AFS-14-431-E

March 13, 2015

 Exemption No. 11209

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0629

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

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

and §§ 45.23(b), 47.3(b)(2), 47.31(c), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121, 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 purpose 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 Federal 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, supported the petition. The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA) opposed it.

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 Pub. L. 

112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational 

circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles 

based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety

regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by

distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than 

larger UAS. 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 factors

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted 

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

satisfy 49 USC § 44711.

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

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

allow the UAS to be operated beyond 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. As the PIC is determined 

to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA also 

notes that a VO complements the PICs capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including

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

additional level of operational safety.

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

chemical plants would bring immediate and significant 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 has adequately addressed the safety requirements in a number of Federal Aviation 

Regulations

MTI noted 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 personnel 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 safety, and increase efficiency.
4

An individual commented that the use of small UAS will not only promote increased 

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

could even further 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 

petitioner 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 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 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 altitude 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 aircraft 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 processes 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 level 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) 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 agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to 

ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents addressed potential 
5

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 have 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, “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 

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 the 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 training 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 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 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 this 
6

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 each 

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

of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new 

NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner are battery-powered quad-copters: the Aeryon Scout 

(weighs 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 in 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 inspections. The FAA has issued a grant of 

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

In Grants of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA-2014-0352) and 

11176 to Chevron (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 

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—

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

enclosed Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062 and 11176;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062 and 11176 also 

apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 
7

The FAA’s Decision

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

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

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Aetos Group, Inc. is granted an exemption 

from 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 for 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 limitations 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 operating 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 conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

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

described in the operating documents which 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 operations under this exemption are limited to 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 may not be flown at an 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 Control (ATC) must be in feet AGL.

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

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

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

6) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy

the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The

VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. Electronic

messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be

designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the

duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions 

prescribed in the operating documents.

7) The operating documents and this grant of exemption must be accessible during

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

discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and 

the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and 

limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the

operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating documents. The

operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents 

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

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

exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect 

the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must 

petition for amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration 

Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or

revisions to the operating documents.

8) Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for

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

UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has 

been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground 

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and 

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.
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 component, 

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 operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, 

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

12) The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, 

inspection, alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must 

be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in service, description of work 

accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to 

service.

13) Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety 

Bulletins.

14) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.

15) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current thirdclass medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements 

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

pilot certificate.

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

qualification criteria, completes the 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 this 
10

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

training sessions.

17) UAS operations may not be conducted during night time, 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.

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

denoted 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 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as required by the operator’s 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The letter of agreement with the 

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

19) 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.

20) If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a

pre-determined location within the planned operating area and land, or be

recovered in accordance with the operating documents.

21) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or

emergencies, in accordance with the operating documents.

22) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and

forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising

speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power

remaining.

23) The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued COA prior to 

conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require

the operator to request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less 

than 48 hours prior to the operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance

with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace,

altitude level and potential transponder requirements.

24) All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by

serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have
11

identification (N- Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart 

C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

25) Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

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

or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

26) The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to 

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

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

enforcement official upon request.

27) The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations 

and activities at all times.

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

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

30) Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating

persons, 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 and/or;

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

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

safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and 

determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and;

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees, or essential persons do 

not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

31) All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 
12

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

32) Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

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

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

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

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

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

comply with all applicable 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