AFS

- 14

- 431

- E March 13 , 2015

Exemption No. 1120 9

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 14

- 0629

Mr. William Donberg

President

Aetos Group, Inc.

2065 5 Mile Road

Traverse City, MI 49686

Dear Mr. Donberg :

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 s dated August 19 and October 15, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Aetos Group, Inc. (Aetos) for an e xemption from Part 21;

and §§ 45.23(b)

, 47.3(b)(2), 47.31(c), 91.7 (a)

, 91.9 (b) (2), 91.119, 9 1.121, 91.151(a),

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow

operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpos e of aerial inspection of plant

infrastructure, to include flare stacks, elevated pipelines, tanks and columns, and

environmental monitoring in the petrochemical industry.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Fede ral Register on September 10, 2014 (79

FR 53824). Eight comments were received

. Seven commenters, including the Association

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

,2

the Materials Technology Institute (MTI), Congressman Dan Benishek, M.D., Congressman

Dave Camp, and Senator Carl Levin, support ed the petition . T he Air Line Pilots Association,

International (ALPA) opposed it

.

I n supp o r t of the p e tition, the C o a lition st a t e d the p e tition e r h a s p r opos e d to a bid e b y st r o n g e r

s a fe t y m e a su re s th a n hob b y a nd mod e l e r g r oups op e r a ting simil a r a i r c raf t. The C o a lition

st a t e d th a t it do e s not b e li e ve th a t h e i g ht e n e d s a f e t y m ea su r e s should be re qui re d f or the

p e tition e r simp l y b eca use o f the c omm e rc i a l n a tu r e of its op e ra tions. The C o a lition u r g e d the

F AA to a dopt a n e v a l u a tion fra m e w o r k f or U AS op era tions und e r s e c t ion 333 of P ub. L

.

112

– 95 th a t w e i g hs the r e l a tive s a f e t y issu e s a nd r isks of UAS b y c l a ss a nd op era tion al

c i rc umst a n c e s, ra th e r th a n a dopting a r ti f i c i a l disti n c tions a mong unm a n n e d aer i a l v e h i c l e s

b a s e d on c omm erc i a l a nd no n c omm erc i a l op e r a tions. The C o a lition sug g e st e d F AA s afe t y

r e g ul a tions be p r opo r tion a te to the r i sks pos e d b y the p ar ti c u l a r p r opos e d UAS op era t i ons b y

distin g uishi n g b e tw ee n U A S . The p e titi on er’ s UAS pose c onsid e ra b l y l e ss s afe t y r isk th a n

l ar g e r U AS. The C o a lition a ss er t e d th a t b e ca use UAS op era tions like the p e tition er’ s pose

minim a l r isk to s afe t y , th e y should be subj ec t to minim a l a nd a pp r op r i a te r e g ul a tions.

The C o a lition not e d the F A A is to c onsid e r t h e s e v e n fac t o r s 1 in s ec tion 333 a s a minimum.

The C o a lition st a t e d the p e tit i on shows the F AA shou l d c onsid e r f a c to r s oth e r t h a n those

sp ec i f i e d in s ec tion 333, such as: location, the altitude of its small unmanned aircraft vehicle

(UAV ) operations, and proven experience of the UAV in other countries and in the United

States pursuant to a Certificate of Authorization. The C o a lition m a int a in e d th a t the

p e tition er’ s p r opos e d op era tions s a tis f y the s e v e n fac t o r s in s ec tion 333 a nd in c lude s e v e ra l

a ddition a l miti g a ting f a c t o r s to e nsu r e the s afe t y a n d s ec u r i t y of the p r opos e d UAS op e r a tions.

The C o a lition e mph a si z e d the F AA must e v a l u a te e a c h f a c tor within the c ont e x t of the

p e tition er’ s p r opo s e d UAS op e r a tions.

The C o a lition a lso c omm e nt e d th a t the F AA should g r a nt re li e f fr om the r e qui re m e nt to hold

a n a i r m a n ’ s c er ti f i ca t e , but st a t e d th a t a t a minimum the F AA should p r ovi d e a n e x ce ption

fr om p ar t 61 a nd a pp r o v e t ra ini n g a nd t e sting r e g im e nts th a t p er t a in to UAS c omm e r c i a l

op era tions p er t in e nt to the a i r c raf t a nd op era tion p r opos e d. The C o a lition a lso a ss er t e d th a t

C on g r e ss int e nd e d the s ec tion 333 n a tion a l s ec u r i t y cr it e r ion to f o c us on the op e r a tion ra th e r

th a n on t h e pilot a nd th a t shi f ting th a t f o c us impos e s a n unn e c e ss a r y bu r d e n.

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

I n re spons e

, a s dis c uss e d in the g r a nt of e x e mption to T r imble N a vig a tion L td.

(Exemption No. 1111 0 ) , n e ith e r s ec tion 333 nor th e F A A ’ s a utho r i t y to e x e mpt fr om its

re g ul a tions f ound in 49 U S C § 44701 (f)

, a utho r i z e s the F AA to p r ovide e x e mpt i on to the

st a tut o r y r e qui r e m e nt to hold a n a i r m a n c e r ti f i ca te a s p re s cr ib e d in 49 U S C § 44711. The

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

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

d o e s not a g r e e th a t re l y i n g on the pilot cer ti f i ca te f or a n a tion a l s e c u r i t y f i n ding pos e s a n

un n e c e ss a r y bu r d e n b e c a use pilots und e r this e x e mption, a nd the e x e mptions g ra n t e d

p re vious l y to s ec tion 333 re qu e sts, a r e a l r ea d y re qui re d to hold a pil ot cer ti f i ca te to

s a tis f y 49 U S C § 44711.

The C o a lition c omm e nt e d th a t a visual observer ( VO) should not be re qui r e d f or a ll sm a ll

UAS op era tion. The C o a lition f u r th e r a s s er t e d th a t the p re s e n c e of one o r mo r e VOs m a y

a llow the UAS to be op era t e d b e y o nd visual line of sight ( V L OS) of the pilot in command

( P I C) a nd th a t the p e tition er’ s p r o p os a l to op era te the unmanned aircraft (UA) within V L OS

of the P I C and/or VO should b e p er mitt e d. The F AA n ot e s th a t one of the d e t er min a tions f or

op e ra t ions und e r s ec t ion 333 is op era tion within visu a l line of si g ht. As t h e P I C is d e t er min e d

to be i n c omm a nd of the UA, h e must m a int a in V L OS w hile op era ti n g the UA. The F AA a lso

not e s th a t a VO c o mpl e m e nts the P I C s ca p a bili t y to s e e a nd a void oth e r a i r cr a f t, in c luding

wh e n t h e P I C m a y b e mom e nt ar i l y a tt e ndi n g to oth e r f l y

i n g t a sks. The VO p r ovid e s a n

a ddition a l l e v e l of op e ra tion a l s a f e t y

.

AUVSI noted that authorizing AGI to conduct inspections and environmental monitoring of

chemical plants would bring immediate and sig nificant improvement to environmental and

operational risk management in the chemical industry. AUVSI stated that AGI’s exemption

outlines at least an equivalent level of safety over the use of a manned aircraft and the

petitioner ha s adequately addressed the safety requirements in a number of F ederal Aviation

Regulations

MTI note d that the petitioner’s proposed operations would bring immediate and significant

improvement to environmental and operational risk management in the petrochemical

industry by: ( 1) reducing the risk associated with elevated human operations; (2) providing a

higher quality and more efficient inspection and monitoring capability; and (3) reducing the

probability of dangerous and costly unplanned events which could impact plant perso nnel and

the surrounding ecosystem and communities.

U.S. Representatives Dan Benishek and David Camp and U.S. Senator Carl Levin each

supported the petition highlighting that the proposed operations would provide significant

improvements to environmental and operational risk, enhance s afety, and increase efficiency.4

An individual commented that the use of s mall UAS will not only p romote increased

reliability in petrochemical plants and other industries, but will unleash a new technology that

could even fu rther develop the safety and reliability of all industry as a whole.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated that the

petitioner’s reference to operations conducted within a “safe zone” is not defined, nor does the

p etitioner offer a means to control the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA

states “there must be means both to ensure the UA remains within the defined airspace and to

ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mi tigated.” 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 t hat while the pilot in command (PIC) and observer will be able to communicate

by voice, the voice communication with the pilot is a limited mitigation if the pilot and the

observer cannot both “see” (14 CFR 91.113) the small UAS and the surround [sic] area

. The

FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual observer ( VO ) communications to

address this issue.

ALPA noted that the aircraft may not have a barometric altimeter as required by

14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain alt itude must be addressed, and

processes or mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail

- safe systems, backups and

specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place.

ALPA mentioned that while the petitioner’s airc raft has a barometric sensor, the platform

does not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to

accurately maintain altitude must be addressed, and processes or mitigations must be in place.

ALPA asserted that the pr ocesses or mitigations must include 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 le vel of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the National Airspace

System (NAS). The FAA finds that the alternative means of compliance proposed by the

petitioner does not adversely affect safety.

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

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly

aways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to

ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents addressed potential5

hazards related to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner

has sufficient design features to address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the operating

documents ha ve incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participants

should a C2 failure to occur.

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

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR

- 09/55, “Flammab ility 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 p rimarily conducted to determine

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

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

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

ALPA stated that the petition seeks an exemption from the aircraft airworthiness process,

14 CFR 21, §§ 91.7 and 91.203. The FAA discusses aspects of 14 CFR 21 with respect to the

petitioner’s request in th e FAA analysis section

.

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

argues 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 train ing required by holders of both private and commercial

certificates. In Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus) ( see Docket No.

FAA

- 2014

- 0352), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the

Astraeus UAS wo uld not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to

persons or property on the ground.

A L P A not ed the p e tition e r must sp ec i f y a m ea ns to m ee t s e e a nd a void re qu i re m e nts in

§ 91.113 g i v e n the a bs e n c e of a n onbo ar d pilot. The FAA notes tha t all flights must be

operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO.

ALPA expressed concern on whether the petitioner’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light

requirements for night operations in § 91.209, given its limited electric power. The FAA notes

that the petitioner is not proposing night operations.

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

operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated that this6

results in a consid erable 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 each

operator secure a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) which covers specific details

of the petit ioners 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 are battery

- powered quad

- copters: the Aeryon Scout

(wei ghs 3.4 pounds) and the Aeryon SkyRanger (weighs 5.3 pounds)

.

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 i n Section 333 of P.L. 112

- 95 in reference to 49 USC § 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

parts 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 inspection s

. The FAA has issued a grant of

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

In Grant s of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352) and

11176 to Chevr on ( see Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0802) , 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

great er 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

—

• they are sim ilar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the

enclosed Grant of Exemption No s

. 11062 and 11176 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11 062 and 11176 also

apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemptio n is in the public interest.7

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exempt ion 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, Aetos Group, Inc. is granted an exemption

fr om 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a) , 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 UAS f or the purpose of aerial inspection of specific chemical plant infrastructure, to

include flare stacks, elevated pipelines, tanks and columns, and environmental monitoring in

the petrochemical industry. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limit ations listed

below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Aetos Group, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.

The following information contained in the petition and supporting documents is hereinafter

referred to as op erating documents:

1) Aetos Group UAS Operations Guide

2) Aetos Group SkyRanger Checklist

3) Aetos Group Scout Checklist

4) Aetos Group Operator and Observer Training document

5) Aetos Group Spectrum Analysis

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

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

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

described in the operating documents w hich are quad

- copters weighing less than 7

pounds: Aeryon Scout Unmanned Aircraft System and Aeryon SkyRanger Unmanned

Aircraft System. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition

or a petition to amend this grant.

2) UAS op era tion s und e r t h is e x e mption ar e limit e d t o conducting aerial inspection

of specific chemical plant infrastructure, to include flare stacks, elevated pipelines,

tanks and columns, and environmental monitoring in the petrochemical industry.

3) The UA m a y not b e f lo wn a t a n indicated airspeed exceeding 50 miles per hour

.8

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

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents . All

altitudes reported to Air Traffic Co ntrol ( ATC ) must be in feet AGL.

5) The UA must be op era t e d within visu a l line of si g ht ( V L O S ) of the P I C a t a ll tim e s.

This re qui re s the P I C to be a b l e to use hum a n vision u n a id e d b y a n y d e vi c e oth e r th a n

c o rrec tive l e ns e s, a s sp e c i f i e d on the P I C ’ s F A A

- iss u e d m e di ca l cer t i f i ca t e

.

6) All op era tions must util i z e a visu a l obs er v e r ( VO )

. The VO m a y b e us e d to s a tis f y

the V L OS re qui re m e nt a s long a s the P I C a lw a y s m a i nt a ins V L OS c a p a bili t y

. The

VO a nd P I C must be a ble to c o m muni ca te v er b a l l y a t a ll tim e s. El ec t r onic

m e ss a g i ng or t e x ting is not p er mitt e d du r ing f l i g ht op e r a tions. The P I C must be

d e si g n a t e d b ef o r e the f l i g ht a nd ca nnot t ra n s fe r his or h e r d e s i g n a tion f or t h e

d u ra tion of the f l i g ht. The P I C must e nsu r e th a t the V O ca n p erf o r m the f un c tions

p re s cr ib e d in the op e ra ti n g d o c um e nts.

7) The op e r a ting d o c um e nts a nd this g r a nt of e x e mption must be acce ssible d u r ing

U AS op era tions a nd m a d e a v a i l a ble to the Administ ra tor upon re qu e st. I f a

dis c r e p a n c y e x ists b e tw ee n the c onditions a nd limit a tions in this e x e m ption a nd

the p r o ce du r e s outlin e d in the op era ti n g do c um e nts, the c onditions a nd

limit a tions h ere in t a ke p r ece d e n c e a nd must be f ollow e d. Oth e r wis e

, the

op era tor must f ollow the p r o ce d u re s a s outlin e d in its op era ti n g do c um e nts. T h e

op era t o r m a y upd a te o r re vise its op era ti n g do c u m e nts. I t is the op era to r ’ s

re sponsibili t y to t rac k s u c h re visio n s a nd p re s e nt up d a t e d a n d re vis e d do c um e nts

to the Administ ra tor upon re q u e st. The op era t o r must a lso p re s e nt upd a t e d a nd

re vis e d d o c um e nts if it p e titions f or e x t e nsion or a m e ndm e nt to this g r a nt of

e x e mption. I f the op e ra t o r d e t er min e s th a t a n y up d a te or r e vision would af f

ec t

the b a sis upon whi c h the F A A g r a nt e d this e x e mption, th e n the op era tor must

p e tition f or a m e ndm e nt to its g r a nt of e x e mption. The F AA ’ s UA S I n t e g ra tion

O f f i c e ( A F S

- 80) m a y be c ont ac t e d if qu e stions ar ise r e g ar di n g upd a t e s or

re visions to the op era ti n g do c u m e nts.

8) P r ior to eac h f l i g ht the P I C must insp ec t the UAS to e nsu r e it is in a c ondition f or

s a f e f li g ht. I f the ins p ec tion r e v ea ls a c ond ition th a t a ff ec ts the s a f e op e r a tion of the

UA S , the a i rc r af t is p r ohibit e d fr o m op era ting until the n ec e ss a r y m a int e n a n c e h a s

b ee n p e r f o r m ed a nd the UAS is f ound to be in a c ondition f or s af e f li g ht. The G r ound

C ont r ol S t a tion must be in c lud e d in the p re f li g ht insp ec tion. All m a int e n a n c e a nd

a lt era t io n s must be p r op er l y do c um e nt e d in the a i rcraf t rec o r ds.9

9) Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS

operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical co mponent,

must undergo a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight

must make an entry of the flight in the UAS aircraft records.

10) The preflight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g.

inoperable components , items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant

sections of the operating documents.

11) The op e r a tor must f ollow the UAS m a nu f a c tu re r ’ s a i rc r af t/ c ompon e nt,

m a i nt e n a n ce , ov er h a ul, r e pl a c e m e nt, insp ec tion, a nd li f e limit r e qui re m e nts.

12) The op e r a tor must ca r r y out its m a int e n a n ce , insp ec tions, a nd r e c o r d k e e p i ng

re qui re m e nts, in a cc o r d a n c e with the op e r a ting d o c um e nts. M a int e n a n c e

,

i nsp ec tion, a lt era tions, a nd st a tus of re pl a c e m e nt/ov er h a ul c o mpon e nt p ar ts must

be not e d in the a i rc r af t r e c o r ds, in c lu di n g tot a l time in s er vi ce

, d e s cr iption of wo r k

a cc o m plish e d, a nd the si g n a tu r e of the a utho r i z e d p er son re tu r ni n g t h e UAS to

s er vi ce

.

13) E ac h UAS op e ra t e d un d e r this e x e mption mu s t c omp l y with a ll m a nu f a c tu r e r S afe t y

B ull e tins.

14) The a utho r i z e d p er son m ust m a ke a n e nt r y in the a i rc r af t r e c o r d of t h e c o rr ec tive

a c tion t a k e n a g a inst dis c r e p a n c i e s dis c ov ere d b e tw e e n insp ec tions.

15) The P I C must poss e ss a t l ea st a p r iv a te p i lot cer t i f i ca te a nd a t l ea st a c u rre nt third

c l a ss m e di ca l ce r ti f i ca t e

. The P I C must a lso m ee t the f li g ht re vi e w re qui re m e nts

sp ec i f i e d in 14 C F R § 61.56 in a n a i rcraf t in whi c h the P I C is ra t e d on his or h e r

pilot cer ti f i ca t e

.

16) The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s

qualification criteria, completes t he operator’s UAS training, and 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. The

VO is also required to complete any training requirements for VOs . A record of

training must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator.

Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training,

proficiency, and experience

- building), are permitted under the terms of this10

exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated

training sessions.

17) UAS op era tions m a y not be c ondu c t e d d u r ing n i g h t time, a s d ef in e d in

14 C F R §1.1. All op era tions must be c on d u c t e d und e r visu a l m e t e o r olo g i c a l

c onditions ( V M C )

. F li g hts und e r sp ec i a l visu a l f li g h t r ul e s ( S V F R ) a r e not

a u tho r i z e d.

18) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as

deno ted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement

with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in

accordance with a Noti c e to Ai r m e n ( NOTAM ) as required by the operator’s

C er ti f i ca te of W a iv e r or A utho r i z a tion ( COA ) . The letter of agreement with the

airport management must be made available to the Administrator upon request.

19) The UA m a y not be o p e r a t e d l e ss th a n 500 f e e t b e low or l e ss th a n 2,000 f e e t

ho r i z ont a l l y fr om a c loud, or wh e n vi s ibili t y is l e ss th a n 3 st a tu t e mil e s fr om the P I C

.

20) I f the UAS los e s c omm u ni ca tions or los e s its G P S si g n a l, the U A must re tu r n to a

p re

- d e t er min e d lo ca tion wit h in the pl a nn e d op e r a ting are a a nd l a nd, or b e

r e c o v ere d in acc o r d a n c e with the op e r a ting do c u m e nts.

21) The P I C must a bo r t the f li g ht in the e v e nt of un p r e di c t e d obst ac l e s or

e m e r g e n c i e s, in acc o r d a n c e with the op e r a ting do c u m e nts.

22) The P I C is p r ohibit e d fr o m b e g inni n g a f l i g ht unl e ss (c onsid er i n g wind a nd

f

o re c a st w ea th e r c onditions) th er e is e nou g h po w e r to f l y a t no r m a l cr uising

s p ee d to the int e nd e d l a nding point a n d l a nd the UA with 25 % b a tt e r y pow e r

re m a ini n g

.

23) The op e r a tor must obt a in a n Air T r a ff ic Or g a ni z a t ion ( ATO) issu e d C OA p r ior to

c ondu c ti n g a n y o p era tions und e r this g ra nt of e x e mption. This C OA w il l a lso re qui r e

the op e ra t or to re qu e st a NOTAM not mo r e th a n 72 hou r s in a dv a n c e , but not l e ss

th a n 48 hou r s p r ior to the op era tion. All op e r a tions sh a ll be c ondu c t e d in ac c o r d a n c e

with a i r sp a c e r e qui re m e nts in the ATO issu e d C OA in c luding c l a ss of a i r sp a c e

,

a ltitude l e v e l a nd pot e nti a l t ra nspond e r re qui re m e nts.

24) All a i rcraf t op era t e d in a c c o r d a n c e with this e x e m p tion must be id e n t i f i e d b y

s er i a l numb er

, re g ist ere d in acc o r d a n c e with 14 C F R p ar t 47, a nd h a ve11

id e nti f i c a t i on ( N

- Numb er ) m ar kin g s in acc o r d a n c e with 14 C F R p ar t 45, S ubp ar t

C . M ar kin g s must be a s l ar g e a s p rac ti ca bl e.

25) B ef o r e c ondu c ting op era t ions, the ra dio fre qu e n c y sp ec t r um us e d f or op era ti on a nd

c ont r ol of the UA must c omp l y with the Fe d era l C ommuni ca tions C om m is s ion (F CC )

or oth e r a pp r op r i a te g ov er nm e nt ov er si g ht a g e n c y r e qui re m e nts.

26) The do c um e nts re qui re d und e r 14 C F R §§ 91.9 a nd 91.203 must be a v a il a b le to

the P I C a t the G r ound C ont r ol S t a tion of the UAS a n y time the UAS is op er a t i n g

.

Th e se do c um e nts must be m a de a v a il a ble to the Admini s t ra tor or a n y l a w

e n f o rc e m e nt o ff i c i a l upon re qu e st.

27) The UA must re m a in c l e a r a nd y i e ld the r i g ht of w a y to a ll m a nn e d op era tions

a nd ac tiviti e s a t a ll t i m e s.

28) The UAS m a y not be op e ra t e d b y the P I C fr om a n y movi n g d e vi c e or v e hi c l e

.

29) The UA m a y not be o p e r a t e d ov e r c o n g e st e d or d e ns e l y popul a t e d a r ea s.

30) F li g ht op e ra tions must be c ondu c t e d a t l e a st 500 f e e t fr om a ll nonp ar ti c ip a t i ng

p e r sons, v e hi c l e s, a nd st r u c tu re s unl e ss:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating

perso ns 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, fli ght operations must cease immediately and/or;

b. The a i r c raf t is op e ra t e d n ea r v e hi c l e s or s t r u c tu re s w h er e t h e own er / c ont r oll e r

o f su c h v e hi c l e s or st r u c tu re s h a s g ra n t e d p er mis s ion a nd the P I C h a s m a de a

s afe t y a ss e ss m e nt of the r i sk of op era ti n g c los e r to those obj ec ts a nd

d e t e r min e d th a t it do e s not p re s e nt a n undue h a z ar d, a nd;

c. Op era tions n e ar e r to the P I C , VO, op era tor t ra in e e s, or e s s e nti al p er sons do

not p re s e nt a n undue h a z ar d to those p e r sons p e r § 91.119 ( a)

.

31) All op era tions sh a ll be c o ndu c t e d ov e r p r iv a te or c ont r oll e d

- a c ce ss p r op e r t y with

p er mission fr om the property own er / c ont r oll e r o r a ut h o r i z e d re p re s e nt a tiv e

.12

P e r mission fr om property own er / c ont r oll e r or a utho r i z e d re p re s e nt a tive will be

obt a in e d f or e ac h f li g ht to be c ondu c t e d.

32) A n y in c i d e nt, a c c id e nt, o r f li g ht op e ra tion th a t t r a ns g r e ss e s the l a t e ra l or v er ti cal

bound ar i e s of the o p era t i on a l ar e a a s d e f in e d b y t he a ppli ca ble C OA must be re po r t e d

to the F A A ’ s UAS I nt e g r a tion O ff i c e ( A F S

- 80) within 24 hou r s. A cc id e nts m ust be

re po r t e d to the N a t ion a l T ra nspo r t a tion S afe t y B o ar d ( NT S B ) p e r inst r u c tions

c ont a in e d on the NT S B W e b sit e : www.ntsb. g ov.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS

, PIC , and operator must

comply with all applicab le parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and

91.

This exemption terminates on March 31

, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service