1

Exemption No. 11150

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AEROCINE, LLC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0400

for an exemption from part 21;

§§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b);

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

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

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated June 16, 2014, Frank M. Esposito, Esq.,

1 former counsel for AeroCine, now 

represented by Brian Streem, AeroCine LLC, 405 Douglass St., Suite 2, Brooklyn, NY 11217, 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AeroCine, LLC, a New 

York Limited Liability Company doing business as AeroCine for an exemption from part 21, 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 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 petition requested an exemption to allow 

operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of capturing high definition 

feature film quality aerial cinematography.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and 

changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and 

airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman 

capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport 

 1 On September 17, 2014 Mr. Brian Streem, notified the FAA that Mr. Frank M. Esposito is no longer representing 

AeroCine.

AFS–14–376–E
2

category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also 

display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not 

less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “lightsport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that—

(a) no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that 

person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in 

connection with any business or employment if:

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

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

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is 

available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 

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

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before 

beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, 

to include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and 

forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be

completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been 

advised by Air Traffic Control (ATC);

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff

and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and 

landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft 

performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, 

aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.
3

Section 91.109 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

(except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft 

has fully functioning dual controls.

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or

over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest 

obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except 

over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation 

is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies 

with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; 

and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less 

than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain 

cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough 

fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed,

(1) during the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after

that for at least 45 minutes.

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft 

unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an 

effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United 

States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in 

§ 47.31(c).

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 
4

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

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

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have

that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between 

required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that 

has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has 

been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft 

unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

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

specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

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

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

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

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

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

work performed; and\

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

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

return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

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

rotor.

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

rotor, and appliance.

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

required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv)The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last 
5

inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its 

appliances are maintained.

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

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

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

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

(vi)Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major 

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

and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods 

prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until 

the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is 

performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this 

chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved 

for return to service.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

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

operating documents: 

1) AeroCine Technical Manual v2

2) AeroCine General Operations Manual v 10.7.2014

3) AeroCine Battery Safety Manual 

4) KW X12 Inspection Checklist

5) Maintenance Log

The petitioner submitted additional information in response to FAA requests, which are posted 

to the docket. The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: 1) the

unmanned aircraft system (UAS), 2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), 3) the UAS operating

parameters, and 4) the public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a Kopterworx, Model Hammer X12, and incorporates a 

DJI WooKong-M flight control system and associated motors, propellers and electronic speed 
6

controls from various suppliers. This aircraft has twelve counter-rotating propellers and twelve 

motors in a hexacopter configuration (X12). The petitioner states that given the size, weight, 

speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an 

exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain 

conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of

safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(PL 112-95). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate

in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by the petitioner

will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating

with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H and not subject to the

proposed conditions and limitations.

The petitioner states that the unmanned aircraft (UA) to be operated under this request is less 

than 55 lbs. fully loaded, flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither a pilot nor 

passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively 

within a secured area as set out in the petition. In addition, the petitioner has integrated safety

features into the design of the UAS, as described in the petition, to ensure the safety of persons 

and property within and surrounding the limited operating area. The petitioner further describes 

that, in the event the UAS loses communications with the ground control station, it will rely on 

a global positioning system (GPS) flight mode and revert to a hover and slowly land.

The petitioner states that even though its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an 

exemption may be needed from 14 CFR § 45.23 as the UA will have no entrance to the cabin, 

cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “experimental” can be placed. Given the size of the 

UA, the petitioner notes that the two-inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner asserts that 

an equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UA marked with the word 

“experimental” on the fuselage in compliance with 14 CFR § 45.29(f), in a location where the 

pilot, technician, spotter, and others working with the UA will see the markings

The petitioner requests an exemption from the maintenance, preventative maintenance, and 

alterations requirements in part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.405 through 91.417). The Director of 

Operations is responsible for the maintenance control system. The petitioner’s operating 

documents contain preflight, postflight, and periodic maintenance processes to repair 

discrepancies between inspections for the UAS affected by this exemption.

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the 

proposed operations will achieve an equivalent level of safety when conducted by the petitioner’s

personnel that meet the requirements of its own vetting system, which it stipulates will ensure only 

pilots of sufficient skill will operate the UAS. Thus, the petitioner believes its pilots will provide a level 

of safety equal to the same operations conducted by pilots possessing a private pilot certificate. In 

support of its position, the petitioner argues that while it sees some value in the items taught in a 

private pilot ground school, there is no correlation between fixed manned aircraft flying skills 

and flying a UAS, and that the risks attendant to the operation of their UAS are far less than the 

risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 CFR part 61. The petition further 
7

states that currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled, UAS are legally operating by 

amateurs with no flight experience, no safety plan and with no controls in place to prevent 

catastrophe and therefore it is only logical to allow the petitioner’s experienced remote control 

pilots, technicians, and safety crew to operate similar lightweight UAS.

Additionally, the petitioner states that the aircraft will only be operated in quarantined areas that 

are strictly controlled and are away from airports and populated areas. The petitioner further 

states that it conducts extensive briefings prior to flight, during which safety carries primary 

importance, it obtains all necessary permissions and permits prior to operation, and has 

procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential danger. The 

petitioner notes that helicopters are the primary means of aerial motion picture capture and 

while the safety record of such operations is astounding, it is far safer to operate a battery 

powered, lightweight UAS. The potential loss of life is diminished because UAS carry no 

people on board and the petitioner only operates them in specific areas away from mass 

populations. There is also no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is 

greatly diminished. 

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that each flight will be staffed with a pilot, technician and spotter; all 

flights will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot and UA flights will be

limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Additionally, the 

petitioner states it will operate their UAS during filming operations within tightly controlled 

and limited areas that will be marked and cordoned off, with controls in place to allow for 

safe operations in accordance with their operating documents. The petitioner argues that 

compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more than its UA and 

the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with its UAS operations is far less than those

with conventional aircraft conducting similar operations. Further, the petitioner utilizes a 

safety management system to ensure consistent, safe UAS operations.

Regarding 14 CFR § 91.7(a) the petitioner discusses that this regulation prohibits the operation 

of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. The petitioner then states that since no

such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this regulation is 

inapplicable.

Regarding 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2) the petitioner discusses that this regulation requires an aircraft 

flight manual in the aircraft. The petitioner then states that there are no pilots or passengers, and 

given the size of the UAS, this regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be 

achieved by maintaining a manual at the flight operations center.

With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner notes it may need an exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.103, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner

asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the PIC taking all preflight actions as 

set forth in their operating documents. Additionally, the petitioner states that a briefing will be

conducted prior to each day’s filming regarding planned UAS operations, and all personnel

performing duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter will be required to attend.
8

Although the petition requests relief from 14 CFR § 91.109, it did not include supporting 

rationale or basis for such relief.

With respect to minimum safe altitudes, the petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, 

because the petitioner’s UAS will never operate above 400 feet AGL, in areas that are cordoned 

off with security parameters and in accordance with the close range aerial procedures contained 

in their operating documents.

With respect to 14 CFR § 91.121 the petitioner states that their UAS utilizes electronic global 

positioning systems and six internal gyroscopes to provide spatial coordination.

With respect to the fuel requirements in14 CFR § 91.151, the petitioner argues that given the

limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the controlled nature of the area in which 

operations will occur an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by stating their intention to land 

with 25% battery power remaining.

Public Interest

The petitioner asserts that its petition is in the public interest for several reasons. First, 

Congress pronounced that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially flown UAS 

into the national airspace system (NAS), hence the passing of the Reform Act. Second, the 

flight data, visual inspections, recorded observations and flight analyses from these 

operations will be compiled to further enhance its current safety protocols. Third, the public 

has an interest in reducing the danger and emission associated with current aerial cinematic 

capture methods, namely full size helicopters. The petitioner notes that its UAS is battery 

powered and creates no emissions. If the petitioner’s UAS crashes there is no fuel to ignite 

and explode. The impact of the petitioner’s lightweight UAS is far less than a full size 

helicopter, notwithstanding the statistically noteworthy safety record of full size helicopters 

used in motion picture capture. The public’s interest is furthered by minimizing ecological 

and crash impacts by permitting motion picture capture through the use of lightweight UAS.

The petition states that the progression of the arts and sciences has been fundamental to our 

society. Permitting the petitioner to immediately fly within the United States furthers these 

goals. Whether it is the amalgam of scientific discoveries applicable to feature film making 

(including those drawing upon architecture, physics, engineering and cultural inclusiveness) 

to advancements in publicly usable technologies or advancements in equipment available to 

law enforcement personnel/first responders that does not cost millions of dollars, granting the 

petitioner’s exemption request substantially furthers the public's interest in ways known and 

currently unknown.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2014 

(79 FR 42868). Three comments were received.

Of the three comments received, including two from associations, one comment supported the 
9

exemption request and two opposed. The petition received comments on the following topics: 

economic impact, UAS, PIC requirements, operational capabilities, airspace, sense and avoid, 

and data link.

In support of the petitioner’s request, the Small UAV Coalition pointed to various safety 

aspects of the petitioners proposed operation. The Small UAV Coalition noted that the 

language in Section 333 provides a high degree of regulatory flexibility relative to considering 

many UAS operations, such as operating closer to persons and property on the surface. 

Supporting comments also cited the economic benefits of UAS.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) opposed the petition. ALPA noted that 

the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,” and believes the UAS 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 and a current second-class airman medical 

certificate. ALPA also noted that this is the requirement for compensation or hire operations in 

the NAS today. The FAA has carefully reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments 

regarding knowledge, training, and medical certification required by holders of both private 

and commercial certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this 

issue with regards to 14 CFR part 61.

ALPA notes that without specific distances to be maintained from either airports or populated 

areas, it is impossible to assess the risk that the petitioner may be introducing to other aircraft 

or to persons on the ground. Without such specificity, it cannot be determined if the proposed 

operation may place small UAS in the same airspace as manned aircraft operating in an ATA, 

or if the operation introduces a risk to the public by operating over populated areas. ALPA 

asserts that since the petitioner proposes no separation capabilities to mitigate the risk of 

collision, the proposed operation increases the likelihood of unanticipated safety impacts to 

an already burdened NAS. ALPA also states that there must be means both to ensure that the 

UA remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft 

intruding on the operation is mitigated.

The FAA addressed these concerns by adding operating conditions and limitations regarding 

operations in the proximity of airports. 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 NOTAM as required by the operator’s Certificate of Waiver 

or Authorization (COA). Additionally, stand-off distance from clouds, altitude restrictions, 

and operating distance from non-participating personnel have been prescribed. Further detail 

is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below.

An individual commented that UAS should meet criteria set forth in a standard approved by the 

FAA. Also, ALPA commented that Communication and Command (C2) [Note: Typically 

referred to as command and control] link failures are one of the most common failures on UAS 

and lost link mitigations require safe modes to prevent fly‐a‐ways or other scenarios, including 

mitigations such as, auto‐land, return‐to‐home and geo‐fencing boundary protection, 

incorporated into the navigation and control systems for a UA to safely land or re‐establish C2. 
10

ALPA further stated that the radio frequency spectrum that is commonly accessed for small 

UAS is unprotected and asserts that mitigations for spectrum interference, weather, terrain and 

obstacles (man‐made or natural) should be developed to ensure safe operations. 

The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design 

and the petitioner’s supporting documentation addressed potential 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. As discussed in the analysis of the UAS below, the Secretary of 

Transportation has determined that the UAS and associated operations proposed in the petition 

meet the criteria of Section 333 and thus design standards are not required. Further detail is 

contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

Regarding 14 CFR § 91.113 Right of Way, “See and Avoid” requirements, ALPA also stated 

that given the absence of an onboard pilot, a means to meet this statutory requirement is 

necessary. The FAA shares these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and 

limitations into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for all operations, b) operations 

conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO, and c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-ofway to manned aircraft.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

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

and parts. 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, is not necessary.

Commercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with manned aircraft are 

typically conducted with aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates issued under

Part 21, subpart H. These aircraft are normally modified via the Supplemental Type Certificate 

(STC) process to install cameras and other equipment not included in the original aircraft design.

Manned helicopters conducting motion picture and television aerial filming can weigh 6,000 

lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as 

necessary. The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The

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

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

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

accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for the aerial filming operation.

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

UA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel 
11

spillage is eliminated.

During motion picture and television aerial filming with manned aircraft under the conditions of

an FAA issued Certificate of Waiver, normally issued by a jurisdictional Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) under FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, aircraft can be operated in very

close proximity to participating persons. The safety of these individuals is maintained through 

use of an aircraft with standard airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, 

operation of the aircraft by a qualified and competent pilot, and operating according to 

limitations necessary to ensure safety. In these situations, the filming subject and production 

personnel are exposed to risk by virtue of their close proximity to an aircraft in flight. Compared 

to manned aircraft, the UA being operated by the petitioner reduces the risk to participating

persons in close proximity to the aircraft due to the limited size, weight, operating conditions, 

and design safety features of the UAS.

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

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

risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand-off distance from clouds, 

permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within visual line

of sight and yield right of way to all manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides 

that the operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS.

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

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

automated flight maneuver. The FAA also believes that the multiple control redundancies 

described in the petitioner’s operating documents are sufficient to mitigate risks associated with 

the loss of GPS signal. These additional safety features ensure that these operations will not 

adversely impact the safety of participating and nonparticipating individuals.

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

petitioner’s request is made under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” 

will be required as a condition of an exemption request. However, this marking is reserved for

aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under § 21.191. Since the petitioner’s UAS

will not be certificated under 14 CFR § 21.191, a grant of exemption for 14 CFR § 45.23(b) is 

not necessary.

The petitioner requests relief from 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) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has evaluated the 

petitioner’s request and determined that cause for exemption to these requirements is 

warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating documents contain preflight and 

postflight checks for the UAS. The FAA has also determined that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) is 

also necessary because it is an alternate inspection requirement of § 91.409(a)(2).The FAA 

finds that adherence to the operating documents, as required by the conditions and limitations 

below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. 
12

Pilot In Command of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot 

privileges and limitations, the petitioner requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without 

an FAA-certificated pilot. Although Section 333 provides limited statutory flexibility to the 

statutory requirement to hold an airworthiness certificate, it does not provide flexibility to other 

requirements of title 49. The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from the statutory 

requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. For further 

information see Exemption No. 11110, Trimble Navigation, Ltd.

The FAA is requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations for two reasons, the first of which 

is to satisfy the statutory requirements as stated above. The second is because pilots holding an 

FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to the security screening by the 

Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined 

by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns 

over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 333.

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

petitioner’s proposed operation.

Under 14 CFR part 61, civil operations for compensation or hire require a pilot that holds a 

commercial pilot certificate. Based on the limitations of 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot 

holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire 

unless the flight is only incidental to a business or employment. However, in Grant of 

Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a 

private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in 

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

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

differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus. 

The petitioner plans to operate over property with the permission of the land owner/controller

while also limiting access to the property during operations. Given: 1) the similar nature of the 

petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus, 2) the parallel nature of private 

pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements, and 3) the 

airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the 

airmanship skills necessary for the petitioner’s proposed operations. Therefore, the FAA finds 

that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate is 

appropriate for the proposed operations.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the petitioner has proposed

pilot qualification criteria and a training program. The conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has completed 

the petitioner’s training program, meets the operator’s pilot qualification criteria 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 
13

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

The petitioner also requested that a pilot at the controls [referred to as a PAC by the petitioner], 

who does not possess at least a private pilot certificate, could also be designated and 

manipulate the controls under the authority of the PIC. The FAA does not agree. The 

petitioner has not provided sufficient information to consider operations in close proximity to 

persons and property without a certificated airman. All operations must be conducted by a PIC 

that meets the qualifications described above and the conditions and limitations below. 

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class 

airman medical certificate, meets the petitioner’s pilot qualification criteria and has completed 

the petitioner’s UAS training, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely 

affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of 

the overall safety case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the 

FAA finds that granting limited relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted.

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual 

observer (VO) who has completed the petitioners training program. The conditions and 

limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions 

prescribed in the operating documents. Additionally, as discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to 

Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for VO medical certificates. A medical 

certificate is not required for a VO. The VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS 

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

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

PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of 

Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary 

for the VO.

Operating parameters of the UAS

Based upon its assessment of the proposed operations, the FAA has determined that notification 

and coordination with jurisdictional FSDOs similar to the requirements prescribed in FAA Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (V3, C8, S1), Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion 

Picture and Television Filming, is necessary, as required in Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, 

including submitting a written Plan of Activities. Motion picture and television filming waivers 

similar to the petitioner’s operation are normally issued from one jurisdictional FSDO and can be

used in locations covered by other geographically responsible FSDOs through notification. Since

the petitioner’s operation deals specifically with UAS, this exemption will take the place of the

Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8, 

S1 (Note: this should not be confused with the COA issued by the FAA Air Traffic Organization 

as discussed below and in the conditions and limitations). Every FSDO with jurisdiction over the

area that the petitioner plans to operate within must still be notified, just as with manned filming

operations, and those FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate with the UAS Integration Office

to address any local concerns, as stated below in the conditions and limitations section of this 

exemption.
14

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

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

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

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

determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is granted. The petitioner 

is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in an airworthy condition – based on compliance 

with the operating documents prior to every flight, and as stated in the conditions and 

limitations below.

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for 

determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA finds that the PIC 

can comply with this requirement, therefore relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary.

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

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

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

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.103, Preflight Action, the petitioner 

requires each PIC to take certain actions before flight to ensure the safety of the flight. The 

exemption is needed because the pilot will take separate preflight actions as referenced in the 

operating documents. Although there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

available, the FAA believes that the petitioner can comply with the other applicable requirements 

in 14 CFR § 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the operating documents address the 

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

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

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

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

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

associated with sun glare; the FAA believes that the 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 

his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 

is not necessary.

Although the petition requests relief from 14 CFR § 91.109, Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests, it did not include supporting rationale or basis for such 

relief. However, as in Grant of Exemption Number 11138 (Douglas Trudeau, Realtor), the FAA 

has determined that relief is not necessary since the petitioner has not presented operations 

requiring a full-functioning dual set of controls.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes. 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 
15

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

the petitioner states that operations will only be conducted within the sterile area described in the 

operating documents.

The FAA finds that relief is only needed from 14 CFR § 91.119(c), which is consistent with the 

relief typically provided to manned operations in FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1. This Order 

allows for relief from § 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and 

structures directly involved in the performance of the actual filming. Consistent with FAA Order 

8900.1 V3, C8, S1, persons other than participating persons2 are not allowed within 500 feet of 

the operating area. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if an equivalent level 

of safety can be achieved and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent 

level of safety may be determined through evaluation by an aviation safety inspector of the 

filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, etc. Such barriers may 

protect nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debris in the 

event of an accident. The stand-off distances above are applicable to all UA operations, including 

takeoff, flight, and landing of the UA.

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

will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft rather it uses information 

generated from GPS to transmit altitude information to the PIC. As stated in the conditions and 

limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to ATC to be in feet AGL. The 

petitioner may choose to set the GPS altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather than local 

barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. Considering the limited altitude of the 

proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the extent necessary to comply 

with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below.

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

in VFR conditions, relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the 

minimums prescribed in 14 CFR § 91.151(a), including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. 

In addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 

10673 for daytime, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The petitioner states that its UAS

operations will be conducted in a controlled, closed-set filming environment, with UA under 55 

pounds, at speeds below 50 knots, and within VLOS. These factors, combined with the 

petitioner’s stated intention to land with 25% battery power remaining provides the FAA 

sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the

conditions and limitations below.

In evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to VLOS and a safe

operating perimeter, the FAA considered operations from a moving device or vehicle. Since

the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the conditions and limitations 

below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles.

 2 Per Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, participating persons are all persons associated with the filming production, and 

they must be briefed on the potential risk of the proposed flight operation(s) and must acknowledge and accept 

those risks. Nonparticipating persons are the public, spectators, media, etc., not associated with the filming 

production.
16

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued COA, the majority of current UAS 

operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated through ATC by the issuance of a 

COA. This is an existing process that not only makes local ATC facilities aware of UAS 

operations, but also provides ATC the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to 

UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to request a NOTAM, which is the 

mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being conducted. The 

conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for the petitioner to obtain an ATOissued COA.

Public Interest

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

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

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

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

enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. 

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief:

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

Part 21 Relief not necessary

45.23(b) Relief not necessary

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

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary

91.103(b) Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119 Paragraph (c) relief granted with conditions 

and limitations

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations

91.151(a) Relief granted from 91.151(a)(1), day, 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
17

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, AeroCine is granted an exemption from

14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and (b); 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 

AeroCine to operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of aerial 

cinematography for the motion picture and television industry. This exemption is subject to 

the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, AeroCine is hereafter referred to as the operator.

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

operating documents: 

1) AeroCine Technical Manual v2 

2) AeroCine General Operations Manual v 10.7.2014 

3) AeroCine Battery Safety Manual 

4) KW X12 Inspection Checklist 

5) Maintenance Log

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 is an unmanned aircraft (UA) that has twelve 

counter-rotating propellers and twelve motors in a hexacopter configuration (X12) weighing 

less than 55 pounds fully loaded: AeroCine Kopterworx Hammer X12 UAS aircraft variant, 

serial #KW-0127 onward. 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 operations for the purpose of 

aerial cinematography for the motion picture and television industry.

3. The UA may not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 50 knots.

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 

ATC must be in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (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.
18

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. The operator’s authorized service technicians must receive and document 

training referenced in the operating documents. 

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 in 

the aircraft records. 

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

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

operating documents.

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, and alterations must 

be noted in the aircraft records, including total flight hours, description of work 

accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.
19

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 third-class 

medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

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

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 UAS may not be operated by a 

PAC or other person who does not meet the requirements above. The VO is also required to 

complete the operator’s training requirements. 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 exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted 

during dedicated training sessions.

17. 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.

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 NOTAM as 

required by the operator’s 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 UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it 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.
20

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

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

COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 

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

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 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. At least three days before scheduled filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local 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 filming production 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 filming production event;

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.
21

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

activities at all times.

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

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

31. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operating documents have safety 

procedures for UA operations to be conducted closer than 500 feet to authorized and 

consenting production personnel. At all times, operations must not present an undue hazard 

to those participating persons per § 91.119(a).

32. Regarding distance from nonparticipating persons, the operator must ensure that no persons 

are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved and necessary

for the filming production. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if it would 

not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent 

level of safety may be determined by an aviation safety inspector’s evaluation of the filming

production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. Such 

barriers may protect nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from 

debris in the event of an accident. This is also consistent with the FAA Order 8900.1, V3, 

C8, S1.

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

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

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

conducted.

34. 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. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service