sd-656563 

Writer’s Direct Contact 

+1 (858) 720.7932 

WOConnor@mofo.com 

12531 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE 

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 

92130-2040 

TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 

FACSIMILE: 858.720.5125 

WWW.MOFO.COM 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , DENVER , 

HONG KONG , LONDON , LOS ANGELES , 

NEW YORK , NORTHERN VIRGINIA , 

PALO ALTO , SACRAMENTO , SAN DIEGO , 

SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI , SINGAPORE ,

TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D . C . 

February 12, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: FAA Docket ID No. FAA-2015-0334; Petition of Pro Drones Canada Inc. for an 

Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 for the MD4-1000

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On February 9, 2015, Pro Drones Canada Inc. (Pro Drones) filed a petition for exemption 

pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to operate the 

MD4-1000 unmanned aircraft system. See Docket ID No. FAA-2015-0334. This letter 

supplements Pro Drones’ MD4-1000 Petition and requests expedited review of the Petition 

on the grounds that the MD4-1000 was recently approved by the FAA for infrastructure 

inspection operations (Exemption No. 11171), and Pro Drones agrees to abide by operational 

parameters previously approved by the FAA (Exemption Nos. 11109 and 11110). 

Prior Operational Approvals: On February 10, 2015, the FAA granted an exemption to 

Asymmetric Technologies, LLC of Columbus Ohio to operate the MD4-1000 for the purpose 

of infrastructure inspection. See Docket ID No. FAA-2014-0816, Exemption No. 11171, 

enclosed herewith as Attachment A. The FAA found that, “in accordance with the statutory 

criteria provided in section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to section 44704 of Title 

49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and 

limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of 

Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of section 333.” 

Because the MD4-1000 has been granted prior operational approval by the FAA “in 

consideration of the size, weight [and] speed” of the MD4-1000, Pro Drones’ similar 

application for use of the MD4-1000 will meet the FAA’s safety standard. Additionally, 

because Pro Drones has agreed to abide by conditions the FAA has required in issuing recent 

Section 333 exemptions, specifically Exemptions 11109 (Clayco, Inc.) and 11110 (Trimble 
February 12, 2015 

Page Two 

sd-656563 

Navigation Ltd.), Pro Drones’ operating parameters will meet the FAA’s required safety 

standards. 

The prior approval of the MD4-1000 system and Pro Drones’ agreed-to operational 

limitations give the FAA a basis for expedited consideration and processing of Pro-Drones’ 

Exemption Petition for the MD4-1000. Docket ID No. FAA-2015-0334. 

Sincerely, 

William V. O’Connor 

William D. Janicki 

Joanna L. Simon 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 

San Diego, CA 92130-2040 

Telephone: (858) 720-5100 

Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 

woconnor@mofo.com 

wjanicki@mofo.com 

joannasimon@mofo.com
AFS-15-035-E 

Exemption No. 11171 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

ASYMMETRIC TECHNOLOGIES, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0816 

LLC 

 

for an exemption from Part 21, 

Subpart H, Part 27, §§ 45.23(b), 

45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 

91.9 (b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.103; 91.109(a); 

91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 

91.203(a)and(b); 91.405(a)(1); 

91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1); and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 6, 2014, Mr. Stuart C. Sparker, Esq., General Counsel for Asymmetric 

Technologies, LLC, 1395 Grandview Ave, Suite #3, Columbus, OH 43212 petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from Part 21, Subpart H, Part 27, 

§§ 45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2) and (c); 91.103; 91.109(a); 

91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a)(1); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1); and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would 

allow operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of infrastructure (bridge) 

inspections. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Part 21, Subpart H which prescribes procedural requirements for the issuance of 

airworthiness certificates. 
2

Part 27 which prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates, and 

changes to those certificates, for normal category rotorcraft with maximum weights of 

7,000 pounds or less and nine or less passenger seats. 

Section 45.23(b) prescribes requirements for required markings on limited, restricted or 

light sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft. 

Section 45.27(a) prescribes the required location for placing marks on rotorcraft. 

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes privileges and limitations for private pilots when 

acting as pilot in command. 

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

airworthy condition. 

Section 91.9(b)(2) prescribes that no person may operate U.S.-registered civil aircraft 

unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight 

Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Section 91.9(c) prescribes that no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft 

unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of the chapter. 

Section 91.103 prescribes that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, 

become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. 

Section 91.109(a) prescribes that any civil aircraft operated for the purpose of flight 

instruction must have fully functioning dual controls. 

Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes for operation of aircraft. 

Section 91.121 prescribes altimeter setting requirements for any person operating an 

aircraft. 

Section 91.151(a) prescribes fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. 

Section 91.203(a) prohibits any person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has within 

it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective U.S. 

registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the 

second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c) 

Section 91.203(b) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless the 

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

displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew. 
3

Section 91.405(a)(1) 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. 

Section 91.407(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate any 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 this chapter. 

Section 91.409(a)(1) 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. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes that— 

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and 

records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved 

inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each 

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records 

must include— 

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the 

work performed; and 

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and 

(iii)The signature and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft 

for return to service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and 

each rotor. 

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, 

rotor, and appliance. 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft that are 

required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. 
4

(iv)The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the 

last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft 

and its appliances are maintained. 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety 

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety 

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. 

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) for each major alteration to 

the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and 

appliances. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

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

the operating documents: 

1) Asymmetric Technologies Flight Operations Manual, v2.6, 9/30/2014 

2) Microdrones md4-1000 Operators Handbook, Revision 2013-01-21 

 

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: 1) the unmanned 

aircraft system (UAS), 2) the UAS Pilot In Command (PIC), 3) the UAS operating parameters 

and 4) the public interest. 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

The petitioner has proposed to used the following UAS to conduct infrastructure inspections: 

 Microdrones md4-1000, manufactured by Microdrones 

The Microdrones md4-1000 is a battery powered quadcopter weighing less than 8.5 pounds, 

including payload. It has a maximum speed of 27 mph and a maximum flight operating 

endurance of 88 minutes. The md4-1000 uses global positioning system (GPS) for navigation 

and has a system to notify the pilot of potential future operational problems. 

The aircraft is operated using a remote ground control station and is capable of setting preprogrammed distance and height limits. In the event of a lost link, GPS failure or low battery 

condition, the aircraft can be programmed to descend and land or return to home. 

The petitioner also requests relief from maintenance and inspection requirements under 

§§ 91.405(a)(1), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 91.417(a) and (b). The petitioner states that 

an exemption should be granted under these sections because its UAS does not possess an 

airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner has indicated it will employ a maintenance 
5

and quality assurance program in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements, which 

meets or exceeds applicable regulatory standards for U.S. registered aircraft. Aircraft 

maintenance will be logged. Maintenance records will be made available upon request and 

kept with the control station equipment during all operations. Detailed operational checklists 

were provided in the operating documents. 

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC) 

The petitioner states that it will utilize commercial or private pilots with considerable 

experience in multiple unmanned systems. These pilots will be flight current for both manned 

and unmanned aircraft and will hold at least a current Class III FAA medical certificate. 

Further, the petitioner indicates that the PICs will possess a minimum of 25 hours and 250 

cycles in UAS in addition to at least 10 hours in the particular make and model. 

The petioner notes that for all flight operations a PIC will be designated and this person will 

be directly responsible for the operation of the UAS and the safety of the operation. It will be 

the responsibility of the PIC to ensure the operation complies with all applicable regulations 

and/or ensures professional “best practice” to all applicable regulations. 

In addition, for each operation a visual observer (VO) and team leader will be assigned. The 

VO will be responsible for the Ground Control Station (GCS) assembly, disassembly and pre 

and post flight procedures. During flight, the visual observer will visually maintain contact 

with the unmanned aircraft (UA) and scan the area for undetected aircraft and/or obstacles. 

The observer will also be responsible for all aviation related communications. The team 

leader will have overall responsibility for the mission. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner states that all flights will remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot 

or observer. The petitioner further states that if the UAS loses communications or GPS signal, 

the UAS is equipped with advanced safety features that will allow the attempt to re-establish 

contact with the GCS (hover in place), and after 3 minutes the UAS will automatically return 

to a pre-determined location. The petitioner notes that the UAS will operate at or below 400 

feet above ground in remote, sterile areas. The petitioner further notes that it will launch and 

recover the UA from the area below the bridge. The petitioner states that all flights will take 

place with optimal weather conditions and only under visual flight rules. No flights will 

occur from sunset to sunrise. 

The petitioner will use the small UAS to visually inspect the support structure of the bridge 

and the roadway. Because the structure supporting the roadway is below the roadway, in the 

rare occurrence that a malfunction occurs to the small UAS, the small UAS would fall to the 

canyon floor rather than onto a roadway. Moreover, the structure of the bridge and the space 

between the members of the bridge allow the pilot and observer to maintain line of sight on 

the sUAS for the duration of the flight. Thus, the risk to the public is greatly reduced because 
6

the PIC will be able to avoid any obstacles and other aircraft in real time. Flights will not last 

any longer than 45 minutes. 

Public Interest: 

The petitioner states that, performing infrastructure inspections with unmanned systems is a 

benefit to the public for the following reasons: 1) the operation significantly improves safety 

and reduces risk by alleviating human exposure to the dangers associated with aerial survey 

and inspection; 2) it will not be necessary to close a lane on the bridge while the inspection is 

being conducted; this significantly improves traffic flow and safety; 3) the UAS being 

operated are very small and contain no flammable fuel and in the remote event of an accident, 

will cause no damage or injuries; and 4) given that the cost to conduct an inspection using a 

UAS is considerably less than available alternatives, this important task can be accomplished 

which will benefit everyone utilizing this infrastructure.. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 

(79 FR 67534). The petition received two comments with one supporting the proposed 

operation and one against. 

In support of the petition, the Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) stated the petitioner has 

proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating 

similar aircraft. The Coalition stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures 

should be required for the petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its 

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

operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and 

risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial 

distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles based on commercial and noncommercial 

operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks 

posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The 

petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS used for defense and 

aerospace purposes. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s 

pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations. 

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors1 in section 333 as a minimum. 

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

specified in section 333, such as the remote location and altitude of its small UAS. The 

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

 

1

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

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

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

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

security; ...” 
7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

(Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its 

regulations found in 49 USC § 44701(f), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the 

statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. 

The FAA notes that under this exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding 

private certificates and it will be able to use the training program it proposed. Finally, 

the FAA does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security finding 

poses an unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions 

granted previously to section 333 requests, are already required to hold a pilot certificate 

to satisfy 49 USC § 44711. 

The Coalition commented that a VO should not be required for all small UAS operation. 

The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may allow the UAS to 

be operated beyond VLOS of the PIC and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the UA 

within VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. The FAA notes that one of the 

determinations for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As 

the PIC is determined to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while 

operating the UA. The FAA also notes that a VO complements the PICs capability to see 

and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other 

flying tasks (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to actors and actresses and other objects on 

a film set). The VO provides an additional level of operational safety. 

The National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) states it represents the interests of 

small business owners and pilots licensed as commercial applicators. NAAA explains that its 

members operate in low-level airspace, and clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of 

these operators. 

NAAA states that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the 

backbone for agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to 

perform their see-and-avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UA 

operations at low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural 

aircraft. NAAA argues that until adequate see-and-avoid technology is developed, the FAA 

should require UAS operators to post a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 48 to 72 hours before 
8

operations. NAAA proposes UAS aircraft be painted a highly visible color, be equipped with 

strobe lights, and use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) or other similar 

location reporting technology. To address these concerns the FAA has incorporated 

associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for 

all operations, b) operations conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO, and c) the UAS 

PIC must always yield right-of- way to manned aircraft. 

NAAA also proposes a number of operating limitations and requirements for UAS operators. 

NAAA states UAS operators should have procedures to immediately ground the UAS if 

another low-flying aircraft is within 2 miles; be attentive and free from distractions; comply 

with all applicable regulations, policies, and procedures; be equipped with aviation radios set 

to a locally defined frequency; have a separate VO with a second-class medical certificate and 

perform duties for only one UAS at a time; maintain line-of-sight operations; and be wellversed in the UAS operator document. NAAA further states UAS should be properly 

maintained, have a registered N-Number on an indestructible and unmovable plate, and be 

required to have an airworthiness certificate and liability insurance. These comments are 

addressed in the FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) 

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in 

reference to section 44704 of Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), and in consideration 

of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its 

operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the 

conditions of section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that relief from 14 CFR part 21, part 27, 

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

Bridge inspection is hazardous and presents unique difficulties for persons conducting 

inspections and maintenance of this infrastructure. The inspections are typically conducted 

by personnel who physically inspect the bridge structure. Helicopters may also be used for 

bridge and similar infrastructure inspections. The petitioner plans to utilize a UAS to 

inspect the structure, which reduces the need for inspectors to physically access and view the 

structure. Manned helicopters assisting in inspections can weigh 6,000 lbs. or more and are 

operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. 

Although the petitioner stated that the UAS weighs less than 15 pounds the UA 

manufacturer’s flight operations manual provided with the petition indicates the UA’s 

maximum weight, including payload, is 8.5 pounds. Therefore, operations conducted under 

this exemption must conform to the UA’s maximum weight specified in the flight operations 

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

reduces the potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in 

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

or accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for the inspection operation. In addition, 
9

utilizing UAS to conduct bridge inspections will reduce the need for inspection personnel to 

perform this hazardous activity as well as traffic hazards related to blocking lanes on the 

roadway. 

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

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

to fuel spillage is eliminated. 

This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with other 

aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating 

the risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring enhanced stand-off 

distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be 

operated within VLOS and yield right of way to all manned operations. Additionally, the 

operator will be required to request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the 

NAS. 

The petitioner’s UA has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight 

failures. The UA is also able to respond to a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, 

predictable, automated flight maneuver. The PIC has the ability to terminate the flight 

operation or initiate the automated return to home procedure outlined within the operating 

documents. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a 

manned aircraft performing a similar operation. 

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

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

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

marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 

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

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

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

The petitioner has also requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.27(a), Location of marks. Given 

that an exemption from § 45.23(b) is not necessary, an exemption from § 45.27(a) is also not 

necessary. Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f). 

The petitioner’s operating documents reflect all maintenance of the UAS will be conducted as 

specifically required by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and that all 

maintenance will be documented in the maintenance logs, which must be in possession of the 

operator at all times. The operating documents further state that only qualified OEM 

maintainers will perform higher level inspections and maintenance per OEM standards. The 

operating documents indicate that the petitioner will implement a maintenance and quality 

assurance program. 
10

 The petitioner requests relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.405 (a)(1) Maintenance required, 

91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(1) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has 

evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for exemption to these 

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

preflight and post flight checks for the UAS. The FAA has also determined that relief from 

§ 91.409(a)(2) is also necessary because the aircraft will not require an airworthiness 

certificate and thus an inspection for this purpose is not necessary. The FAA finds that 

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

sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. 

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC) 

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated in the field with a minimum of a private pilot 

PIC, a ground-based VO, and a team leader in accordance with its operating documents. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113 Private pilot privileges and 

limitations, the FAA must consider the appropriate level of pilot certification for the 

petitioner’s proposed operations. The petitioner states it would operate its UAS with a 

private pilot holding a third-class airmen medical certificate. Under current regulations, civil 

operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate per 

14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 

14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of 

an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or 

employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the 

FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would 

not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the 

ground. Additionally, as previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the 

requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS 

operations conducted in accordance with Section 333. 

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and determined it does not differ 

significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeus). 

Given: 1) the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of 

Astraeus, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those 

of commercial requirements, and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the 

FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated 

pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for the petitioner’s proposed 

operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a thirdclass airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operations. As proposed by 

the petitioner, the FAA also finds that the PIC may also hold a commercial pilot certificate. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 61.23(a)(2), PICs excercising commercial certificate privileges 

must hold a second-class airman medical certificate. 
11

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, in accordance with the 

petitioner’s operating documents, the PIC will be current in both airplanes or helicopters and 

UAS. Each PIC will have a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours in UAS. Each PIC 

will also have at least 10 hours experience in the particular UAS to be operated under this 

exemption. 

Additionally, the conditions and limitations below stipulate that the petitioner may not permit 

any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated through petitioner’s training and 

currency requirements that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent 

with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency 

maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and 

structures. 

The petitioner has also indicated all flights will be operated within VLOS of the PIC and/or 

VO. The VO must complete the training prescribed in the petitioners operating documents. 

The conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can 

perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. Additionally, as discussed in 

Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for visual 

observer medical certificates. Although a medical certificate is not required for a VO, the 

UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the VO, and both the VO 

and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It is the 

responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of 

the UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the 

VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to 

Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO. 

The FAA considers the PIC to be designated for the duration of the flight. Therefore, per the 

conditions and limitations below, the PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot 

transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight.

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner has requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, and the 

FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is necessary. While the petitioner’s UAS will not require 

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, the FAA considers 

the petitioner’s compliance with its operating documents to be a sufficient means for 

determining an airworthy condition. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is 

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

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

In accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness, the PIC of the UAS is 

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

petitioner did not seek relief from § 91.7(b) in its petition, the FAA, as in grant of Exemption 

No. 11062 to Astraeus, has determined that the operating documents include procedures to be 
12

used prior to each flight that can ensure compliance with § 91.7(b). The petitioner is required 

to ensure that its aircraft is in a condition for safe flight – based on compliance with the 

operating documents– prior to every flight. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, 

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

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

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

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

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.103 Preflight Action, although there 

will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph (b)(1), 

the FAA believes the petitioner can comply with the other applicable requirements in 

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

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

including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landings, and takeoff distances and 

aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The FAA has imposed stricter 

requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to both keep the UA 

from departing the VLOS and to preclude the UA from operating in the NAS. The FAA also 

notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes the that PIC’s and VO’s ability to 

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

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

site-specific conditions in their preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds that 

exemption for 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109(a) Flight instruction; 

Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petitioner did not describe training 

scenarios in which a dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight 

instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other company-designated individual, that 

would require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, the petitioner 

intends to accomplish training as referenced in the operating documents. Furthermore, the 

FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s PICs possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. Also, 

this exemption will require that training operations only be conducted during dedicated 

training sessions. The FAA finds that safety will not be adversely impacted if the petitioner 

follows the training outlined in the operating documents. As such, the FAA finds that the 

petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109. 

The petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes, and states that it 

will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed, restrictions the FAA has determined are 

related to § 91.119: 

 The UA will remain below 400 feet above ground level (AGL) at all times;

 The UA will be launched, operated and recovered from the canyon floor below the 

bridge;
13

 The supporting structure to be inspected is all below the roadway, therefore the UA 

will remain below the roadway at all times;

 A NOTAM will be issued 48 hours prior to the operation describing the location and 

times of the operation;

 The PIC and VO will have excellent visibility over the sterile operating area;and 

 Securing approvals prior to launch and recovery from state and local governments, 

VO, and PIC.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, the petitioner did not 

specify the paragraph(s) in 14 CFR § 91.119 from which it requires relief. Relief from 

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

a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the petitioner to be able to perform an 

emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface if a power unit 

fails. Relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not granted 

because the petitioner did not provide sufficient information necessary for the FAA to 

determine whether the operation poses an adverse impact to safety were it to operate over 

congested areas. 

 

The petitioner proposes to conduct all operations below the roadway, thus maintaining 

separation from nonparticipating persons and vehicles located on the bridge surface. With 

regard to nonparticipants, the petitioner did not provide an explanation for exposing those 

persons to increased risk than what is provided for in the rule. Therefore, the FAA is 

requiring that prior to conducting UAS specific operations, all persons not essential to flight 

operations (nonparticipants) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this 

requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. 

the PIC, VO, and other essential personnel as defined in the operating documents). The 

FAA has also considered that the UA in this case will weigh 8.5 pounds or less. If barriers 

or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons, vehicles, 

vessels operating above or below the bridge, from debris in the event of an accident, then the 

UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. At no time shall 

the UA be operated in any way that could create a hazard to these persons, vehicles, and 

vessels. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons, vehicles, and vessels 

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons, vehicles, 

and vessels are no longer protected by any such barriers or structures and are within 500 feet 

of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. When considering how to immediately 

cease operations, the primary concern is the safety of those nonparticipating persons, 

vehicles, and vessels. In addition, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer 

than 500 feet to structures, such as the bridge itself, when the property owner/controller 

grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer 

to those objects. Whenever the UA is operated at altitudes above the bridge roadway level, 

the PIC must comply with all the requirements of § 91.119(c). 

Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because all operations will be 

conducted below 400 feet AGL and may be operated closer than 500 feet from persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures as described above. Provided adherence to the procedures 
14

in the operating documents and the additional conditions and limitations outlined below, the 

FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted. Because of the conditions and 

limitations below, relief from § 91.119(d) is not applicable. 

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

UAS uses a GPS altitude indicator rather than a barometric altimeter. As stated in the 

conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to Air Traffic 

Control (ATC) to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the GPS altitude 

indicator to zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before 

flight. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 

14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions 

and limitations stated below. 

The petitioner requested relief from § 91.151(a), Fuel requirements for flight in VFR 

conditions. Prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the 

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

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

daytime, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The UA batteries provide up to 88 minutes of 

powered flight (with payload) and provide battery level remaining to the PIC. In the event 

that the UAS should run low on power, the PIC will be alerted and can land the UAS 

immediately. The operating documents indicate that flights are limited to 45 minutes or until 

battery power reserve falls to 25% prior to the 45 minute limit. These operational limitations 

provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from § 91.151(a) in accordance with 

the conditions and limitations below. 

Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to 

VLOS and a safe operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving 

device or vehicle. Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, 

the conditions and limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles. 

As stated Section II of the petition, the scope of the petitioner’s proposed operation is the 

conduct of bridge inspections using UAS. Although the petition describes a broader scope of 

potential infrastructure operations, the petitioner did not provide information, descriptions, or 

data in support of these use cases. Therefore the FAAs analysis was limited to use of UAS for 

the inspection of bridges and the conditions and limitations below restrict the UAS operation 

to this purpose only. 

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

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

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

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

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

request a NOTAM, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS 
15

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

for the petitioner to obtain an ATO-issued COA. 

Public Interest 

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety 

achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no 

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

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

enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. 

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding the relief sought by the 

petitioner: 

Relief sought by petitioner (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary 

Part 27 Relief not necessary 

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

45.27(a) Relief not necessary 

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

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary 

91.9(c) Relief not necessary 

91.103 Relief not necessary 

91.109(a) Relief not necessary 

91.119 

Paragraphs (a) and (b) relief are not granted; 

paragraph (c) granted with conditions and 

limitations; paragraph (d) relief is not 

warranted 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations 

91.151(a) 91.151(a)(1), day, granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary 
16

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

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

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

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

The FAA’s Decision 

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

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Asymmetric Technologies, LLC is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121; 91.151(a), 

91.405(a)(1); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary 

to allow Asymmetric Technologies, LLC to operate unmanned aircraft systems for the 

purpose of infrastructure inspections. This exemption is subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

Relative to this grant of exemption, Asymmetric Technologies, LLC is hereafter referred to as 

the operator. 

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

the operating documents: 

1) Asymmetric Technologies Flight Operations Manual, v2.6, 9/30/2014 

2) Microdrones md4-1000 Operators Handbook, Revision 2013-01-21 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft 

described in the operating documents which has four rotors and four motors in a 

quadcopter configuration and weighing less than 8.5 pounds: Microdrones md4-1000, 

manufactured by Microdrones. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a 

new petition or a petition to amend this grant. 

2. UAS operations under this exemption are limited to the inspection of bridge infrastructure. 

3. The UA may not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 27 mph. 
17

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

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes 

reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This 

requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than 

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

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO) and within VLOS of the VO at all 

times. This requires the VO to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other 

than corrective lenses. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as 

the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to 

communicate verbally at all times. Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted 

during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer 

his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can 

perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. 

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

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

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments. 

8. The operating documents and this grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS 

operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists 

between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in 

the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must 

be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its 

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

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

documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and 

revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If 

the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the 

FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to its grant of 

exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions 

arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

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

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

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

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

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

documented in the aircraft records. 

10. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or 

flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a 
18

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

of the flight in the UAS aircraft records. 

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

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

operating documents. 

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

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

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

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

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

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

signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service. 

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

Bulletins. 

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

taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

16. The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third- class 

medical certificate. In accordance with 14 CFR 61.23, a pilot holding a commercial 

certificate must possess at least a second-class medical certificate. The PIC must also 

meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which 

the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. 

17. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of bridge infrastructure inspection, the PIC 

must have completed the operator’s training as prescribed in the operating documents. 

During that training, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent 

with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), the minimum hours prescribe in the operating documents as UAS 

pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the 

exemption. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can be conducted under 

this grant of exemption to qualify the operator’s PIC(s), VO(s) and other essential 

personnel as defined in the operating documents. However, said training operations may 

only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and 

experience-building flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate 

distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

18. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of bridge infrastructure inspection, the PIC 

must have completed the operator’s currency requirements as prescribed in the operating 

documents. The PIC must have completed at least three take-offs and three landings in 

the preceding 90 days as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to be 
19

utilized for operations under the exemption to maintain currency. Take-off and landing 

currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption. When establishing or 

regaining currency, said currency flights may only be conducted during dedicated 

training/currency sessions. During training, proficiency, experience-building flights, and 

dedicated currency flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances 

in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

19. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of bridge infrastructure inspection, the PIC, 

VO, and other essential personnel as defined in the operating documents, must have met 

all qualification, training, and currency requirements, as outlined in the operating 

documents. A record of completion of these requirements must be documented and made 

available to the Administrator upon request. 

20. The operator may not permit the PIC to operate the UAS for the purpose of bridge 

infrastructure inspection unless the PIC has demonstrated and logged in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner 

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive 

and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, 

vehicles, and structures. 

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

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

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

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

on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart. 

23. 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. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

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

landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining. 

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

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

This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not 
20

more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation. All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued 

COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements. 

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

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

large as practicable. 

29. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or 

other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. 

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

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

must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 

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

activities at all times. 

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

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

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

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

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

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

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

nonparticipating persons are no longer under such protection and are within 500 feet 

of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately, and/or; 

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

of such vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission and the PIC has made a 

safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it 

does not present an undue hazard, and; 

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, Sensor Operator, other essential personnel as 

defined in the operating documents, do not present an undue hazard to those persons 

per § 91.119(a). 
21

35. All operations shall be conducted with permission from the state or local government 

agency, organization, or owner, with authority for operating the bridge under inspection. 

Permission from the authority will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

36. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to 

the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported 

to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the 

NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. 

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

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

45, 47, 61, and 91. 

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2015. 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service