VLOS guaranteed with a GPS geo

- fence around operator of 0.5 miles

 Flight ceiling pre

- programed at 400 feet;

 All operations conducted within 5 miles from an airport shall only be initiated after v erbal coordination with the airport authority, or air traffic control when a control tower is present at the airport;

 All operations shall comply with required permissions and permits established by territorial, state, county or city jurisdictions; includi ng local law enforcement, fire, or other appropriate governmental agencies.

 The eBee operations will be compliant with existing safety procedures inherent to the activities of the related company.

c

. Darling Geomatics Operator Requirements

 Has successful ly passed a manufacturer’s training program for the eBee;

 Has an AMA membership;

 Holds a commercial pilot certificate3

. CONCLUSION

Darling Geomatics sees a great need for inexpensive yet highly detailed aerial mapping

information. With the eBee

, Darling Geomatics will be able to help local governments achieve greater efficiency and cost savings in managing drainages, landfills, urban forests, and disasters. In addition, with an eBee, Darling can expand its surveying services for existing custome rs in Utilities and Mining, and new markets such as Agriculture . The result of this technology and cost saving for everyone will increase profits and create more jobs.

S incerely

,

Darling Geomatics Ryan Darling, CFII 2877864

ANNEX A : EXEMPTION REQUEST AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY SHOWINGS

UNDER APPLICABLE RULES SUBJECT TO EXEMPTION

Darling requests an exemption from the following regulations as well as any additional regulations

that may technically apply to the operation of the eBee:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates 14 CFR § 91.203(a)(1)

Section 91.203(a)(1) requires all civil aircraft to have a certificate of airworthiness. Part 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by FAR § 9 1.203(a)(1). Given the size of the eBee , its very light weight and the limited (the maximum take

- off weight is 1.7 pounds) operating area associated with its utilization, it is unnecessary to go through the certificate of airworthiness process under Part

2 1 Subpart H to achieve or exceed current safety levels.

Such an exemption meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and

Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act and Section 333 of the Reform Act both

authorize th e FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the UAS involved.

In this case, an analysis of these di fferent criteria demonstrates that the eBee operated without an airworthiness certificate, under the conditions proposed in that exemption , will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. A risk assessmen t for operations with the eBee, which demonstrates that assertion, was submitted as part of this application.

Indeed, t he eBee weighs less than 1.7 pounds, maximum take

- off weight

. It is made of flexible foam, does not carry a pilot or passenger, does not carry flammable fuel, and will operate exclusively within an area pre

- disclosed and in compliance with conditions set forth herein. Operations under this exemption will be tightly controlled and monitored by the operator through

the constant communication link between the eBee and the ground station

. Moreover, a geo

- fence and a flight ceiling will be defined by the operator before each flight to make sure the eBee will not go beyond the defined flight envelop.

14 C.F.R. § 45.23 & 14 C.F.R. § 45.29 : Display of marks; size of marksThese regulations provide that each aircraft must display "N" and the aircraft's registration number

in letters at least 3 inches high. Additionally, the aircraft must display the word "EXPERIMENTAL"

in letters at least 2 inches high near the entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station.

Given the size of the eBee (wingspan of 37.8 inches)

, this requirement is impossible to match

.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having the upper part of the eBee stick with a copy of the AMA membership of the operator in charge

. The AMA agrees to provide 2 original copies of the AMA license to every eBee operator

.

Moreover , each operator will display at the ground station a high contrast flag or banner that

contains the words "Unmanned Aircraft System Ground Station" in letters 3 inches high or greater. Since the aircraft will operate within 1/2 NM of the ground station, the banner should be visible to anyone that observes the aircraft and chooses to investig ate it s point of origin.

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil aircraft airworthiness

This regulation requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy

condition. Should the exemption be granted allowing commercial operation of the eBee without an airworthiness certificate, no standard will exist for airworthiness of the eBee

. Given the size of the

aircraft and the previous airworthiness assessments given to the eBee, among others:

 New Mexico State University: https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsu

- uas

flight

- test

- center

- conducts

- ebee

- airworthiness

- assessment

 USACE New Orleans, who coordinated with the Department of Army and the FAA to obtain all authorizations required in order to operate the eBee UAS for levee system monitoring, documentation of construction progress, and extensive oblique photography of USACE

structures & activities

A n equivalent level of safety will be achieved by insuring compliance with the SenseFly manuals prior to each flight.

14 C.F.R. § 91. 9 : Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

This regulation provides that no person may operate an aircraft unless a current, approved flight manual is in the aircraft. We assume that the intent of this requirement is to ensure that flight manual information is available to the aircrew while operating the aircraft. We request an exemption to this r equirement since the aircraft is not only too small to carry documentation, the

documentation would not be available to the crew.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping a hard copy of the flight manual in the eBee transportation box.

14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a) & 91.319(a)(1): Flight Instruction

The regulation provides that "No person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for flight

instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls."

Flight instruction will be accomplished through a n elaborated training program, using first the

simulation mode of the flight management software eMotion as set forth in Exhibit 2 . The equivalent level of safety during the training will be achieved by the manufacturer prov iding t he training as

outlined in Exhibit 2 and through the use of experienced and qualified operators familiar with theeBee

.

14 CFR § 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

The regulation provides that over sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Since the aircraft will be operating at a maximum of 400 feet AGL, the eBee cannot comply with thi s requirement.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved because the eBee will only fly over private property with the permission of the landowner

. The operator will define before every flight a working area radius and a flight area ceiling, prevent ing the eBee to go beyond the flight area.

The land owner and the persons who may be on the ground in the flight area will be briefed of the expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. D ue to the
small size of th e eBee and the material with which the eBee is built , the hazard to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to manned aircraft and should be considered in granting the exemption

.

Moreover, t he aircraft will not be operated over conge sted areas nor over any open

- air assembly of persons. The aircraft will be operated at an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

14 CFR 91.121

– Altimeter settings

This section requires that e ach person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altime ter that is set, when operating below 18,000 feet MSL to:

 The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

 If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an a ppropriate available stati on;

 In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter set ting available before departure.

To provide an equivalent level of safety, the eBee autopilot calculates the reference altitude (ground level) with the on

- board GPS during the pre

- flight tests . The GPS and barometer data are merged with respect to their respective precisions. The GPS provides reliable information to correct potential barometric bias, while rapid variations in alti tude are detected through the barometer

. Hence, barometric bias induced by environmental factors is rejected.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

The regulation provides that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under day

- VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and to fly after that for at least

30 minutes.

Given the area of operation for the eBee

, Darling believes that an equivalent level of safety i s already achi eved with the specific procedure preventing the eBee to accept a take

- off order is the battery level is below a given value. Moreover, SenseFly has integrated “low” and “critical” battery level warnings and implemented a “ return to Home ” (and “ Go Land ” ) action s in these situations.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) & (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

This regulation provides as follows: No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has an appropriate and current

airworthiness certificate.

 No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section 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.

The eBee weighs only 1 .7 pounds ( max take

- off weight). As such, there is no ability or place to

carry certification and registration documents or to display them on the UAS. In addition, there is no pilot or passengers on board the aircraft.

To obtain an equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of 91.203, Darling propose that documents deemed appropriate for this aircraft by the FAA will be co

- located with the operator at the ground control station in the eBee box and ava ilable for inspection upon request. In order to identify the aircraft, Darling propose s that a copy of the AMA membership of the operator will be

perm anently affixed to the eBe e on the upper side of the body.

14 CFR Subpart E (91.401

- 91.417)

- Mainten ance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations

The regulation provides that the operator is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condit ion, including compliance with P art s 39 and 43. Paragraphs 91.407 and 91.409 require that the aircraft be "approved for return to service by a person authorized under 43.7" aft er maintenance and inspection. Section 91.409(a)(2) requires an annual inspec tion for the issuance of

an air worthiness certificate. Section 91.417(a) requires the owner o r operator to keep records showing certain maintenance work that has been accomplished by certificated mechanics, under Part 43, or licensed pilots and records of approval of the aircraft for return to service.

Darling proposes that t he m aintenance of the eBee will be accomplished by the owner/operator according to the maintenance manual

, such as Exhibit 3, provided by SenseFly

. An equivalent

level of safety will be achieved because the eBee is small in size, it is not a complex mechanical device, it will carry no external payload, and it will operate only in restricted predetermined areas

. Moreover, the operator is the person most familiar with the aircraft and is best suited to maintain

the aircraft in an airworthy condition and to ensure an equivalent level of safety. Finally, b efore every flight, the eBee runs automatically a sequence of pre

- flight tests to make sure that every sensor and every critical part is running properly. If a problem is detected, the eBee will not be able

to be swit ched

- on and a message error is displayed on the main screen of eMotion. The operator

can then refer to the maintenance manual to troubleshoot this issue. S everal parts of the eBee are easily interchangeable (propellers, wings), which allows the operator to make sure the wings and

prop ulsion system are always airworthy when a mission is initiated.ANNEX B : ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS



### http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540

- D.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/560.pdf