Jonathan B. Hill

T: +1 202 776 2725

jhill@cooley.com

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

August 18, 2014

Robert Pappas

UAS Integration Office – Special Rules Coordinator

Federal Aviation Administration

490 L'Enfant Plaza #3200

Washington, DC 20024

RE: Request for Additional Information: Astraeus Aerial, Petition for Exemption, Docket 

Number FAA-2014-0352; and Petitions for Exemption in Dockets FAA-2014-0353, 

FAA-2014-0354, FAA-2014-0355, FAA-2014-0356, FAA-2014-0357, and FAA-2014-0358

Dear Mr. Pappas:

We file this letter on behalf of the seven exemption applications listed above. This letter is in 

response to an email, dated August 7, 2014 at 12:03 pm, addressed to the undersigned and 

John McGraw. As you are aware, we represent these entities and filed the exemption 

applications for each in the indicated dockets.

Below, we set forth responses to each of the questions raised in your email:

1. To assist with assessing your request for exemption from a number of the 

regulations in your petition, we request the following information regarding your UAS(s):

a. Specific type(s), make, and model, and registration numbers, of UAS(s) to 

be operated by Astraeus. If not registered at this time, please provide the aircraft serial 

numbers. For each UAS, provide the manufacturers information regarding the design, 

aircraft performance, and fail-safe features. Provide manufacturer information related to 

operating limitations, normal and emergency procedures, and maintenance and 

inspection procedures.

Each applicant’s response to this question will be contained in the individual Aircraft Flight 

Manuals that will be filed confidentially. 

b. An Aircraft Flight Manual or equivalent (which is distinct from the 

Operations Manual) for each UAS with specific instructions and information necessary to 

operate the UAS in a safe manner. The information contained in that Aircraft Flight 

Manual or equivalent should also support your request for relief from 14 CFR § 91.103(b).

The Aircraft Flight Manuals, or their equivalents, are submitted with a request that the manuals 

be maintained as confidential and proprietary. The manuals contain information that is not 

available to the public and has been maintained by each of the operators as proprietary and 
Rob Pappas

August 18, 2014

Page Two

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

confidential. We will submit these directly to you under separate cover, marked confidential. 

They will be submitted as they are made available to the undersigned.

2. The FAA is assessing your request for exemption from 14 CFR § 61.113 (a) and 

(b). Regarding equivalent safety or no adverse safety affect, please provide your 

assessment of the training and qualification differences between private and 

commercially certificated pilots, and if and how these differences may impact the safety 

of the proposed operations of your UAS(s). Relative to any identified deltas between the 

commercial and private certificates, please address the mitigations proposed to ensure 

an equivalent level of safety or no adverse safety affect. Example mitigations might 

include the minimum total flight hours required to perform the duties of PIC or the 

minimum total flight hours required for each UAS being used to perform the duties of 

PIC.

There are no standards for either Private or Commercial sUAS pilot certificates. The safe 

operation and control of the UAS as described in the Exemption Applications does not depend 

on the type of FAA license held by the PIC. Given the restricted and controlled airspace within 

which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge of the 

airspace within which the “closed set filming” operation will take place and how that airspace fits 

into the National Airspace System (NAS). That knowledge can be and is gained primarily 

through ground school and not through flight training in fixed wing or rotor aircraft, nor is it 

dependent on the acquisition of a commercial or private pilot’s certificate. Those certificates 

demonstrate knowledge of the factors and skills needed for the safe operation of those types of 

aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft). It cannot be assumed that a commercial pilot, approved to 

operate a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or ability to safely operate a small 

unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 400 AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre-approved 

airspace. Besides knowledge of airspace regulations, dexterity in the control and operation of 

the sUAS acquired from actual operation of the aircraft is the most important factor in 

establishing an equivalent level of safety.

If the PIC has acquired the necessary knowledge of airspace requirements, the relevant issues

are (1) where the aircraft will be flown, (2) the size of the aircraft relative to what is being used 

today to accomplish the same mission, and (3) what precautions will be taken to ensure the 

safety of those in the area of operation. As set forth in the Exemption Application, Applicants, to 

address those issues, have proposed that the PIC has at least an FAA Private Pilots Certificate 

and a Class III medical; the aircraft be operated within a secure environment; and that no one 

be allowed to enter the secure environment unless they are part of the production, have been 

fully briefed of the risks prior to operation of the sUAS, and have consented to the risks 

associated with being in the operating area. Should there be a mishap, the sUAS being flown

pose significantly less of a threat than the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft now being 

employed because they are a fraction of the size, carry no flammable fuel, do not carry crew or 

passengers, and pose an infinitesimal risk to others. This is in stark contrast to conventional 

aircraft that are flown to the site, carry explosive fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate 

in a much larger area.
Rob Pappas

August 18, 2014

Page Three

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

From a practical standpoint, there are relatively few licensed full-scale aircraft pilots who are 

also qualified to fly the type of sUAS that are utilized for motion picture industry image-capture 

operations. There are even fewer commercial pilots that can fly these sUAS – to the point that 

to do both is considered rare. Assuming that it is unlikely for a company to find a pilot that has

both qualifications, that company would either have to source a qualified sUAS pilot to train and 

obtain a commercial certificate, or find a commercial certificated pilot who would be willing to 

learn to fly a sUAS to the competency level required for professional motion picture industry 

use.1

As set forth in the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (hereinafter the “Operations 

Manual”), submitted as a confidential document, minimum requirements for the PIC include:

1) Private Pilot’s license and a Class III medical;

2) A minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a sUAS rotorcraft pilot and 

at least 10 hours logged as a sUAS pilot with a similar sUAS type (single blade or 

multirotor);

3) A minimum of 5 hours as sUAS pilot with the make and model of sUAS to be utilized for 

operations under the exemption and 3 take offs and landings in the preceding 90 days;

4) Have undergone a qualification process consisting of a knowledge test of the aircraft to 

be used and a flight demonstration to be administered by a FSDO-approved company 

pilot.

Specifics are set out in the Operations Manual in Section M for both the pilot and observer. 

 1 Requiring a sUAS pilot to obtain a commercial certificate, as opposed to just a private pilot certificate, 

creates a significant financial burden and provides little or no added benefit. For example, consider a 

company that has financed its employee’s private pilot’s license (PPL) and that the employee accrued 

100 hours of flight time as part of his or her PPL training. To obtain a commercial certificate, he or she 

now needs an additional 150 hours to qualify for the commercial rating. This additional training—

assuming that an instrument rating is not needed because the proposed sUAS operations would be 

strictly VFR—would cost, at a minimum, approximately $21,000. The costs breakdown as follows: :

140 flight hours in a basic fixed wing aircraft (i.e. C172) @ $125 per hour = $17,500

10 flight hours in a complex fixed-wing aircraft @ $200 per hour = $ 2,000

20 hours flight instructor (part 61) @ $75 per hour = $ 1,500

Total Cost $21,000

However, the reality is that oftentimes the cost is much greater. Based upon this analysis, combined with 

all factors, including the lack of qualified commercial pilots, it is hard to envision a cost benefit to the 

requirement that commercial pilots must operate the sUAS. 
Rob Pappas

August 18, 2014

Page Four

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

a. Item 7 of the petition states, “If a pilot certificate holder other than the 

sUAS Pilot, who possess the necessary PIC qualifications, is also present on set (i.e. the 

Aerial Coordinator), that person can also be designated as PIC.” Describe how the PIC, 

who is not the pilot flying, will be engaged in the flight operation, to include proximity to 

the pilot flying and flight controls, procedures for the PIC to assume control of the 

aircraft, and communications between the PIC and visual observer.

The Applicants have, with this letter, withdrawn their request that an Aerial Coordinator be 

designated as the PIC as part of the Exemption. Therefore, no further response to this question 

will be provided.

b. Per item 14 of the petition; “Observer and pilot will at all times be able to 

communicate by voice and/or text.” Describe how text messaging impacts the pilot and 

observer responsibilities for maintaining safe flight.

The Applicants have withdrawn, with this letter, their request that the FAA considered “text” 

communications between the PIC and Observer in evaluating the exemption applications. The 

contingency is not included in the Operations Manual.

3. In your petition for exemption from 14 CFR § 91.109, Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests, the equivalent level of safety in the exemption 

rests upon, “neither a pilot nor passenger will be carried in the aircraft and by the size 

and speed of the aircraft.” The safety of non-participating persons and property, groundbased and airborne, is not addressed. Please describe how an equivalent level of safety 

or no adverse safety affect will be accomplished during training operations.

The safety of those on the ground is protected by the fact that no one will be allowed into the 

closed set without the permission of the film company. Security will be established for the flight 

area as part of the pre-flight control. Each individual within the secure area will be briefed prior 

to flight and will consent to being in the area. All others will be excluded from the area. See 

Section E of the Operations Manual.

4. Regarding your petition for exemption from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe 

altitudes: General, page 4, #11 of the petition proposes operating no less than 100 ft. 

from “consenting persons involved in the filming,” with possible reductions to 30 ft. For 

each UAS(s) for the proposed operations, what mitigations will ensure the safety of nonparticipating persons and property?

The Operations Manual provides that production personnel may be within 100 to 30 feet of the 

aircraft with specific briefing of the production personnel and the safety assessment of the PIC. 

For operations closer than 30 feet, all participants will be provided a safety briefing and specific 

flight plans for each flight will be coordinated between the PIC, observer, and the subjects of the 

filming operations as set forth in the Operations Manual Section E. The Operations Manual 

requires obtaining permission from the FAA FSDO having jurisdiction over the flight, consistent 

with the requirements for full scale aircraft set forth in Order 8900.1 Vol. 3, Chapter 8 for flights 

closer than 30 feet. Unlike current flights in close proximity to individuals, sUAS filming does not 
Rob Pappas

August 18, 2014

Page Five

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

pose nearly the risk to the subject of such filming as presently encountered with helicopters and 

fixed wing aircraft. Applicants have provided pictures of current operations with turbojet 

helicopters to illustrate this point in response to a similar question.

5. Furthermore, your petition for exemption from 14 CFR § 91.119 proposes 

operations from elevated platforms. Please describe the elevated platforms. For 

example, are they stationary, could the elevated platform be a manned aircraft, etc.?

With this letter applicants have withdrawn their request to operate from a platform and will limit 

all operations to 400 AGL or below.

When operating from below ground level or below an elevated platform, (as shown on 

page 13 of the petition) what are the proposed maximum distances below and laterally 

from the location or platform from which the aircraft will be operated? In the event of a 

system failure, how does the petitioner ensure safety for persons and property when 

operating over such areas?

With this letter applicants have withdrawn their request to operate from a platform and will limit 

all operations to 400 AGL or below.

6. Your petition for exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter Settings, states that a 

“GPS altitude read out” will be used in lieu of a barometric altimeter. Although it states, 

“An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the Manual 

and Safety Check list, confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS 

altitude indicator before flight,” we found no reference to altimeter settings or a Safety 

Check list within the Operations Manual. Please provide the aforementioned Manual, 

Safety Check list, or equivalent document(s) describing these procedures, and in the 

petition, describe how the hazard mitigation provided ensures an equal level or no 

adverse safety affect.

Sections L and J of the Operations Manual now include requirements that altitude information 

be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from 

the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. This altitude information will be generated by 

equipment installed on board the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded 

barometric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero 

altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot. 

7. The petition requests relief from numerous maintenance and inspection 

regulations, specifically 14 CFR § 91.405(a), § 91.407(a) (1), § 91.409(a) (2), and § 91.417(a) 

and (b). Please describe the additional procedures (which can be included in the 

Operations Manual, a Maintenance and Inspection Manual, or equivalent document), if 

any, needed to:

a. Address unscheduled maintenance.

b. Document the authorization for UAS flight after maintenance.
Rob Pappas

August 18, 2014

Page Six

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

c. Address the process, if applicable, of incorporating changes in the UAS, or 

other work performed to the UAS that appreciably affects the flight operating 

characteristics of the UAS.

d. Address the UAS inspection process including the inspection frequency 

for the type(s) of UAS to be operated.

e. Address the documentation process of UAS inspections, incorporation of 

changes and/or work performed upon the UAS, and the identification of the person whom 

performed the work and/or authorized the UAS for flight.

Appendix B of the Operations Manual, pages 29-38, addresses the maintenance questions

presented to the extent that the manufacturer does not provide specific maintenance 

instructions. Maintenance will be “on condition” for all aircraft. Each aircraft will have a 

maintenance log as set forth in Appendix B of the Operations Manual.

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

John McGraw

cc: James Williams

Thuy Cooper

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith

Joseph Morra