ZZZ1HZ)LHOGVFRP7ZR0LGWRZQ3OD]D:HVW3HDFKWUHH6WUHHW6XLWH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7)

July 31, 2015

VIA FEDEX

Ms. Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20591

RE: NewFields Knowledge Management, LLC

Section 333 Exemption Request

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-1030

Dear Ms. Robeson:

I am responding to your July 6, 2015 letter to McCain McMurray of NewFields Knowledge 

Management, LLC (“NewFields”). As you will recall, NewFields seeks an exemption from Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) to operate the senseFly eBee UAS (the “eBee”) over 

industrial and agricultural facilities, as well as over energy infrastructure. NewFields has been 

successfully partnering with New Mexico State University’s Flight Test Center to operate the 

eBee under a research COA since September 2014. In addition, senseFly, the manufacturer of 

the eBee, was itself granted an exemption from 14 CFR by the FAA on April 1, 2015. (See 

Exemption No. 11263.) NewFields now seeks to operate the eBee commercially to the benefit of 

the public and its clients.

I apologize that NewFields’ original request for exemption was incomplete. This letter is 

intended to supplement that request as per the detail in your July 6 letter to Mr. McMurray. I am 

also enclosing herewith a courtesy copy of NewFields’ original request.

Reasons Why Granting The Request Would Be In The Public Interest; That Is, How It 

Would Benefit The Public As A Whole.

Granting NewFields’ request for exemption will be in the public interest and benefit the public as 

a whole for several reasons. First, use of the eBee rather than manned aircraft for collection of 

critical data at industrial and agricultural facilities, as well as over energy infrastructure, will 

greatly reduce air and noise pollution. Currently, such information, which the entities running 

these facilities are required to gather, is collected through manned flight operations, but the 

unmanned eBee can gather this same data using battery power and electric motors. As a result, 

the eBee produces no air pollution as compared to the alternative cabin class, six cylinder 
Ms. Brenda Robeson

July 31, 2015

Page 2

ZZZ1HZ)LHOGVFRP7ZR0LGWRZQ3OD]D:HVW3HDFKWUHH6WUHHW6XLWH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7)

internal combustion twin engine aircraft that are typically utilized for these aerial acquisitions. 

Such aircraft burn approximately 20-30 gallons per hour of leaded aviation fuel. In contrast, the 

eBee does not use leaded aviation fuel and is much quieter than a twin engine aircraft because its 

battery-powered electric motors are barely audible during the take-off phase and cannot be heard

at all when operating more than 100 feet above ground level. 

Second, the public interest will be served and the public will benefit by use of the eBee to 

perform aerial acquisitions because the substantial risk to life and property in the air and on the

ground, which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft flight operations, will be 

substantially reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of aircrew members located 

onboard the aircraft, the eBee (weighing approximately 1.7 pounds at its maximum gross weight, 

37.8 inch wingspan and with no fuel on board), has less physical potential for collateral damage 

to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned aircraft that typically 

conduct aerial acquisitions (weighing approximately 6,500 pounds with a wingspan of 

approximately 40 feet, a length of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons).

Third, in some instances, necessary data acquisition must occur at a low AGL, which makes 

manned flights impossible. As a result, individuals are placed on the ground in locations that can 

cause risk to those individuals’ health and safety. However, whereas manned flights are not 

possible, unmanned flights are and; thus, the risk created by placing individuals on the ground is 

eliminated and the public interest is served.

Fourth, the public interest will be served by use of the eBee because a reduction in the amount of 

manned aircraft needed to perform aerial acquisitions will reduce the amount of manned aircraft 

in the NAS, as well as the number of aircraft around already-busy airports. The eBee does not 

require an airport to takeoff or land. Accordingly, a reduction of manned aircraft conducting 

aerial survey missions would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air traffic control 

during the ground, takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing phases of flight operations. 

Fifth, the public will benefit when the use of leaded fuel is decreased—a current goal of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. As mentioned, the eBee is battery powered and, thus, does 

not use any leaded fuel.

Sixth, and finally, granting this exemption to NewFields will allow it to remain competitive and 

profitable, and therefore provide greater job stability to employees and contractors, which will 

ultimately contribute to growth of the U.S. economy and benefit the public as a whole.

Improved financial performance of companies in the U.S., through commercial use of the eBee,

provides a stable workforce that increases consumer spending; improves local, state, and federal 

tax revenues; and allows companies to invest in research and development in order to remain 

competitive both in the United States and abroad.
Ms. Brenda Robeson

July 31, 2015

Page 3

ZZZ1HZ)LHOGVFRP7ZR0LGWRZQ3OD]D:HVW3HDFKWUHH6WUHHW6XLWH$WODQWD*HRUJLD7)

Additional Information, Views, Or Arguments To Support NewFields’ Request

In addition, NewFields is aware and sensitive to the public’s and the FAA’s privacy concerns 

related to UAS operations. However, like the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that 

have been conducted for decades, the proposed operation of the eBee will not implicate any 

privacy issues. Specifically, the eBee will be operated in accordance with operating limitations 

set forth in its original request, as well as the Federal Aviation Regulations, including the 

minimum altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. Most significantly, the eBee will not be 

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, which is not directly 

involved in the operation unless certain conditions are met.

In conclusion, the public interest will be greatly served by the granting of NewFields’ exemption 

request. Indeed, when the FAA granted the eBee manufacturer its exemption, the FAA stated: 

. . . the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned

aircraft (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.

(April 1, 2015 FAA letter to senseFly Ltd. re: Exemption No. 11263, attached).

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 

bcarlson@newfields.com or 773-908-2530 (mobile).

Sincerely,

Briggitte M. Carlson

General Counsel

Enclosures

r 773-908-2530 
4/8/15

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Filed with www.regulations.gov

Re: Re: Request for Summary Grant of Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform 

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Madam, Sir,

Through a partnership with New Mexico State University’s Flight Test Center, NewFields has 

been successfully operating under a COA since September 2014; conducting surveys of a 

Colorado mine site with the eBee UAS. The research conducted under this COA has yielded 

valuable information regarding the safe operations of the eBee at industrial facilities, which 

NewFields will leverage to ensure a high level of safety during future UAS operations. The 

Summary Grant Exemption under Section 333 requested here would permit NewFields to provide 

valuable services to its clients through UAS operations that, because of their remote locations, 

secure facilities and the operators’ experience with unmanned aviation safety, pose a minimal 

level of risk to others in the air and on the ground.

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

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, NewFields Knowledge Management (“NewFields”), an operator of the

eBee Unmanned Aircraft System (“eBee”) seeks a summary grant of exemption from the Federal

Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below based on exemption No. 11263 previously issued by 

the Federal Aviation Administration on April 1, 2015:

x 14 C.F.R. Part 21 

x 14 C.F.R. 45.23 

x 14 C.F.R. 45.29 

x 14 C.F.R. 61.23 

x 14 C.F.R. 61.3 

x 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b) 

x 14 C.F.R. 61.133(a)

x 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

x 14 C.F.R. 91.9 

x 14 C.F.R. 91.109(a) 

x 14 C.F.R. 91.119 

x 14 C.F.R. 91.121 
x 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) 

x 14 C.F.R. 91.203 

x 14 CFR Subpart E (91.401 - 91.417)

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

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

in the eBee user manual (NewFields requests the FAA treat the eBee training program as

proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and does not include this document in the public docket) in

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

manned aircrafts.

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AIRCRAFT 

The eBee is a small (37.8 inches wingspan) and ultra-light (maximum take-off weight of 1.7 

pounds) platform made of flexible foam that performs pre-programmed precision aerial mapping 

missions thanks to the on-board GPS and the related flight management software (eMotion) that 

allows the operator to plan safely and efficiently a mission in 3D, and then monitor it in real-time. 

Thanks to the embedded camera, protected by a foam envelope, the eBee takes a collection of 

high-definition still images that are used later to generate maps and contour lines of the surveyed 

area. 

The four main characteristics of the eBee are:

a. Very light weight

The eBee is so light that the operator can launch it by hand and let it land on almost any surface 

without requiring a parachute or landing net (belly land). Its low impact energy (38 J in case of a 

controlled emergency landing) also significantly reduces the risk of hazardous situations. Finally, 

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

almost no internal strengthening structure. 

b. Electric-powered

The eBee is electric powered. A brushless engine technology makes it silent and reliable. The 

propeller is attached with a rubber band to the body of the plane so that it can easily flex away in 

case of contact with any object. 

c. Semi-automatic flight

The artificial intelligence incorporated within the eBee autopilot system continuously analyzes 

data from the Inertial Measurement Unit and from the onboard GPS and takes care of all the 

aspects of the flight under the supervision of the operator.

d. Option for Manual control

Additionally, the eBee provides an override capability that allows the operator to take manual 

actions during the flight (Go to Home, Go Land, Hold and Resume the mission) and also suspend 

automated operations and take manual control of the aircraft should it become necessary to 

respond to emergent circumstances, thanks to the remote controller provided with the system.
2. APPLICATIONS

The eBee will be used to perform aerial surveys of industrial facilities, agricultural facilities and

energy infrastructure, including mining operations, smelting operations, Superfund sites, 

pipelines, solar energy plants and electrical utilities. The targeted survey sites are typically located 

in very remote locations with access often strictly controlled through security checkpoints.

The data collected during the survey will be used to create aerial imagery, elevation models and 

vegetation index maps for the survey sites. These datasets will be used to provide high resolution 

and high accuracy data for volumetric measurements; mapping vegetation health; engineering 

and design work; monitoring environmental compliance; facilitating construction management; 

and marketing.

3. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD UNDER SECTION 333

a. Airworthiness assessment of the eBee

NewFields notes that the airworthiness of the eBee has already been demonstrated for different 

projects in the United States, involving state/federal agencies or universities (among others the 

New Mexico State University: https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsu-uas-flighttest-center-conducts-ebee-airworthiness-assessment, and the USACE New Orleans, who 

coordinated with the Department of Army and the FAA to obtain all authorizations required in

order to operate the eBee UAS).

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

authorities) in many countries, including:

x Switzerland (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x Canada (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x Australia (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x France (flight approval for Extended-VLOS operations)

x Germany (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x United Kingdom (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x Norway (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x Sweden (flight approval for VLOS operations)

x Denmark (flight approval for VLOS operations)

b. Operating requirements

In this summary grant of exemption request, NewFields is hereafter referred to as the operator.

A summary grant of exemption to NewFields for the eBee will be subject to the same operating 

conditions issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, without deviation or alteration, in 

exemption No. 11263 on April 1, 2015. The operating restrictions are summarized below:

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the eBee when weighing less 

than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new 

petition or a petition to amend this exemption. 

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

permitted. 
3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance 

with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 7 airspeeds greater than 

the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufacturer. 

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

Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 

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

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

lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license. 

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual 

line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS 

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

able to communicate 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 

duties required of the VO. 

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in 

accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter 

referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS 

operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a 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 or any law 

enforcement official 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 an 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. 

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

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

test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test flights may 

only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The 

functional test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to 

persons and property.

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

condition for safe operation. 

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in 

a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, 

e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects 

the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary 

maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. 
11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. 

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

bulletins. 

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must have completed the FAA Airman Knowledge 

Exam. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s 

license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the 

Federal government.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances 

from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must 

be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the 

operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the 

PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, 

proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are 

considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from 

nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

15. 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.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an 

ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA published aeronautical 

chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise 

permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the airport 

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

request. 

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally 

from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. 

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property. 

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

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

conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to 

operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the 

manufacturer if greater. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder 

may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be 
conducted under the terms of the attached COA. 

22. 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. 

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any 

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

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

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

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities at 

all times. 

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

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

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

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

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

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

nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight 

operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating 

persons; and 

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for 

operating closer to those objects 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. 

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating 

persons under this exemption. 

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

from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property 

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

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

of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov.
3. CONCLUSION

This request is designed to follow up on previous efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration 

to determine equivalent levels of safety for UAS operations. By requesting a summary grant of 

exemption we hope to achieve expedited approval for UAS operations to the public’s benefit.

Yours sincerely,

McCain McMurray

Remote Sensing Specialist

1730 17th St. Suite #925

Denver, CO 80202
ANNEX A: EXEMPTION REQUEST AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY 

SHOWINGS UNDER APPLICABLE RULES SUBJECT TO EXEMPTION 

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

regulations that may technically apply to the operation of the eBee: 

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

Section 91.203 requires all civil aircraft to have a certificate of airworthiness. Part 21, Subpart H, 

entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the issuance of 

airworthiness certificates as required by FAR § 91.203(a). Given the size of the eBee, its very 

light weight (the maximum take-off weight is 1.7 pounds) and the limited operating area 

associated with its utilization, it is unnecessary to go through the certificate of airworthiness 

process under Part 21 Subpart H in order to achieve or exceed current safety levels. 

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

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

both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, 

upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports 

and populated areas of the UAS involved. An analysis of these different criteria demonstrates 

that the eBee operated without an airworthiness certificate, under the conditions proposed in that 

exemption, will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft with an airworthiness 

certificate. A proprietary risk assessment for operations with the eBee, which demonstrates that 

assertion, is also being submitted to the FAA as part of this application. SenseFly requests the 

FAA treat the eBee risk assessment as proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and not include this 

document in the public docket. 

14 C.F.R. § 45.23 & 14 C.F.R. § 45.29: Display of marks; size of marks 

These regulations provide that each aircraft must display "N" and the aircraft's registration 

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

"EXPERIMENTAL" in letters at least 2 inches high near the entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or 

pilot station. Given the size of the eBee (wingspan of 37.8 inches), this requirement is impossible 

to match. The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having the upper part of the eBee 

stick with a copy of the AMA membership of the operator in charge. The AMA agrees to provide 

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

14. CFR §61.23: Medical certificates: Requirement and duration 

Regulations provide that a person: 

(1) Must hold a first-class medical certificate: 

• When exercising the pilot-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate; 

• When exercising the second-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot 

certificate in a flag or supplemental operation in part 121 of this chapter that requires 

three or more pilots; or 

• When serving as a required pilot flight crewmember in an operation conducted under 
part 121 of this chapter if the pilot has reached his or her 60th birthday. (2) Must hold at 

least a second class medical certificate when exercising:

• Second-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate in part 121 of this 

chapter (other than operations specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section); or 

• Privileges of a commercial pilot certificate 

Given the size of the eBee, its structure, the limited flight area, and the safety features integrated 

in the autopilot (among others the Flight Termination System), SenseFly believes that an 

Equivalent Level of Safety can be reached if the operator has a valid driver’s license.

14 C.F.R. § 61.3: Requirements for certificates, ratings and authorizations 14 C.F.R. § 

61.113(a) & (b); 61.133(a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; Pilot in Command; 

Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations 

The regulation provides that no person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil 

aircraft of the United States, unless that person: 

(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that 

person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of 

that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign 

country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used. The regulation provides also that no 

person that holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft for 

compensation or hire. Subparagraph (b) allows a private pilot to act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

Given the safety features of the eBee and the fact that the missions are pre-programmed and 

monitored in real-time with a specific flight management software (eMotion), SenseFly proposes 

that operators of the eBee should not be required to hold a commercial or private pilot 

certification. Instead, operators should be required to: 

• Have completed an AMA affiliated small unmanned aircraft systems education and 

training program and achieved an AMA UAS endorsement, or have successfully 

completed a small UAS education and training program provided by any FAA qualified 

entity, and; 

• Have passed SenseFly’s training program for operation of the UAS. The manufacturer’s 

training program for operators has been already satisfactorily reviewed through the 

Application for Airworthiness Qualification Level (AQL) 3 Airworthiness Release 

(AWR). 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having an operator trained by the AMA (or 

any FAA qualified entity) and SenseFly, and using the integrated features of the aircraft to 

maintain a high level of safety during the different missions.

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil aircraft airworthiness 
This regulation requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy 

condition. Should the exemption be granted allowing commercial operation of the eBee without 

an airworthiness certificate, no standard will exist for airworthiness of the eBee. Given the size 

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

• New Mexico State University: https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsuuasflight-test-center-conducts-ebee-airworthiness-assessment

• USACE New Orleans, who coordinated with the Department of Army and the FAA to 

obtain all authorizations required in order to operate the eBee UAS for levee system 

monitoring, documentation of construction progress, and extensive oblique photography 

of USACE structures & activities. 

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by insuring compliance with the eBee user manual 

prior to each flight. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9: Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements 

This regulation provides that no person may operate an aircraft unless a current, approved flight 

manual is in the aircraft. SenseFly assumes that the intent of this requirement is to ensure that 

flight manual information is available to the aircrew while operating the aircraft. SenseFly 

requests an exemption to this requirement since the aircraft is not only too small to carry 

documentation, but the documentation would not be available to the crew. 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping a hard copy of the eBee user manual 

in the eBee transport box. 

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

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

instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." 

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

simulation mode of the flight management software eMotion. The equivalent level of safety 

during the in-flight training will be achieved by the manufacturer or affiliate providing the 

training as described in the eBee training program and through the use of experienced and 

qualified instructors familiar with the eBee and also members of the AMA. 

14 CFR § 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes 

The regulation provides that over sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer 

than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Since the eBee will be operating at a 

maximum of 400 feet AGL, SenseFly cannot comply with this requirement. 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved because the eBee will only fly over private 

property with the permission of the landowner. The operator will define before every flight a 

working area radius and a flight area ceiling, preventing the eBee to go beyond the flight area. 

The landowner and the persons who may be on the ground in the flight area will be briefed of the 

expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. Due to 

the small size of the eBee, the material with which the eBee is built and its specific safety 

procedures (among others ground detection), the hazard to persons, vessels, vehicles, and 
structures is not comparable to manned aircraft and should be considered in granting the 

exemption. Moreover, the aircraft will not be operated over congested areas or over any open-air 

assembly of persons.

14 CFR 91.121: Altimeter settings 

This section requires that each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or 

flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when 

operating below 18,000 feet MSL to: 

• The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 

nautical miles of the aircraft; 

• If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the 

current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station;

• In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport 

or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure. 

To provide an equivalent level of safety, the eBee autopilot calculates the reference altitude 

(ground level) with the on-board GPS during the pre-flight tests. The GPS and barometer data 

are then used to calculate the altitude in-flight. 

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

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

conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and to fly after 

that for at least 30 minutes. As the eBee is electric-powered, this requirement is inapplicable. 

In any event, given the area of operation for the eBee, SenseFly believes that an equivalent level 

of safety is already achieved with the specific procedure preventing the eBee to accept a take-off 

order is the battery level is below a given value. Moreover, SenseFly has integrated “low” and 

“critical” battery level warnings and implemented a “return to Home” (and “Go Land”) actions 

in these situations. 

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

This regulation provides as follows: 

• No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has an appropriate and current 

airworthiness certificate.

• No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by 

paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under §91.715 is 

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

To obtain an equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of 91.203, SenseFly proposes that 

documents deemed appropriate for this aircraft by the FAA will be co-located with the operator 

at the ground control station in the eBee transport box and available for inspection upon request. 

In order to identify the aircraft, SenseFly proposes that a copy of the AMA membership of the 

operator will be permanently affixed to the eBee on the upper side of the body. 
14 CFR Subpart E (91.401 - 91.417): Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and 

Alterations 

The regulation provides that the operator is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in 

an airworthy condition, including compliance with Parts 39 and 43. Paragraphs 91.407 and 

91.409 require the aircraft to be "approved for return to service by a person authorized under 

43.7" after maintenance and inspection. Section 91.409 requires an annual inspection for the 

issuance of an airworthiness certificate. Section 91.417 requires the owner or operator to keep 

records showing certain maintenance work that has been accomplished by certificated 

mechanics, under Part 43, or licensed pilots and records of approval of the aircraft for return to 

service. 

SenseFly proposes that the maintenance of the eBee will be accomplished by the owner or the 

operator according to the eBee user manual. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved 

because the eBee is small in size, it is not a complex mechanical device and does carry any 

external payload. Moreover, the operator is the person most familiar with the aircraft and is best 

suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and to ensure an equivalent level of 

safety. Finally, before every flight, the eBee automatically runs a sequence of pre-flight tests to 

make sure that every sensor and every critical part is operating properly. If a problem is detected, 

the eBee will not be able to be switched-on and a message error is displayed on the main screen 

of eMotion. The owner or the operator can then refer to the eBee user manual to troubleshoot this 

issue. Several parts of the eBee are easily interchangeable (propellers, wings), which allows the 

operator to make sure the wings and propulsion system are always airworthy when a mission is 

initiated.
ANNEX B: ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

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

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-D.pdf

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

April 1, 2015 

 Exemption No. 11263 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAAí2014í0727 

Mr. Jean-Christophe Zufferey 

CEO 

SenseFly Ltd. 

Route de Genève 38 

(Z.I. Châtelard Sud) 

1033 Cheseaux-Lausanne 

Switzerland 

Dear Mr. Zufferey: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 18, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of SenseFly Ltd. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an exemption. The 

exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to 

conduct mapping and precision agriculture. 

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 7, 2014, 

(79 FR 60573). Five comments were received. Four commenters, including the Association 

for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and the Small UAV Coalition 
2 

(Coalition), supported petition. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) 

opposed it. 

Individual commenters noted the petition’s benefits to the agricultural market. 

AUVSI cited the petitioner’s experience in integrating remote controlled aircraft into the 

National Airspace System (NAS). AUVSI noted the various safety features of the proposed 

sUAS, and noted UAS have logged more than two million flight hours in Japan, Australia, 

and South Korea without injuries. 

In support of the petition, the 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 

Public Law 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 petitioner’s UAS pose 

considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. 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 location, altitude of its UAS, training regimen, proven 

operating experience, and approvals obtained from the national aviation authorities of nine 

countries. The Coalition maintained that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven 

factors in Section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety 

and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the FAA must 

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

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

an airman certificate. The Coalition further stated that if an airman certificate is required then, 

at a minimum the, FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing 

requirements in part 61 in favor of requirements pertinent to the aircraft and operation 

proposed. The Coalition also asserted that in section 333 Congress intended for the FAA to 

consider national security with respect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through 

pilot certification. 

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; ...” 
3 

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

(Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333, nor the FAA’s exemption authority2 allows the 

FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as 

prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. 

The Coalition commented that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small 

UAS operations. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may 

allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command 

(PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) within VLOS 

of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. 

The FAA notes that one of the determinations for operations under section 333 is operation 

within visual line of sight. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA 

finds that a VO complements the PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including 

when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an 

additional level of operational safety. 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA noted that while the 

proposed operations will avoid congested or populated areas and operate under VLOS in 

Visual Metrological Conditions (VMC), the petitioner did not provide detailed procedures for 

controlling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA stated, “there must be means 

both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the Class G airspace under 400’AGL and to 

ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” 

The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or 

below 400 feet above ground level (AGL)) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the 

operations will not adversely affect safety. 

ALPA noted that the petitioner does not state how the pilot and the observer will be able to 

communicate with each other. ALPA stated that text messaging, could have an unknown 

latency and extend to several minutes. ALPA further stated that voice communication with 

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

observation of both the aircraft and the area. The conditions and limitations regarding PIC 

and VO communications address those concerns. 

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and 

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/ARí09/55, “Flammability Assessment of 

Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage 

(January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for 

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine 

how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given the size of 

2

 49 USC § 44701(f) 
4 

the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a 

lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations. 

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common 

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption 

to mitigate the risk associated with such failures. 

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” and 

therefore contends the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with 

an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific 

and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

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

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

and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot 

certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the 

NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground. 

ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in 

§ 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be 

operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO. 

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

14 CFR § 91.121. ALPA stated that processes or mitigations must be in place to ensure the 

UA can accurately maintain altitude including engineering processes, software development 

and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and 

design assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the National Airspace System (NAS). 

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only 

source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and 

requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in 

detail below. 

ALPA opposed the petitioner’s request for exemption from the minimum safe altitude 

requirements of § 91.119, stating all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level 

of safety, which includes maintaining a safe altitude. 

ALPA also expressed concern that the petition makes no reference to compliance with, or a 

request for waiver from, 14 CFR 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and qualifications, 

which defines the requirements for flight instructors. A certificated flight instructor is 

authorized to provide the instruction required for the certificates or ratings or currency listed 

in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to operate the UAS under the petitioner’s 
5 

training program would not need to be a certificated flight instructor because the instruction is 

not being provided for a certificate or rating listed in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS 

operations proposed by the petitioner require such flight instruction because § 61.31(l) allows 

for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category 

and class rating. Instruction provided toward obtaining the pilot certificate required by this 

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

ALPA opposed the petitioners request to avoid providing aircraft documentation (critical for 

aircraft maintenance tracking, AD issuance, related performance information) of its small 

UAS. The FAA has previously determined in Grant of Exemption 11062, Astraeus Aerial, 

that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location 

accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations. 

ALPA opposed the petitioner’s request for an exemption from the aircraft maintenance and 

record keeping requirements. ALPA asserted that the petitioner’s small UAS “should comply 

to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.” The FAA has 

inserted conditions regarding this issue. 

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation 

or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated that this results in a 

considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPA’s concern and in 

order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires that each operator secure a 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) which covers specific details of the petitioner’s 

operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand 

and will review and adjust accordingly. 

Airworthiness Certification 

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is an eBee Unmanned Aircraft System. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112í95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 

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

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 

14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is 

not necessary. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAAí2014í0352), 
6 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAAí2014í0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAAí2014í0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAAí2014í0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (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. 

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

x They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213; 

x The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

x A grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our 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, SenseFly Ltd. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 

61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the 

extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. 

This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

In this grant of exemption, SenseFly Ltd. is hereafter referred to as the operator. 

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 eBee when 

weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other 

aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption. 

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

not permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 
7 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer. 

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

(AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 

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

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

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

U.S. driver’s license. 

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used 

to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS 

capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate 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 duties 

required of the VO. 

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. If a 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 or any law enforcement official 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 an 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. 

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

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

a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property. 
8 

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation. 

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the 

UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 

potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the 

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is 

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

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

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft 

components. 

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

bulletins. 

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 

CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. 

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

15. 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. 
9 

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet 

horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. 

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property. 

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

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

weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the 

intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The 

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct 

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA. 

22. 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. 

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the 

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

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

official upon request. 

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

activities at all times. 

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

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 
10 

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

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

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

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and 

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects 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. 

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption. 

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

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

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

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

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

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

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

If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and 

television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply. 

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

as documented in this grant of exemption. 

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following: 

a. Dates and times for all flights; 

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption; 

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS; 

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

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming; 
11 

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

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request; 

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and 

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation. 

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM. 

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

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

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91. 

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

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 1 

September 18th, 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Filed with www.regulations.gov 

Re: Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations 

Dear Madam, Sir, 

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

14 C.F.R. Part 11, SenseFly Ltd. (“SenseFly”), the manufacturer of the eBee Unmanned Aircraft 

System (“eBee”), on behalf of itself and future commercial operators of its eBee, seeks an 

exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below: 

• 14 C.F.R. Part 21 

• 14 C.F.R. 45.23 

• 14 C.F.R. 45.29 

• 14 C.F.R. 61.23 

• 14 C.F.R. 61.3 

• 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b) 

• 14 C.F.R. 61.133(a) 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.9 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.109(a) 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.119 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.121 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) 

• 14 C.F.R. 91.203 

• 14 CFR Subpart E (91.401 - 91.417) 

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

precision agriculture applications. These operations will be subject to strict operating requirements 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 2 

and conditions defined by the Safety Program of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (“AMA”) (see 

Annex B), in order to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety to currently authorized operations 

using manned aircrafts. 

Given the technical specifications of the eBee (especially its very light weight), SenseFly and the 

AMA think it is relevant to use the AMA rules to meet the required level of safety of operations with 

the eBee. Indeed, the AMA has a proven track record in supervising operations conducted by 

operators using Remote Control Aircrafts and provides the most relevant expertise in terms of 

providing safety guidelines for operators using ultra-light remote control aircrafts. Hobbyists and 

modelers have been safely operating unmanned aircrafts (model aircrafts) for years in compliance 

with AMA standards. 

By this petition, SenseFly seeks an exemption that will also authorize a commercial operator to use 

the eBee for commercial purposes provided the operator complies with any terms and conditions of 

SenseFly’s exemption, including the procedures and requirements set forth in the eBee user 

manual and the AMA Safety Program, once the operator commits to do so in a letter filed with the 

FAA in this docket and available in Annex C; SenseFly requests the FAA treat the eBee user 

manual as proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and not include this document in the public docket. 

Similar to the practice of other agencies, which allow non-parties to a special permit or exemption 

to obtain the same special permit or exemption authority by submitting a letter to the agency 

committing itself to comply with the terms and conditions of such permit or exemption, SenseFly 

requests the FAA agree to grant such authority to operators upon receipt of a written commitment 

filed in this docket to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption granted to SenseFly. 

Under this exemption, the operator would agree, if requested, to contact the FAA in order to 

provide the FAA with the details of the related missions and provide assurance that training and 

maintenance requirements are met. 

In the alternative, SenseFly requests the FAA to agree to process expeditiously and in an 

abbreviated manner petitions for an exemption filed under section 333 by an operator that intends 

to operate the eBee and commits to comply with the terms and conditions contained in the grant of 

exemption as well as in SenseFly and AMA requirements and procedures. Such petitions would not 

be subject to the summary publication requirement or opportunity for comment, unless the 

petitioner seeks additional or different exemption relief. 

Under the requested exemption, SenseFly and other operators of the eBee will ensure that the 

aircraft will be operated by an individual who meets all of the following requirements: 

• Is a registered member of the AMA; 

• Has passed SenseFly’s training program for the eBee; SenseFly requests the FAA treat the 

eBee training program as proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and not include this 

document in the public docket. 

• Has completed an AMA-affiliated small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) education and 

training program and has achieved an AMA UAS endorsement, or has successfully 

completed a small UAS education and training program provided by any FAA qualified 

entity. 

1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AIRCRAFT 

The eBee is a small (38 inches wingspan) and ultra-light (maximum take-off weight of 1.7 pounds) 

platform made of flexible foam that performs precision aerial mapping missions thanks to the onboard GPS and the related flight management software (eMotion) that allows the operator to plan 

safely and efficiently a mission in 3D, and then monitor it in real-time. Thanks to the embedded 

camera, protected by a foam envelope, the eBee takes a collection of high-definition still images 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 3 

that are used later to generate maps and contour lines of the surveyed area. 

The four main characteristics of the eBee are: 

a. Very light weight 

The eBee is so light that the operator can launch it by hand and let it land on almost any surface 

without requiring a parachute or landing net (belly land). Its low kinetic energy (60 Joules (“J”) at 

cruise speed) also significantly reduces the risk of hazardous situations. Finally, the wings of the 

eBee are detachable and made of flexible foam with no sharp or hard edges and almost no internal 

strengthening structure. 

b. Electric-powered 

The eBee is electric-powered. A brushless engine technology makes it silent and reliable. The 

propeller is attached with two rubber bands to the body of the plane so that it can easily flex away 

in case of contact with any object. 

c. Semi-automatic flight 

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

from the Inertial Measurement Unit and from the onboard GPS and takes care of all the aspects of 

the flight under the supervision of the operator. 

d. Option for Manual control 

Additionally, the eBee provides an override capability that allows the operator to take manual 

actions during the flight (Go to Home, Go Land, Hold and Resume the mission) and also suspend 

automated operations and take manual control of the aircraft should it become necessary to 

respond emergent circumstances, thanks to the remote controller provided with the system. 

2. APPLICATIONS AND ADDED VALUE OF THE EBEE 

Mapping applications with the eBee may include agricultural applications, mining, construction and 

survey/GIS operations. The reason why the eBee solution has been very successful worldwide 

(thousands of operations in more than 50 countries) is that there are many operational benefits 

related to the use of this solution: 

a. First, the eBee brings safety to daily survey operations: there is no need for the humans to 

access dangerous working areas anymore (mines, quarries, or polluted sites). The missions can be 

programmed and reproduced reliably as often as needed for regularly updated maps. 

b. Second, the eBee is a cost-effective solution. It is cheaper to operate a UAS rather than an 

aircraft or other ground systems for the same results. Moreover, small UAS like the eBee can help 

Ag businesses and farmers face the growing needs of the population while reducing operational 

costs. The eBee also enables the ability to take up new challenges - like water or environmental 

management through analysis of vegetation index maps. 

c. Third, users can save time and work more efficiently by using the eBee. A mission does not need 

a long preparation time or long deployment constraints, or long waiting time for perfect weather 

conditions unlike, for example, the use of satellites. Initial results are accessible directly on-site, 

which is impossible with images provided by satellites or manned aircrafts. 

d. The eBee has social benefits too: it is eco-friendly (electric-powered), and its affordability allows 

many high-valued applications like data gathering for sustainability projects (agribusiness, 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 4 

reforestation) or post-disaster management missions. 

3. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD UNDER SECTION 333

a. Airworthiness assessment of the eBee 

SenseFly notes that the airworthiness of the eBee has already been demonstrated for different 

projects in the United States, involving state/federal agencies or universities (among others the 

New Mexico State University: https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsu-uas-flighttest-center-conducts-ebee-airworthiness-assessment, and the US Army Corps of Engineers 

(“USACE”) New Orleans, who coordinated with the Department of Army and the FAA to obtain all 

authorizations required in order to operate the eBee UAS). 

Moreover, SenseFly has obtained flight approvals for the eBee from the national civil aviation 

authority in many countries, including: 

• Switzerland (flight approval for Visual Line of Sight “VLOS” operations) 

• Canada (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• Australia (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• France (flight approval for Extended-VLOS operations) 

• Germany (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• United Kingdom (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• Norway (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• Sweden (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

• Denmark (flight approval for VLOS operations) 

b. Operating Conditions 

Grant of the exemption to SenseFly for the eBee, and for the benefit of operators of the eBee, will 

be subject to the following operating conditions, based on the operating conditions set forth by the 

AMA (see Annex B), and the factors the FAA is to consider under section 333. The main 

restrictions are summarized below: 

• Operations to be conducted over private, controlled-access, or public property where 

approved; 

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

• Operations over congested areas shall be avoided; 

• Operations must not interfere with manned aircraft operations, must yield the right of way to 

manned aircraft, and operators must See & Avoid other aircraft and obstacles at all times; 

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

hours; 

• Aircraft operations must remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and will be visually 

monitored at all times; 

• VLOS guaranteed with a GPS geo-fence around operator of 0.5 miles; 

• Flight ceiling pre-programed at 400 feet AGL; 

• All operations conducted within 5 miles from an airport shall only be initiated after verbal 

coordination with the airport authority, or air traffic control when a control tower is present at 

the airport; 

• All operations shall comply with required permissions and permits established by territorial, 

state, county or city jurisdictions; including local law enforcement, fire, or other appropriate 

governmental agencies; 

• The eBee operations will be compliant with existing safety procedures inherent to the 

activities of the related company. 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 5 

c. Operating Requirements 

The eBee is an ultra-light UAV platform made of flexible foam with no sharp or hard edge 

characterized by a high level of pre-programmed control and various built-in technical capabilities 

(programming of a geo-fence, automatic wind detection) that prevent the operator doing a mission 

outside of the operating limits. All flights are pre-programmed with GPS guidance and do not 

require human intervention; nevertheless human override is possible by clicking on one of the 

multiple “action” buttons or by using the remote controller provided with each eBee system. In the 

case of unplanned events, either the autopilot reacts immediately or the operator can choose 

between different pre-programmed or manual actions. Those procedures include a Flight 

Termination System (emergency landing procedure, triggered by the autopilot or the operator in 

charge: given its very light weight, the eBee will initiate a gliding approach to the ground at very low 

speed around the current location). Moreover, the kinetic energy of the aircraft is 60 J in-flight at 

cruise speed. In comparison, the kinetic energy of a football is about 110 J when thrown by hand. 

Given those safety features, recognized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the national 

aviation authority of several countries, SenseFly requests an exemption from the airworthiness 

certification requirements in Part 21 and the concomitant requirements in 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a)) and 

91.203 to operate an airworthy aircraft. 

SenseFly also proposes that operators of the eBee should not be required to hold a commercial or 

private pilot certification, and hereby requests an exemption from the pilot certification requirements 

in the Federal Aviation Act and Part 61. Pilot certification requirements for manned aircraft are 

neither necessary nor appropriate in many respects for operators of small, ultra lightweight UAVs. 

There are undoubtedly ATP-certificated pilots who nonetheless would need training to operate a 

UAV safely; conversely, the UAV training regimen includes instruction for non-certificated 

operators in those aspects of safe operation in the National Airspace System (“NAS”) that are 

relevant to the UAV and the UAS operation. The FAA has authority under both section 333 and its 

general waiver and exemption authority in 49 U.S.C. 44701(f) to waive the statutory pilot 

certification requirement upon a showing that the required UAS training achieves an equivalent 

level of safety. 

To achieve as well as exceed an equivalent level of safety, operators will be required to: 

• Have completed an AMA affiliated small UAS education and training program and achieved 

an AMA UAS endorsement, or have successfully completed a small UAS education and 

training program provided by any FAA qualified entity, and; 

• Have passed SenseFly’s training program for operation of the UAS. The manufacturer’s 

training program for operators has been already satisfactorily reviewed through the 

Application for Airworthiness Qualification Level (AQL) 3 Airworthiness Release (AWR). 

SenseFly also seeks an exemption from certain requirements in Parts 45 and 91 that are 

impractical as well as unnecessary for UAS operations. Please see Annex A for a detailed 

explanation of each regulation from which an exemption is sought and the equivalent level of safety 

showing. 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 6 

4. CONCLUSION 

SenseFly, in association with the Academy of Model Aeronautics who has a deep and well-known 

experience in terms of safe integration of remote controlled aircrafts in the National airspace for 

low-altitude operations, provides here adequate justification for the granting of the requested 

exemption allowing safe commercial operations of the eBee in the NAS. 

SenseFly offers in this petition a pragmatic approach to allow the efficient operation of ultra-light 

UAVs pursuant to FAA, AMA, and SenseFly safety requirements and conditions. 

Yours sincerely,

Jean-Christophe Zufferey, SenseFly CEO 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 1 

ANNEX A: EXEMPTION REQUEST AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY SHOWINGS 

UNDER APPLICABLE RULES SUBJECT TO EXEMPTION

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

regulations that may technically apply to the operation of the eBee: 

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates 

14 CFR § 91.203 

Section 91.203 requires all civil aircraft to have a certificate of airworthiness. Part 21, Subpart H, 

entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the issuance of 

airworthiness certificates as required by FAR § 91.203(a). Given the size of the eBee, its very light 

weight (the maximum take-off weight is 1.7 pounds) and the limited operating area associated with 

its utilization, it is unnecessary to go through the certificate of airworthiness process under Part 21 

Subpart H in order to achieve or exceed current safety levels. 

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

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

authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and 

populated areas of the UAS involved. An analysis of these different criteria demonstrates that the 

eBee operated without an airworthiness certificate, under the conditions proposed in that 

exemption, will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft with an airworthiness 

certificate. A proprietary risk assessment for operations with the eBee, which demonstrates that 

assertion, is also being submitted to the FAA as part of this application. SenseFly requests the FAA 

treat the eBee risk assessment as proprietary under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b) and not include this 

document in the public docket. 

14 C.F.R. § 45.23 & 14 C.F.R. § 45.29: Display of marks; size of marks 

These regulations provide that each aircraft must display "N" and the aircraft's registration number 

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

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

Given the size of the eBee (wingspan of 37.8 inches), this requirement is impossible to match. 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having the upper part of the eBee stick with a 

copy of the AMA membership of the operator in charge. The AMA agrees to provide 2 original 

copies of the AMA license to every eBee operator. 

14. CFR §61.23: Medical certificates: Requirement and duration 

Regulations provide that a person: 

(1) Must hold a first-class medical certificate: 

• When exercising the pilot-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate; 

• When exercising the second-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate in 

a flag or supplemental operation in part 121 of this chapter that requires three or more 

pilots; or 

• When serving as a required pilot flight crewmember in an operation conducted under part 

121 of this chapter if the pilot has reached his or her 60th birthday. 

(2) Must hold at least a second class medical certificate when exercising: 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 2 

• Second-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate in part 121 of this 

chapter (other than operations specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section); or 

• Privileges of a commercial pilot certificate 

Given the size of the eBee, its structure, the limited flight area, and the safety features integrated in 

the autopilot (among others the Flight Termination System), SenseFly believes that an Equivalent 

Level of Safety can be reached if the operator has a valid driver’s license. 

14 C.F.R. § 61.3: Requirements for certificates, ratings and authorizations 

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) & (b); 61.133(a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; Pilot in 

Command; Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations

The regulation provides that no person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil 

aircraft of the United States, unless that person: 

(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that 

person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of 

that pilot certificate or authorization. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign 

country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used. 

The regulation provides also that no person that holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft for compensation or hire. Subparagraph (b) allows a private pilot to act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

Given the safety features of the eBee and the fact that the missions are pre-programmed and 

monitored in real-time with a specific flight management software (eMotion), SenseFly proposes 

that operators of the eBee should not be required to hold a commercial or private pilot certification. 

Instead, operators should be required to: 

• Have completed an AMA affiliated small unmanned aircraft systems education and training 

program and achieved an AMA UAS endorsement, or have successfully completed a small 

UAS education and training program provided by any FAA qualified entity, and; 

• Have passed SenseFly’s training program for operation of the UAS. The manufacturer’s 

training program for operators has been already satisfactorily reviewed through the 

Application for Airworthiness Qualification Level (AQL) 3 Airworthiness Release (AWR). 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having an operator trained by the AMA (or any 

FAA qualified entity) and SenseFly, and using the integrated features of the aircraft to maintain a 

high level of safety during the different missions. 

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

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

condition. Should the exemption be granted allowing commercial operation of the eBee without an 

airworthiness certificate, no standard will exist for airworthiness of the eBee. Given the size of the 

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

• New Mexico State University: https://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/10208/nmsu-uasflight-test-center-conducts-ebee-airworthiness-assessment

• USACE New Orleans, who coordinated with the Department of Army and the FAA to obtain 

all authorizations required in order to operate the eBee UAS for levee system monitoring, 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 3 

documentation of construction progress, and extensive oblique photography of USACE 

structures & activities. 

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by insuring compliance with the eBee user manual 

prior to each flight. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9: Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements

This regulation provides that no person may operate an aircraft unless a current, approved flight 

manual is in the aircraft. SenseFly assumes that the intent of this requirement is to ensure that 

flight manual information is available to the aircrew while operating the aircraft. SenseFly requests 

an exemption to this requirement since the aircraft is not only too small to carry documentation, but 

the documentation would not be available to the crew. 

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping a hard copy of the eBee user manual in 

the eBee transport box. 

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

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

instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." 

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

simulation mode of the flight management software eMotion. The equivalent level of safety during 

the in-flight training will be achieved by the manufacturer or affiliate providing the training as 

described in the eBee training program and through the use of experienced and qualified 

instructors familiar with the eBee and also members of the AMA. 

14 CFR § 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

The regulation provides that over sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer 

than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Since the eBee will be operating at a 

maximum of 400 feet AGL, SenseFly cannot comply with this requirement. 

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

with the permission of the landowner. The operator will define before every flight a working area 

radius and a flight area ceiling, preventing the eBee to go beyond the flight area. The landowner 

and the persons who may be on the ground in the flight area will be briefed of the expected route of 

flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. Due to the small size of the 

eBee, the material with which the eBee is built and its specific safety procedures (among others 

ground detection), the hazard to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to 

manned aircraft and should be considered in granting the exemption. Moreover, the aircraft will not 

be operated over congested areas or over any open-air assembly of persons. 

14 CFR 91.121: Altimeter settings 

This section requires that each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or 

flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when 

operating below 18,000 feet MSL to: 

• The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical 

miles of the aircraft; 

• If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the 

current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 4 

• In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or 

an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure. 

To provide an equivalent level of safety, the eBee autopilot calculates the reference altitude 

(ground level) with the on-board GPS during the pre-flight tests. The GPS and barometer data are 

then used to calculate the altitude in-flight. 

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

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

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

30 minutes. As the eBee is electric-powered, this requirement is inapplicable. 

In any event, given the area of operation for the eBee, SenseFly believes that an equivalent level of 

safety is already achieved with the specific procedure preventing the eBee to accept a take-off 

order is the battery level is below a given value. Moreover, SenseFly has integrated “low” and 

“critical” battery level warnings and implemented a “return to Home” (and “Go Land”) actions in 

these situations. 

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

This regulation provides as follows: 

• No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has an appropriate and current airworthiness 

certificate. 

• No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by 

paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under §91.715 is 

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

To obtain an equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of 91.203, SenseFly proposes that 

documents deemed appropriate for this aircraft by the FAA will be co-located with the operator at 

the ground control station in the eBee transport box and available for inspection upon request. In 

order to identify the aircraft, SenseFly proposes that a copy of the AMA membership of the operator 

will be permanently affixed to the eBee on the upper side of the body. 

14 CFR Subpart E (91.401 - 91.417): Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations

The regulation provides that the operator is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an 

airworthy condition, including compliance with Parts 39 and 43. Paragraphs 91.407 and 91.409 

require the aircraft to be "approved for return to service by a person authorized under 43.7" after 

maintenance and inspection. Section 91.409 requires an annual inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate. Section 91.417 requires the owner or operator to keep records showing 

certain maintenance work that has been accomplished by certificated mechanics, under Part 43, or 

licensed pilots and records of approval of the aircraft for return to service. 

SenseFly proposes that the maintenance of the eBee will be accomplished by the owner or the 

operator according to the eBee user manual. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because 

the eBee is small in size, it is not a complex mechanical device and does carry any external 

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

maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and to ensure an equivalent level of safety. Finally, 

before every flight, the eBee automatically runs a sequence of pre-flight tests to make sure that 

every sensor and every critical part is operating properly. If a problem is detected, the eBee will not 

be able to be switched-on and a message error is displayed on the main screen of eMotion. The 

owner or the operator can then refer to the eBee user manual to troubleshoot this issue. Several 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 5 

parts of the eBee are easily interchangeable (propellers, wings), which allows the operator to make 

sure the wings and propulsion system are always airworthy when a mission is initiated. 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 1 

ANNEX B: ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

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

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-D.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/560.pdf
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 1 

ANNEX C: PROPOSITION OF DOCUMENT TO BE FILLED OUT BY EVERY OPERATOR 

Section 1: Organization Contact Details 

• Organization: 

• Organization Address: 

• Organization Phone Number: 

• Website of the Company: 

• Organization Contact Full Name: 

• Contact Phone number: 

• Contact email address: 

Section 2: Operator(s) Contact Details 

• Operator First Name: 

• Operator Middle Name (optional): 

• Operator Last Name: 

• Primary Phone Number: 

• Email address: 

• Secondary Phone Number: 

• AMA Membership Number: 

Note: Add the above-requested information for each operator. 

Section 3: Operator’s Certifications 

1.a. The operator(s) has (have) successfully accomplished AMA’s training regimen and received an 

AMA endorsement (please provide a copy of the certificate(s)); or has (have) successfully 

accomplished a training program performed by a FAA qualified entity: 

Yes:  / No: 

1.b. The operator(s) has (have) successfully accomplished SenseFly specific training program for 

the related UAV (please provide a copy of the certificate(s)): 

Yes:  / No: 

2. The operator(s) has (have) reviewed the operating requirements described in the Petition for 

Exemption filled out by SenseFly and agrees to comply with those operating requirements: 
 SenseFly’s Petition for Exemption Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations - Page 2 

Yes:  / No: 

Section 4: Description of Operations 

• Enter the number of UAVs you are registering: 

• Enter the serial numbers, if possible, for the UAVs you are registering: 

• Briefly describe the purpose of your proposed operation(s): 

• Describe the times of day in which you plan to operate: 

• Enter how many observers will be present for each UAV type of operation: 

Section 5: Description of Additional Operating Procedures 

• Describe how you will maintain communication with operators on the ground: 

• Describe the additional safety procedures you propose to use: 

• Describe any other factors you deem important: 

Date: 

Full name: 

Signature: