Exemption No. 11213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AERYON LABS, INC.

for an exemption from part 21, and 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 

91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.103, 91.109(a), 

91.119, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2014−0642

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letters dated August 25, 2014 and February 5, 2015, Mr. Dave Kroetsch, Aeryon 

Labs, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator), 575 Kumpf Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 

N2V, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21, 

and §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2) and (c), 91.103, 91.109(a), 

91.119, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) of 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow the petitioner to 

operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to perform market research, aerial surveys, 

mapping, and inspections.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

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

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

 
2

The petitioner has provided the following information along with its petition to support its 

request for an exemption:

1) SkyRanger Performance Characteristics, Pre-flight Inspection Checklist

2) Aeryon SkyRanger Training Program

3) Aeryon SkyRanger User Guide

The petition and the documents above are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014 (79 

FR 58848). Five comments were received. Three commenters, including the Small UAV 

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

(ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) 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 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 UAV operations, proven 

experience pursuant to Certificates of Authorization in the United States and similar approvals 

in Canada. 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

 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

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 airmans 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.

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 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. 

 2 49 USC § 44701(f)
4

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, either by mobile phone or 

other means, could have unknown latencies and extend to several minutes. NAAA stated 

UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the most 

minimal distance possible. The conditions and limitations regarding PIC and VO 

communications address those concerns.

ALPA asserted the UA’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 commented 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. 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).

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. NAAA also 

commented on pilot qualification, stating—

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training curriculum 

and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. 

Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as 
5

commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as 

commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the 

necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a 

sustained period of time.

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. Additional discussion of the 

FAA’s review is found in the FAA’s Analysis section of this exemption.

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 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 

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 

finds that adherence to the petitioner’s operating documents, as required by the conditions and 

limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected.
6

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.

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore clear low-level 

airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other 

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that 

agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions 

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. 

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and 

limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all 

operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO;

and (c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned 

aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or 

similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high-visibility markings and 

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned 

aircraft. 

As discussed in greater detail below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of 

factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain 

operations. The Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft 

operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(UAS), (2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the 

public interest.
7

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

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 

part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, are not 

necessary.

The petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b), Display of marks: general, is not 

necessary because its UAS will not be certificated under 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s 

UA must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and 

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

Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f).3

The petitioner requested relief from the following sections: 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) 

Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration, 91.409(a)(2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) Maintenance records. The 

FAA has determined that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) and §91.417(b) is also necessary. The 

FAA has evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that adherence to the conditions 

and limitations below regarding the responsibilities for maintaining, inspecting, and pre-flight 

inspection are sufficient to ensure that safety will not be adversely affected. Therefore the 

FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) is warranted subject to the conditions and limitations below.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner proposed that its pilots would be able to operate safely because they would: (1) 

have successfully completed, at a minimum, FAA private pilot ground instruction and passed 

the FAA Private Pilot written examination or FAA-recognized equivalents including ICAO 

issued commercial, private license and ground school, and (2) have completed Aeryon’s 

training program for operation of their UAS. The petitioner did not propose using pilots 

holding an FAA-issued pilot certificate.

 3 An exemption from 14 CFR § 45.27 would not be necessary because of the allowance in § 45.29(f).
8

This section addresses the pilot certificate a person must hold to operate a UAS under this 

exemption, and the medical certificate a person must hold to operate a UAS under this 

exemption.

I. Pilot Certificate Required

Section 333 allows the Secretary of Transportation to make a determination regarding 

whether an airworthiness certificate is required for certain unmanned aircraft. However, it 

does not provide similar relief from the statutory requirement to hold an airman’s certificate. 

See 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a). The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt the petitioner 

from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate. See Exemption No. 11110 

(Trimble Navigation, Ltd.).

Given the above, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot certification for the 

petitioner’s proposed operations. In previous exemptions, the FAA found that a person 

holding a private pilot certificate would have the requisite aeronautical knowledge to operate

a UAS safely under the terms of those exemptions.4

 A private pilot certificate holder would 

also be subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Because the petitioner did not propose to use certificated pilots, and in light of comments 

received, the FAA re-assessed the level of pilot certificate that would be appropriate for the 

petitioner’s operations. In evaluating this petition, similar to the evaluation of the private and 

commercial pilot certificates in Exemption No. 11062, the agency compared the aeronautical 

knowledge requirements of the recreational and sport pilot certificates to those of the private 

pilot certificate. We found that the aeronautical knowledge requirements that would be 

applicable to a UAS operation under this exemption for a recreational pilot and sport pilot 

certificate are substantially similar as those for a private pilot certificate.

Additionally, similar to the private and commercial pilot certificates, holders of recreational 

and sport pilot certificates are subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

Therefore, because they must demonstrate aeronautical knowledge relevant to UAS 

operations and are subject to DHS screening, factors that were considered by the FAA in

allowing private pilot operations under previous exemptions, the FAA now determines that 

 4 In Exemption No. 11062, for example, the FAA determined that a private pilot would have sufficient 

aeronautical knowledge to operate a UAS under that exemption. As discussed in that exemption, the FAA 

reached that determination after comparing the aeronautical knowledge requirements of the commercial and 

private pilot certificates. Without an exemption, these operations would have required a commercial pilot 

certificate.
9

holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates may serve as the PIC for UAS operations 

under this exemption.

Risk is also mitigated through conditions and limitations regarding PIC training. The 

petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate unless, through the petitioner’s training and 

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

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

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

structures.

Accordingly, the FAA grants relief from §§ 61.101(e)(4) and (5), and 61.113(a), to allow a 

PIC holding a recreational or private pilot certificate to operate a UAS for compensation and 

hire, subject to the conditions and limitations below.5 The FAA is also granting relief from § 

61.315(a) to permit the holder of a sport pilot certificate to act as the PIC of UAS operated 

under this exemption. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.133. However, since § 61.133 already 

permits a commercial pilot to act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire, relief is not 

necessary.

II. Medical Certificate Required

The FAA also evaluated the medical certificate required to operate under this exemption. In 

previous exemptions, the FAA has permitted operations with second-class or third-class 

medical certificates, which traditionally correspond to operations conducted under 

commercial and private pilot certificates, respectively. As discussed above, the FAA 

determined that operations can safely be conducted under this exemption by recreational and 

sport pilot certificate holders. In light of this determination, the FAA also evaluated the 

medical certificate requirements appropriate for these operations.

The agency compared the sport pilot certificate holder privileges with the operations proposed 

by the petitioner. Sport pilot certificate holders may act as PIC of an LSA with either a 

medical certificate or U.S. issued driver’s license.6 See 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(c), 61.315(a). LSA 

may weigh as much as 1,430 pounds and seat up to two persons, including the pilot. See 14 

C.F.R. § 1.1. The FAA also considered that a PIC operating a lighter-than-air balloon or 

 5 Similar relief from 61.315(c)(2) and (3) is not necessary because these limitations on sport pilot certificate 

privileges only apply to LSA. The UAS being operated under this exemption are not LSA.

6 The FAA considers a U.S. driver's license to be any license to operate a motor vehicle issued by a state, the 

District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. See 67 FR 5368. 
10

glider requires neither an FAA issued medical certificate, nor a U.S. driver’s license. See § 

61.23(b)(3). Comparatively, under this exemption the UA weighs less than 55 pounds, is

operated within visual line of sight of the PIC and below 400’ AGL, and limited to operating 

with permission over private or controlled-access property.

The FAA finds that, because of the risk mitigations established in the conditions and 

limitations of this exemption, a person that holds a U.S. issued driver’s license who is 

operating a UAS will not adversely affect safety. The FAA is granting relief from § 61.23(a) 

to allow any pilot that holds one of the pilot’s certificates discussed above to operate a UAS 

under this exemption with a U.S. issued driver’s license, in lieu of an FAA-issued medical 

certificate. The FAA is also granting relief from § 61.23(c) to allow sport pilot certificate 

holders to operate aircraft other than LSA with a U.S. issued driver’s license under this 

exemption.

However, in absence of a defined regulatory structure specific to UAS, the FAA has 

determined the minimum requirement for a UAS PIC under this exemption is to possess at 

least a U.S. driver’s license. A UAS PIC would also be able to operate under this exemption 

with an FAA-issued medical certificate.

The FAA also considered medical certificate requirements for a visual observer. As in 

Exemption No. 11062, the FAA determined that this is not necessary subject to the conditions 

and limitations below. In particular, the UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual 

capabilities of the VO, and the VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the 

UA at all times. It is the responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations 

and limit operations of the UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and 

VO.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC conducting operations under this grant of exemption 

may operate the UAS for compensation or hire, or in furtherance of a business, with any of 

the following pilot certificates: sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport. 

Additionally, a PIC must hold and possess either a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR 

part 67 or a U.S. issued driver’s license irrespective of the pilot certificate held. In addition, 

PICs must comply with 14 CFR § 61.53, Prohibition on operations during medical 

deficiency. 
11

UAS Operating Parameters

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

the petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has determined 

that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine the aircraft is in an airworthy 

condition prior to flight. The FAA’s regulations state that the PIC of a civil aircraft is 

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

relief from § 91.7(a) is granted and relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2): Civil aircraft flight manual, 

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

required. The FAA has previously determined that relief from these sections is not necessary. 

See Exemption No. 11062. Relevant materials may be kept in a location accessible to the PIC 

in compliance with the regulations.

The petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(c) is not granted. As discussed earlier in 

this grant, the petitioner’s UA must meet the requirements of part 45.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight Action. The PIC will take all 

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

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

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

UA from departing the VLOS and to preclude the UA from operating so close to a cloud as to 

create a hazard to other aircraft operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks 

associated with sun glare; the FAA believes the that PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other 

air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return-to-home sequence, are sufficient 

mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions 

in their preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA is not granting relief from § 91.103.

While the petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petition did not describe training scenarios in 

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

by a flight instructor or other company-designated individual, which would require that 

individual to have fully functioning dual controls. The FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s 

PICs possess at least a sport pilot certificate. This exemption will also require that training 

operations only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. As such, the FAA finds that 

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

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, the FAA finds that:
12

a. Relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe 

emergency landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the 

petitioner to be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons 

or property on the surface if a power unit fails.

b. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because 

this grant of exemption prohibits operations over congested or densely populated 

areas.

c. Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes 

below 500 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft 

below the following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an altitude of 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. The FAA finds 

operations conducted in compliance with the conditions and limitations in this grant of 

exemption warrant relief from § 91.119(c).

d. Relief from § 91.119(d) is not applicable.

The petitioner did not seek relief from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter settings. When the UA is 

equipped with a barometric altimeter, relief from § 91.121 is not necessary. When the UA is 

not equipped with a barometric altimeter, an alternate means for measuring and reporting UA 

altitude is necessary, such as GPS. As stated in the conditions and limitations below, the 

FAA requires altitude be reported in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the altitude 

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

Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is 

granted to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated 

below.

Regarding petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a), Fuel requirements for flight 

in VFR conditions, prior UAS specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 

10808, and 10673 for daytime, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The conditions and 

limitations below prohibit the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for UAS to operate for the 

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

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater. The FAA finds that this provides 

sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a)(1).

The FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) reviews all proposed UAS operations and evaluates 

the safety of these operations relative to the requested airspace through the existing Certificate 

of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process. The majority of current UAS operations 

occurring in the NAS are being coordinated through ATC by the issuance of a COA. This 
13

process not only makes local ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC 

the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations.

The FAA has issued a COA to this operator which is attached to this grant of exemption. This 

COA permits daytime VFR operations below 200 feet AGL beyond certain distances from 

airports. The COA requires the operator to request a NOTAM, which is the mechanism for 

alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being conducted. The conditions and 

limitations below prescribe the requirement for the petitioner to follow the terms of a COA. If 

the petitioner intends to conduct operations outside of the parameters of what is permitted 

under the attached COA it may apply to the ATO for a new or amended COA.

Public Interest

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

reduced environmental impact achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the 

petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly 

greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to 

find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. 

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

petitioner:

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

21 Relief not necessary

45.23(b) Relief not necessary

61.23(a) and (c) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

61.101(e)(4) and (5) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

61.113(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

61.133 Relief not necessary

61.315(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.7(b) Relief not necessary

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary

91.9(c) Relief not granted
14

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

91.103 Relief not granted

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119(a) Relief not granted

91.119(b) and (d) Not applicable

91.119(c) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations

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

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

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

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

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

The FAA’s Decision

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

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

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Aeryon Labs, Inc. 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 

collection7. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Aeryon Labs, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.

 7 Aerial data collection includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the UA. 

Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF 

analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by 

instruments aboard the UA.
15

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 Aeryon SkyRanger 

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 grant.

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 

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, 
16

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 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 
17

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.

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.
18

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.
19

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 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;

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.
20

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 March 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 2015. 

/s/

John S. Duncan, 

Director, Flight Standards Service