Petition for Summary Grant of 

Exemption from 

Federal Aviation Regulations

— and —

Request for Approval to Operate 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Under Section 333

Submitted by: Microsoft

Dated: December 23, 2015

By Electronic Submission to: www.regulations.gov

By Paper Submission to:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Filed By:

Daniel P. Ridlon

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Ave., Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101

206.359.6762

DRidlon@perkinscoie.com

Counsel for Microsoft
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- i -

I. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

II. The FAA has the legal authority to grant the requested exemption .................................. 1

III. The Microsoft Corporation is the petitioner ...................................................................... 1

IV. The sUAVs that Microsoft plans to operate are safe and the FAA has already 

granted petitions for the use of all but one of them ........................................................... 2

A. DJI Phantom 2 Vision +......................................................................................... 2

B. DJI Inspire 1........................................................................................................... 2

C. DJI Matrice 100 ..................................................................................................... 3

D. DJI Spreading Wings S900.................................................................................... 3

E. 3D Robotics X8+ ................................................................................................... 4

F. TBS Discovery Pro ................................................................................................ 4

G. AscTec Firefly ....................................................................................................... 4

V. Microsoft’s proposed operations are similar to others that have already been 

approved by the FAA and will be subject to operational limitations that will 

minimize the risk to other users of the NAS and people and property on the 

ground ................................................................................................................................ 7

A. The FAA has already granted other exemptions for similar purposes................... 7

B. Microsoft will follow operational limitations that will ensure an equivalent 

level of safety......................................................................................................... 8

C. Microsoft’s pilots will be sufficiently qualified to ensure they can safely 

operate the sUAVs................................................................................................. 9

VI. The FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to operate meet the 

conditions of Section 333 and therefore that the requirements of 14 CFR § 21, 

subpart H and 14 CFR § 36 need not be met ..................................................................... 9

A. 14 CFR § 21, subpart H - Airworthiness Certificates............................................ 9

B. 14 CFR § 36 - Noise standards............................................................................ 10

VII. The FAA should exempt Microsoft from a number of regulations because the 

operations proposed by Microsoft will ensure a level of safety that is at least 

equivalent to that achieved by the regulations, if not greater .......................................... 11

A. 14 CFR § 45.27(a) - Location of marks on nonfixed-wing aircraft..................... 11

B. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) - Limitations 

and requirements for pilots.................................................................................. 11

C. 14 CFR § 91.7(a) - Airworthy Condition............................................................. 12

D. 14 CFR § 91.119(c) - Minimum safe altitudes.................................................... 12

E. 14 CFR § 91.121 - Altimeter settings.................................................................. 13

F. 14 CFR § 91.151 - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.................... 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS

(continued)

Page

- ii -

G. 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and 

(b) - Maintenance Requirements.......................................................................... 14

VIII. Granting Microsoft’s requested exemption is in the public interest................................ 15

IX. Microsoft’s proposed program has no implications for national security ....................... 16

X. Microsoft’s proposed operations will not affect the privacy rights of anyone not 

involved in the operations................................................................................................ 16

XI. Publication in the Federal Register is unnecessary because the FAA has already 

granted exemptions similar to that requested by Microsoft............................................. 16

XII. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 16
- 1 -

I. Introduction

Microsoft submits this petition for a summary grant of exemption from certain aviation 

regulations and requests approval to operate unmanned aerial vehicles in the National Airspace 

System (NAS) under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. 

§ 44701(f), and 14 CFR Part 11. Microsoft plans to use a number of commercially available 

small unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAVs) to collect data for research. The FAA has already 

granted petitions for similar aerial data collection efforts. It has also granted exemptions to other 

petitioners for the use of the same model aircraft—with the exception of one model that is 

similar in its characteristics to models for which approval has been granted. Like those other 

petitions, Microsoft’s operations will ensure an equivalent level of safety to that achieved by the 

regulations from which it seeks exemptions. Further, granting the requested exemptions will 

serve the public interest by allowing flights that would otherwise be conducted by manned 

aircraft to be flown by UAVs, thereby increasing safety, and will advance Microsoft’s research, 

which will benefit the public. Finally, Microsoft’s operations will not have any negative effect 

on national security or the privacy interests of non-participants. For these reasons, the FAA 

should grant Microsoft’s petition and approve Microsoft’s proposed operations.

Because other exemptions have been granted for petitioners conducting similar 

operations and using all but one of the same sUAVs, the exemption Microsoft requests would not 

set a precedent. (A list of prior grants for similar use cases is in Section V.A.) Further, any 

delay in acting on the petition to allow for publishing would be detrimental to Microsoft. As a 

result, good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register, and

the FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition.

II. The FAA has the legal authority to grant the requested exemption.

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

the FAA to allow operation of unmanned aircraft that do not pose a hazard based on (1) their

size, weight, speed, and operational capability, (2) the proximity of operation to airports and 

populated areas, and (3) operation within visual line of sight. 

The FAA also has the authority to grant exemptions from certain regulations if granting those 

exemptions is “in the public interest.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f). Congress has specified that one 

factor of the public interest is “encouraging and developing civil aeronautics.” 49 U.S.C. 

§40101(d)(3). Further, Congress’ mandate to integrate UAVs into the NAS demonstrates that 

allowing UAV operations is also in the public interest. 

III. The Microsoft Corporation is the petitioner.

The petitioner is the Microsoft Corporation, which is located at:

One Microsoft Way

Redmond, WA 98052

The initial point of contact for questions regarding this petition is Daniel Ridlon, who is 

outside counsel for Microsoft. His contact information is:
- 2 -

Daniel Ridlon

Perkins Coie

1201 Third Avenue

Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101

DRidlon@perkinscoie.com

(206) 359-6762

IV. The sUAVs that Microsoft plans to operate are safe and the FAA has already 

granted petitions for the use of all but one of them. 

Microsoft plans to operate seven models of sUAVs. The FAA has granted other 

petitioners exemptions to use all but one of them. Six of the sUAVs Microsoft plans to use are

off-the-shelf sUAVs, while the other is a kit-built sUAV. All of these sUAVs are used widely by 

hobbyists and weigh less than 55 pounds. All of the sUAVs Microsoft plans to use are operated 

with off-the-shelf ground control stations that are certified by their manufacturers to be 

compliant with FCC regulations. Below is a brief description of each of the sUAVs Microsoft 

plans to use.

A. DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

The DJI Phantom 2 Vision + is a light-weight, multi-function quadcopter. The FAA has 

already granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision +. Here are a few

examples:

• Exemption 12513 to 19 Holes of Production (Docket No. FAA−2015−0816)

• Exemption 12311 to Adam Paul (Docket No. FAA–2015–1616)

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1226)

• Exemption 11978 to Aerial 360 Imaging (Docket No. FAA–2015–1476)

• Exemption 11971 to Aerial Approach, Ltd (Docket No. FAA–2015–0753)

• Exemption 12206 to Aerialnomics, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0838) 

• Exemption 12046 to AerOptix, LLC (Docket No FAA–2015–1534)

• Exemption 12153 to AeroUAVs, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1641)

• Exemption 12030 to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Docket No. FAA–

2015–1380)

• Exemption 12302 to Brad G. Beshaw (Docket No. FAA–2015–1527)

• Exemption 11760 to Brian L. Short (Docket No. FAA–2015–0992)

• Exemption 11993 to BUNGEE LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1511)

Additional information on the DJI Phantom 2 Vison + can be found in appendices A to D.

B. DJI Inspire 1

The DJI Inspire 1 is a light-weight, multi-function quadcopter. The FAA has already 

granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Inspire 1. Here are a few examples:

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1226)

• Exemption 12046 to AerOptix, LLC (Docket No FAA–2015–1534); 
- 3 -

• Exemption 12030 to American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Docket No. FAA–

2015–1380)

• Exemption 12302 to Brad G. Beshaw (Docket No. FAA–2015–1527)

• Exemption 11760 to Brian L. Short (Docket No. FAA–2015–0992)

• Exemption 11814 to Alert5 International, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1142)

• Exemption 12496 to 360 Delaware Orbit Tours (Docket No. FAA–2015–0705)

• Exemption 11788 to Bird’s Eye Aerial Photography, Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2015–1003)

• Exemption 11289A to Bird’s Eye Solutions, LLC (Docket No. FAA-2014-0944)

• Exemption 11993 to BUNGEE LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1511)

Additional information on the DJI Inspire 1 can be found in appendices E to H.

C. DJI Matrice 100

The DJI Matrice 100 is a light-weight, multi-function quadcopter. The FAA has already 

granted other exemptions for the use of the DJI Matrice 100, including the following:

• Exemption 12378A to XO Innovations (Docket No. FAA–2015–0344)

1

 

• Exemption 13152 to Kansas Studios, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–3044)

• Exemption 11814 to Alert5 International, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1142)

2

• Exemption 11646A to BioSensing Systems, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0700)

Additional information on the DJI Matrice 100 can be found in appendices I to K.

D. DJI Spreading Wings S900

The DJI Spreading Wings S900 is a light-weight, multi-function hexacopter. The FAA 

has already granted numerous exemptions for the use of the DJI Spreading Wings S900. Here 

are a few examples:

• Exemption 12002 to Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1226)

• Exemption 12153 to AeroUAVs, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1641)

• Exemption 11674 to 4Rotor Filming LLC (Docket No. FAA-2015-0655)

• Exemption 12453 to Adam J. Dorn (Docket No. FAA–2015–0608)

• Exemption 12348 to Aerial Assistant LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1000)

• Exemption 12424 to Aruas LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–2251)

• Exemption 11788 to Bird’s Eye Aerial Photography, Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2015–1003)

• Exemption 11289A to Bird’s Eye Solutions, LLC (Docket No. FAA-2014-0944)

• Exemption 11400 to Contend Corporation (Docket No. FAA–2015–0155)

 1 On August 6, 2015, the FAA initially granted Exemption 12378 to XO Innovations, but withheld approval of the 

DJI Matrice 100 so that it could conduct an assessment of the aircraft. But on September 3, 2015, the FAA granted 

an amendment to XO Innovations’ exemption to include the DJI Matrice 100. This amendment is Exemption 

12378A. 2 The letter granting this exemption refers to the aircraft as a “DJI Matrix 100,” but we believe this is an error and 

that the exemption is actually for the DJI Matrice 100 (we do not believe that DJI makes a Matrix 100, only the 

Matrice 100).
- 4 -

• Exemption 12496 to 360 Delaware Orbit Tours (Docket No. FAA–2015–0705)

Additional information on the DJI Spreading Wings S900 can be found in appendix L.

E. 3D Robotics X8+

The 3D Robotics X8+ is a light-weight, multi-function quadcopter. The FAA has already 

granted numerous exemptions for the use of the 3D Robotics X8+. Here are a few examples:

• Exemption 11626 to Olsson Associates (Docket No. FAA–2015–0537)

• Exemption 11617 to Aerial Precision Survey (Docket No. FAA–2015–0549)

• Exemption 11307A to Price Aviation Group (Docket No. FAA-2014-1018)

• Exemption 12118 to Lone Star Sky Solutions, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0819)

• Exemption 12366 to R.A. Smith National, Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2015–1803)

• Exemption 12495 to Prestige Aerial (Docket No. FAA–2015–0629)

• Exemption 12009 to Aerial Indigo, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015-1466)

• Exemption 11172A to Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc. (Docket No. FAA2014-0787)

• Exemption 12397 to Drone Dynamics LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0651)

• Exemption 11433 to Cape Productions, Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2015–0223)

Additional information on the 3D Robotics X8+ can be found in appendices M to O.

F. TBS Discovery Pro

The TBS (Team Blacksheep) Discovery Pro is a kit-built quadcopter. The FAA has 

already granted exemptions for the use of the TBS Discovery Pro, including the following:

• Exemption 11416 to Aerial Pros, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0182)

• Exemption 12188 to Ocelleye, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1783)

• Exemption 12070 to SDHS (Docket No. FAA–2015–1339)

• Exemption 12377A to Starnes Aviation LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–1784)

3

• Exemption 11596 to Birds Eye Aerial Drones, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–0483)

Additional information on the TBS Discovery Pro can be found in appendices P and Q.

G. AscTec Firefly

The AscTec Firefly is a light-weight, multi-function hexacopter, manufactured by 

Ascending Technologies, GmbH. Here is picture of the AscTec Firefly, some basic information 

about it, and a diagram showing the control station:

 3 On August 6, 2015, the FAA first granted Exemption 12377 to Starnes Aviation LLC, but withheld approval of the 

TBS Discovery Pro so that the FAA could conduct an assessment of that aircraft. On September 3, 2015, the FAA 

amended Exemption 12377 to include the TBS Discovery Pro. This amendment is Exemption 12377A.
- 5 -

Figure 1: Photograph of the AscTec Firefly

Category Information

Aircraft Description Firefly

Aircraft Builder Ascending Technologies, GmbH

Engines Six Hacker Motor GmbH X-BL-52S Electric 

Motors, 1000kv

Maximum Gross 

Takeoff Weight

1.6kg (3.52 lb)

Payload Capacity 600g (1.32 lbs)

Maximum Altitude 4,500 meters (14,763.8 feet)

Maximum Endurance 12 to 14 minutes 

Maximum Airspeed 15m/s (33.55 mph)

Ground Control Station Futaba T7C (see graphic below)

Auto Return Feature(s) In the event of a lost control link, the sUAV

will automatically enter a pre-selected 

emergency mode. There are three emergency 

modes that the pilot in command can select 

before the flight. The sUAV’s behavior in 

each of them is different:

• Direct Landing: The sUAV will 

slowly land in place at the point where 

contact was lost.

• Come Home Straight: The sUAV will 

return to the original start point at its 
- 6 -

current altitude.

• Come Home High: The sUAV will 

climb to a pre-selected altitude and 

return to the original start point.

Figure 2: Diagram of Futaba T7C Control Station
- 7 -

Additional information on the AscTec Firefly can be found in appendices R and S.

V. Microsoft’s proposed operations are similar to others that have already been 

approved by the FAA and will be subject to operational limitations that will 

minimize the risk to other users of the NAS and people and property on the ground.

Microsoft plans to use commercially available, off-the-shelf sUAVs or kit-built sUAVs to 

gather data for research. The sUAVs will be equipped with sensors or other equipment that are 

small enough to fit within the sUAV’s payload capacity and will not affect the sUAV’s flight 

characteristics. These sensors and equipment will allow the sUAVs to capture data that is 

relevant to Microsoft’s ongoing research efforts. The sUAVs used in the program will be flown 

in areas away from people who aren’t participating, and will only be operated below 400 feet

AGL.

The FAA has granted numerous exemptions for aerial data collection, and many for 

research activity similar to what Microsoft will conduct. Indeed, the FAA has identified aerial 

data collection as one of the two areas in which it will grant summary exemptions. Microsoft 

will operate the sUAVs under a set of limitations that will ensure an equivalent level of safety to 

manned flight. 

A. The FAA has already granted other exemptions for similar purposes.

The FAA has already granted numerous exemptions for aerial data collection. More 

specifically, the FAA has also granted a number of exemptions for research similar to what 

Microsoft proposes. Here are but a few examples of other exemptions granted for research:

• Exemption 11273 to AIG PC Global Services, Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2014–0913): This 

exemption was sought, in part, to conduct research and development into how UAVs 

could be used to support AIG’s business and to test different payloads and sensors.

• Exemption 11290 to Amazon.com (Docket No. FAA−2014−0474): This exemption was 

sought to conduct research and development for Amazon’s Prime Air service.

• Exemption 12167 to Bliss Laboratory (Docket No. FAA–2015–1689): This exemption 

was sought to use a UAV manufactured by DJI to conduct research into multiple-input 

and multiple-output (MIMO) wireless channel phenomenology of UAS vehicles within 

the NAS.

• Exemption 11315 to The Climate Corporation and Precision Planting, LLP (Docket No. 

FAA–2014–1037): This exemption was sought, in part, to conduct research and 

development into how best to integrate UAVs into the petitioners research, modeling, 

simulation and imaging business operations.

• Exemption 12104 to Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering (Docket No. FAA–2015–

0946): This exemption was sought to conduct research into the ability of UAVs to 

collect detailed information about an “interesting phenomenon,” such as an animal or

fire.
- 8 -

• Exemption 11274 to USAA (Docket No. FAA−2014−0796): This exemption was sought 

to conduct research and development.

• Exemption 12462 to Panoptes Systems Corporation (Docket No. FAA–2015–2196): This 

exemption was sought to conduct research, testing, and aerial data collection. 

B. Microsoft will follow operational limitations that will ensure an equivalent 

level of safety.

Microsoft’s operations will take place under conditions that will ensure an equivalent 

level of safety, including the following:

• Within visual line of sight: All flights will be conducted within visual line of sight of the 

pilot in command (PIC).

• Daytime visual meteorological conditions: All flights will occur during the day, in visual 

meteorological conditions. 

• Below 400 feet AGL: All flights will be conducted below 400 feet AGL, with most 

flights occurring below 200 feet AGL.

• Pre and Post-Flight Checklists: Each sUAV has a checklist that dictates the pre-flight and 

post-flight actions the PIC must take. There is also a Microsoft Research Area Safety 

Checklist (“Area Safety Checklist”) that applies to all sUAVs Microsoft will operate. 

The individual checklists require the PIC to perform the Area Safety Checklist before 

commencing a flight. All of the checklists can be found in Appendix T.

• Maximum Speed: The sUAVs will not be operated at a speed exceeding the 

manufacturer’s recommended speed, and in no event faster than 87 knots (100 miles per 

hour).

• Operating areas: All flights will be conducted in areas that are at least 5 nm from an 

airport unless Microsoft has either obtained a letter of agreement from the airport’s 

management or has otherwise been granted a COA to operate in the area. If a manned 

aircraft enters the operating area, the PIC will give the manned aircraft the right of way 

and then immediately terminate the flight by landing the sUAV in the nearest area where 

it safe to do so. All flights will also be conducted at least 500 feet from all 

nonparticipating individuals, vessels, vehicles and structures unless the following 

conditions are met:

o If non-participating individuals are present, there are barriers or structures 

sufficient to protect them from the sUAV and, in the event of an accident, any 

debris;

o If non-participating individuals are present, Microsoft will ensure they stay 

protected by the barrier or structure and end the flight immediately if they leave 

the safety of the barrier or structure during the flight;
- 9 -

o The owner of the vessel, vehicle, or structure has granted permission for operating 

close to those objects; and

o The PIC has made a safety assessment and determined that operations that close 

to the nonparticipating individuals, vessel, vehicle or structure do not present an 

undue hazard.

• Emergencies and unforeseen problems: In the event of any emergency, equipment failure, 

or unforeseen problem, the PIC will terminate the flight as soon as practicable and land

the sUAV in the nearest area where it is safe to land. 

C. Microsoft’s pilots will be sufficiently qualified to ensure they can safely 

operate the sUAVs.

All of Microsoft’s pilots will hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, 

recreational, or sport pilot certificate. They will also hold a current FAA airman medical 

certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. All pilots will also meet the flight review 

requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her 

pilot certificate. 

The FAA is routinely granting exemptions that require these same qualifications for 

PICs. See, e.g., Exemption 11389 to Consumers Energy Company (Docket No. FAA–2015–

0005); Exemption 13564 to Workhorse Group Inc. (Docket No. FAA–2015–3055).

VI. The FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to operate meet the 

conditions of Section 333 and therefore that the requirements of 14 CFR § 21, 

subpart H and 14 CFR § 36 need not be met.

A. 14 CFR § 21, subpart H - Airworthiness Certificates

The Regulation: Normally a civil aircraft cannot be operated “in air commerce without an 

airworthiness certificate in effect.” 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a)(1). 14 CFR part 21, subpart H, 

contains the requirements for issuing such an airworthiness certificate.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: Section 333 of the Act allows the FAA to 

permit sUAVs to operate without meeting the requirements of 14 CFR § 21 if those sUAVs “as a 

result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated 

areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national 

airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security.” Section 333(b)(1). 

Microsoft’s operations meet the requirements of Section 333. By achieving an equivalent level 

of safety to that provided by 14 CFR part 21, subpart H, Microsoft’s operations do not create a 

hazard to users of the NAS or the public. Microsoft’s operations also do not pose a threat to 

national security (this issue that is discussed more fully below in Section IX). As a result, 

Microsoft should be allowed to operate its sUAVs without airworthiness certificates. Manned 

aircraft require airworthiness certificates because an accident could endanger the lives of not 

only the people onboard the aircraft, but also the public. By contrast, the sUAVs Microsoft will 

operate are unmanned and pose much less of a danger to the public than manned aircraft. All of 
- 10 -

the sUAVs operated by Microsoft weigh less than 55 pounds, with most of them weighing less 

than 10 pounds. As a result, any accident involving one of these sUAVs will be far less 

dangerous than one involving a much larger manned aircraft, which can destroy structures and 

vehicles or injure people in the area. And all of the sUAVs use electrical power, and therefore 

do not carry flammable fuel that can cause the type of destructive fires that are common in 

accidents involving manned aircraft. Further, all of the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use will be 

operated at low speeds, low altitudes, far from airports or nonparticipating individuals, and 

within the visual line of sight of the PIC, so the possibility of harm to the public or other users of 

the NAS is much lower than for a manned flight. Given the lack of passengers or crew, absence 

of flammable fuel, small size of the sUAVs, low speeds and altitudes at which they operate, and 

the operating areas, the requirement for an airworthiness certificate is unnecessary to achieve the 

same level of safety achieved by requiring manned aircraft to obtain such a certificate. As a 

result, the FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use meet the 

requirements of Section 333, and therefore do not require airworthiness certificates. 

Previous exemptions: The FAA has already found that all but one of the sUAVs that Microsoft 

intends to use meet the criteria of Section 333, and therefore can operate without airworthiness 

certificates. See supra Section IV. Many of these petitions were for similar operations, with the 

same limitations proposed by Microsoft. Because the FAA has already determined that all but 

one of the sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use meet the criteria of Section 333, the FAA should 

make the same finding here. Further, the one sUAV that has not been the subject of a prior 

exemption, the AscTec Firefly, is similar to other sUAVs that have been granted an exemption, 

and has an equivalent level of safety. So the FAA should also make the determination that the 

AscTec Firefly meets the conditions of Section 333, and therefore does not require an 

airworthiness certificate.

B. 14 CFR § 36 - Noise standards

14 CFR § 36’s requirements only apply to aircraft with airworthiness certificates. Because the 

FAA should determine that the sUAVs Microsoft plans to use meet the conditions of Section 333 

and therefore that no airworthiness certificate is necessary, the FAA should also determine that 

compliance with the related noise standards contained in 14 CFR § 36 is unnecessary. The FAA

has routinely found that sUAVs that meet the requirements of Section 333 and therefore do not 

need an airworthiness certificate pursuant to 14 CFR § 21, subpart H also do not need to comply 

with the noise standards in 14 CFR § 36. See, e.g., Exemption 13567 to Aerialpixels, LLC 

(Docket No. FAA–2015–3174); Exemption 13577 to Unmanned Eagle Eye, LLC (Docket No. 

FAA–2015–3705).
- 11 -

VII. The FAA should exempt Microsoft from a number of regulations because the 

operations proposed by Microsoft will ensure a level of safety that is at least 

equivalent to that achieved by the regulations, if not greater. 

This section addresses the specific regulations from which Microsoft seeks an exemption 

and explains why the proposed operations will have at least an equivalent level of safety. The 

FAA has granted other exemptions from all but one of these regulations.4

A. 14 CFR § 45.27(a) - Location of marks on nonfixed-wing aircraft

The Regulation: 14 CFR § 45.27(a) requires operators of rotorcraft to “display on that rotorcraft 

horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by 

§ 45.23.” 

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: Complying with this regulation would be 

impractical and operating with the required marks elsewhere does not affect safety. The sUAVs 

used by Microsoft lack the same structure as other rotorcraft, making the requirements for the 

placement of these markings impractical. Microsoft requests an exemption from these 

requirements, and instead proposes that the sUAVs in Microsoft’s program will display 

nationality and registration markings as large as possible on the upper and lower surfaces of the 

sUAV. Changing the location of these markings will not affect safety, and therefore the FAA 

should grant an exemption from 14 CFR § 45.27(a).

B. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) - Limitations and 

requirements for pilots

The Regulations: The regulations normally apply limitations and restrictions for pilots, including 

the following:

• 14 CFR § 61.23(a) requires a medical certificate for certain operations.

• 14 CFR § 61.23(c) limits the operations someone can conduct with a U.S. driver’s license 

rather than a medical certificate.

• 14 CFR § 61.101(e) prohibits a recreational pilot from acting as PIC in certain 

circumstances.

• 14 CFR § 61.113(a) prohibits a person holding a private pilot certificate from acting as 

PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire.

• 14 CFR § 61.315(a) allows a person holding a sport pilot certificate to act as PIC only for 

a light-sport aircraft, and even then only in certain circumstances.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: The above regulations are unnecessary for

sUAVs, and an equivalent level of safety can be achieved without them. Because of the sUAVs’

size, weight, speed, and the fact that it does not carry persons, operating them does not require 

the same level of experience and training as a traditional manned aircraft. Indeed, sUAVs can be 

operated by hobbyists without any training or certification. The dangers created by operating a 

sUAV are far less than that involved in operating manned aircraft, including a light-sport aircraft. 

 4 We are not aware of any exemption having been granted to 14 CFR § 45.27(a).
- 12 -

As a result, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by granting an exemption to the above 

regulations that will allow operation of sUAVs by pilots who hold (1) either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate, and (2) a current FAA airman medical 

certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. 

Previous exemptions: The FAA has routinely granted exemptions to these regulations with the 

same conditions proposed by Microsoft. See, e.g., Exemption 11389 to Consumers Energy 

Company (Docket No. FAA–2015–0005); Exemption 13564 to Workhorse Group Inc. (Docket 

No. FAA–2015–3055). The FAA should therefore grant the same exemptions to these 

regulations to Microsoft.

C. 14 CFR § 91.7(a) - Airworthy Condition

The Regulation: 14 CFR § 91.7(a) states that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in 

an airworthy condition. The FAA has taken the position that an exemption from 14 CFR §

91.7(a) is necessary for UAVs. See Exemption 11208 to Sky-Futures USA, Inc. (Docket No. 

FAA–2014-0641) (“Although the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil 

aircraft airworthiness, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is necessary.”). 

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: The FAA should grant an exemption to 14 

CFR § 91.7(a) because Microsoft’s procedures will ensure an equivalent level of safety. Prior to 

every flight, the PIC will ensure that the sUAV is in an airworthy condition based on compliance 

with the sUAVs operating documents and the conditions and limitations imposed by the FAA. 

Because these precautions will ensure an equivalent level of safety, the FAA should grant 

Microsoft an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.7(a).

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions from 14 CFR § 91.7(a). See, e.g.,

Exemption 13568 to Jamie Lee Kinney (Docket No. FAA–2015-3353); Exemption 13548 to 

Macbeth Air Services, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–3576). It should do so here.

D. 14 CFR § 91.119(c) - Minimum safe altitudes

The Regulation: 14 CFR § 91.119(c) prohibits operating aircraft at an altitude below 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or in sparsely populated areas. Even then, the aircraft 

may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. If an 

exemption to this regulations was not granted, Microsoft’s sUAVs could not operate within 500 

feet of the PIC or other personnel involved in the flight. 

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: Considering the size, weight, and speed at 

which Microsoft’s sUAVs will operate, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by allowing 

sUAVs to operate within 500 feet of personnel involved in the flight. For non-participants or 

vessels, vehicles, or structures, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved if sUAVs are 

operated over 500 feet away unless the following conditions are met:

o If non-participating individuals are present, there are barriers or structures 

sufficient to protect them from the sUAV and, in the event of an accident, any 

debris;
- 13 -

o If non-participating individuals are present, Microsoft will ensure they stay 

protected by the barrier or structure and end the flight immediately if they leave 

the safety of the barrier or structure during the flight;

o The owner of the vessel, vehicle, or structure has granted permission for operating 

close to those objects; and

o The PIC has made a safety assessment and determined that operations that close 

to the nonparticipating individuals, vessel, vehicle, or structure does not present 

an undue hazard.

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions to 14 CFR §91.119(c) subject to the 

same conditions proposed above. See, e.g., Exemption 11815 to Enviroskycam (Docket No. 

FAA–2015–1101); Exemption 12187 to Boulder Emergency Squad (Docket No. FAA–2015–

1720). As a result, the FAA should grant the same exemption to 14 CFR § 91.119(c), subject to 

the above conditions, to Microsoft.

E. 14 CFR § 91.121 - Altimeter settings

The Regulation: 14 CFR § 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising 

altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the departure airport or an 

appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” The sUAVs Microsoft will operate do 

not have the same altimeters used in manned aircraft, so compliance with this regulation would 

be impossible. 

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: Even without the normal altimeters, 

Microsoft’s operations will have an equivalent level of safety. The sUAVs Microsoft will 

operate all supply the PIC with altitude information. The PIC will use that information to ensure 

that the sUAV maintains an altitude of less than 400 feet AGL. Further, because the sUAV will 

always be within visual line of sight, the PIC can also use visual clues to ensure that the sUAV

remains below 400 feet AGL. The altitude information available to the PIC combined with the 

PIC’s ability to see the sUAV at all times ensures an equivalent level of safety, and therefore the 

FAA should grant an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.121.

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions to 14 CFR § 91.121. See, e.g., 

Exemption 11815 to Enviroskycam (Docket No. FAA–2015–1101); Exemption 12187 to 

Boulder Emergency Squad (Docket No. FAA–2015–1720). The FAA should grant the same 

exemption to 14 CFR § 91.121 to Microsoft.

F. 14 CFR § 91.151 - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

The Regulation: 14 CFR § 91.151 sets minimum requirements for the amount of fuel an aircraft 

has before it can fly in VFR conditions. The first part of the regulation applies to aircraft, and 

requires that, before a daytime flight begins, the airplane must have enough fuel to reach its first 

point of intended landing plus enough fuel to fly for an additional 30 minutes. 14 CFR 

§91.151(a)(1).5

 The second part of the rule applies to rotorcraft, and requires the rotorcraft to 

 5 14 CFR §91.151(a)(2) is inapplicable because Microsoft will not be operating its UAVs at night.
- 14 -

have at least enough fuel to reach its first point of intended landing plus enough fuel to fly for an 

additional 20 minutes. 14 CFR §91.151(b). Several of Microsoft’s sUAVs could not comply 

with either regulation because they have a maximum endurance of less than 20 minutes. 

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: An exemption to 14 CFR § 91.151 is 

warranted because Microsoft’s operations will ensure an equivalent level of safety. Microsoft’s 

sUAVs will only be operated below 400 feet AGL and within the visual line of sight of the PIC. 

As a result, they will not travel far from the PIC. Further, the flights will be short, and 5 minutes 

of battery life will always be preserved (i.e., the flight will end before battery levels drop below 

what is required to maintain 5 minutes of flight). The sUAVs will provide the PIC with 

information on the level of battery power remaining that will allow the PIC to determine when 

this level of power is reached. All of these considerations allow the sUAVs to operate with an 

equivalent level of safety even though they don’t comply with 14 CFR § 91.151. As a result, the 

FAA should grant Microsoft an exemption to 14 CFR § 91.151.

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions to 14 CFR § 91.151. See, e.g., 

Exemption 13574 to GDI, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–3701)(granting an exemption to 14 

CFR §91.151(a)(1)); Exemption 13576 to Wiser Consultants, LCC (Docket No. FAA–2015–

3703)(same). The FAA should grant that same exemption to Microsoft.

G. 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) -

Maintenance Requirements

The Regulations: The regulations impose a number of requirements for maintenance of aircraft 

including the following:

• 14 CFR § 91.405(a) requires that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft 

inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required 

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies 

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

• 14 CFR § 91.407(a)(1) prohibits any person from operating an aircraft that has undergone 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

• 14 CFR § 91.409(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft unless, within 

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an annual inspection in accordance with part 

43 of the same chapter and been approved to return to service by an authorized person.

• 14 CFR § 91.409(a)(2) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft unless, within 

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of the same chapter.

• 14 CFR § 91.417(a) sets requirements for maintenance records, including records of all 

maintenance or alteration of the aircraft, aircraft and component operating times, 

inspection status, status of airworthiness directives and safety directives, and forms 

detailing alterations to the aircraft and its major components.
- 15 -

• 14 CFR § 91.417(b) sets requirements for how long an owner or operator must retain 

maintenance records.

How Microsoft achieves an equivalent level of safety: Following these regulations would be

impractical and unnecessary to achieve an equivalent level of safety. Because of their size, 

weight, speed, and the fact that sUAVs do not carry people, they do not pose the same danger 

that manned aircraft do. As a result, the complex regulations that govern maintenance for 

manned aircraft are unnecessary. The same level of safety or greater can be achieved by the 

procedures Microsoft will follow, which will include required pre and post-flight inspections and 

compliance with the sUAV manufacturers’ maintenance requirements. Because an equivalent 

level of safety can be achieved without these regulations, the FAA should grant an exemption to

them.

Previous exemptions: The FAA routinely grants exemptions to all of these regulations. See, e.g.,

Exemption 13510 to Vive Media, LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–3612); Exemption 13512 to 

Wolfe LLC (Docket No. FAA–2015–3556). The FAA should do the same here.

VIII. Granting Microsoft’s requested exemption is in the public interest.

There are several reasons why the public interest would be served by granting the 

exemption Microsoft requests. First, Microsoft seeks to use sUAVs to serve a function that 

would otherwise be carried out by manned aircraft. Manned aircraft are much larger than 

sUAVs, and carry people and flammable fuel. As a result, the consequences of an accident 

involving a manned aircraft are serious. This is true not only for the people on the aircraft, but 

also for those on the ground who could be harmed or killed. By contrast, the sUAVs Microsoft 

operates are small, weighing less than 55 pounds. They also do not carry people or fuel. In the 

event of an accident, there are no occupants that would be in danger, and the risk to people on 

the ground is far less than in an accident involving manned aircraft. For these reasons the FAA 

has found that using UAVs rather than manned aircraft enhances safety, and is therefore in the 

public interest. The FAA routinely cites this safety enhancement as sufficiently serving the 

public interest so as to justify the grant of an exemption. See, e.g., Exemption 11062 to Astraeus 

Aerial (Docket No. FAA-2014-0352); Exemption 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (Docket No. FAA-2014-

0507).

Second, Microsoft will use its sUAV program to conduct research that benefits the public 

good. Overall, Microsoft is engaged in extensive activities that benefit the global public in 

general, from high-speed computing, to robotics, artificial intelligence, imagery, and extensive 

partnerships with public universities, government organizations, and NGOs. Microsoft will be 

leveraging sUAVs as platforms to broaden its ongoing research.

Finally, Microsoft’s research has the potential to help integrate UAVs into the NAS. 

Microsoft will leverage its software and networking expertise to focus on secure and reliable data 

transmission that will better enable successful integration of autonomous UAVs into the NAS. 

Congress has established that integrating UAVs into the NAS is in the public interest.
- 16 -

IX. Microsoft’s proposed program has no implications for national security.

National security will not be negatively impacted by Microsoft’s program. All operations 

will be over privately held land, with the landowner’s permission. None of these operations are 

planned near any military installations. The sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use are small, and 

will not be operated above 400 feet AGL. As a result of these factors, Microsoft’s operation will 

not have any negative impact on national security.

X. Microsoft’s proposed operations will not affect the privacy rights of anyone not 

involved in the operations.

Microsoft will be conducting operations exclusively over private property, with the 

express permission of the landowner. All flights will be conducted below 400 feet AGL and 

more than 500 feet away from any non-participants. So Microsoft’s operations will not have an 

effect on the privacy of any non-participants. 

XI. Publication in the Federal Register is unnecessary because the FAA has already 

granted exemptions similar to that requested by Microsoft.

There is good cause to not publish a summary of this petition in the Federal Register. As 

discussed throughout the petition, the FAA has already granted exemptions to other petitioners 

who are conducting similar operations, using the same sUAVs, and seeking exemptions from the 

same regulations. So this exemption would not set precedent. Further, the delay caused by 

publication of this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner—Microsoft is ready to begin its 

research now, and any delay in conducting that research will have a negative impact on 

Microsoft.

If the FAA does decide to publish a summary of the petition in the Federal Register, here 

is a proposed summary:

Microsoft seeks an exemption from the following regulations for the operation of small 

unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct research: 14 CFR § 45.27(a); 14 CFR § 61.23(a) and 

(c); 14 CFR § 61.101(e); 14 CFR § 61.113(a); 14 CFR § 61.315(a); 14 CFR §91.7(a); 14 

CFR §91.119(c); 14 CFR § 91.121; 14 CFR § 91.151(a)(1) and (b); 14 CFR § 91.405(a); 

14 CFR § 91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 CFR § 91.417(a) and (b).

The exemption will serve the public interest by reducing the risk to the operator and 

general public. The public interest will also be served by allowing Microsoft to conduct 

research that benefits the public, including research that can help integrate unmanned 

aerial vehicles into the national airspace system.

XII. Conclusion

The FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition for an exemption and approve 

Microsoft’s proposed operations. The FAA has already granted numerous petitions for aerial 

data collection efforts similar to those Microsoft will conduct, and other petitions for similar 

research. The FAA has also granted prior petitions for operations involving all but one of the 

sUAVs Microsoft proposes to use. Similarly, Microsoft’s petition asks for exemptions from 
- 17 -

regulations that have been routinely granted to other petitioners. Because of the small size of the 

sUAVs involved and the proposed operational limitations, Microsoft’s operations will have an 

equivalent, if not better level of safety than manned operations that comply with the exempted 

regulations. And Microsoft’s operations will neither affect national security nor the privacy 

rights of those not involved. Finally, granting Microsoft’s petition will serve the public interest 

by enhancing safety and allowing research that will advance the welfare of society. For these 

reasons, the FAA should summarily grant Microsoft’s petition for an exemption and approve 

Microsoft’s proposed operations.