AFS–15–128–E

Exemption No. 11194 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

QUIET CREEK CORPORATION

for an exemption from parts 21 and 91 

Subpart E (91.407 – 91.417); §§ 45.23; 45.29; 

61.3; 61.23; 61.113(a) and (b); 61.133(a); 

91.7(a); 91.9; 91.109(a); 91.119; 91.121; 

91.151(a); and 91.203; of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0910

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 29, 2014, Mr. Robert Davis, CEO, Quiet Creek Corporation 

(hereinafter Petitioner or Operator), 5130 North Prairie Clover Trail, Tucson, Arizona 85704 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption parts 21 and 91 

Subpart E (91.401 – 91.417); §§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.3, 61.23, 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9, 

91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), and, 91.203 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate the SenseFly eBee unmanned 

aircraft system (UAS) to conduct mapping and precision agriculture operations. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner proposes to operate the SenseFly eBee UAS to conduct mapping and precision 

agriculture operations. See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the 

proposed operations, including the regulations from which the petitioner seeks an exemption. 

The petition and the following supporting documentation, which includes proprietary 

supporting documents, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents: 
2 

1. eBee Maintenance Procedures 

2. eBee Training Documentation 

3. eBee Extended User’s Manual (Revision 12) 

4. SenseFly Justification of Airworthiness and Safety Assessment 

The FAA evaluated the petition and determined it was not precedent-setting. Therefore, a 

summary of the petition was not published in the Federal Register for public comment. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) UAS, (2) the UAS pilot in 

command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the public interest. 

Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, 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, Subpart H, and any associated noise certification and 

testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary. 

Manned aircraft conducting aerial imagery operations thousands of pounds or more, are 

operated by an onboard pilot and may carry other onboard crewmembers, as well as carry 100 

gallons or more of fuel. The petitioner’s UA weighs approximately 1.7 pounds. The pilot and 

crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction reduces 

the potential for harm to persons or damage to 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 UAS for the proposed operation. 

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

unmanned aircraft (UA) carries no fuel and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or 

accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated. 

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

contingencies or failures and is also able to respond to a loss of global positioning system 

(GPS) or a lost-link event with pre-coordinated automated landing maneuvers. These safety 

features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a 

restricted airworthiness certificate performing a similar operation. 

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

§45.29 Size of marks, the petitioner presumably requests this relief under the assumption that 

marking with the word “experimental” will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. 

However, this marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 
3 

14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore 

the “experimental” marking is not required, and a grant of exemption for § 45.23(b) is not 

necessary. However, 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). 

Therefore, the requested relief from § 45.29(f) is not granted. 

The petitioner requests relief from14 CFR 91 Subpart E Maintenance, Preventative 

maintenance, and alterations (primarily §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) 

Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(1)(2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records). The petitioner’s 

operating documents contain pre-flight and post flight checks for the UAS, as well as 

procedures for corrective maintenance. The FAA has evaluated the petitioner’s request and 

determined that cause for exemption to the requirements of §§ 91.401 and 91.403 is not 

necessary. The FAA further notes that relief from §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted. The FAA finds that adherence to the 

operating documents, with respect to the maintenance requirements of the preceding sections 

and as specified by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is 

not adversely affected. 

UAS Pilot in Command 

The petitioner requested regulatory relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot 

privileges and limitations. The petitioner proposes that its UAS operators should not be 

required to hold a commercial or private pilot certificate. Instead, the UAS operators should 

be required to complete an Academy of Model Aeronautics-affiliated UAS training program 

and education program, successfully complete a small UAS education and training program 

provided by any FAA-qualified entity, or hold a private pilot certificate. Although Section 

333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of 

airworthiness certification, it does not provide flexibility relative to other sections of title 49. 

The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt petitioners 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 also requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations 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 current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a 

commercial pilot certificate, per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations and in 
4 

accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR § 61.113(a), a pilot holding a private pilot 

certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire. 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. 

This is similar to other petitions for exemption previously filed with and considered by the 

FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11109 (Clayco, Inc.) and 11170 (Viafield), the FAA has 

analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and determined it does not differ significantly 

from these grants of exemption. The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over controlled 

access property, with the permission of the property owner/controller, while also limiting 

property access to consenting participants while operations are underway. Given: 1) the 

similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Clayco and 

Viafield, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those 

of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062, Astraeus Aerial], and 3) the 

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

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

the airmanship skills required 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. 

The petitioner also requested relief from § 61.3, Requirement for certificates, ratings, and 

authorizations. The FAA finds that relief from this section is not necessary because the 

regulation permits pilots to keep pilot and medical certificates in their physical possession 

when exercising the privileges of that certificate. 

The petitioner additionally requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.23, Medical certificates: 

Requirements and duration. Insofar as the FAA requires that a third-class medical certificate 

is required for the PIC, relief from § 61.23 is not granted. 

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a current private pilot certificate and a thirdclass airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s flight training 

requirements, 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 safety 

case presented by the petitioner, the FAA finds that granting the relief from 14 CFR § 

61.113(a) is warranted subject to the conditions and limitations below. The FAA also finds 

that relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(b) is not necessary. Relief from 14 CFR § 61.133(a), 

Commercial pilot privileges and limitations, is not necessary. 

The petitioner does not indicate whether it plans to supplement its proposed operation(s) with 

a visual observer (VO). The FAA notes that one of the determinations for operations under 

section 333 is operation within visual line of sight (VLOS). As the PIC is determined to be in 

command of the UA, he or she must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA notes 

that a visual observer complements the PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft 

(per § 91.113), including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks 
5 

(e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to structures, vehicles, or other objects). The VO 

provides an additional level of operational safety and thus 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. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that 

the PIC must ensure that a VO is present for all operations, and that the VO can perform the 

functions of maintaining visual contact with the UAS. It is the responsibility of the PIC to be 

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

As in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial, the FAA does not consider a medical 

certificate necessary for the VO. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft 

airworthiness, the petitioner’s request is based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate 

will be issued for the UAS and that no FAA regulatory standard exists for determining 

airworthiness. 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. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b) Civil aircraft airworthiness, the PIC of the UAS is 

responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA, as 

in grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, has determined that the operating documents 

include procedures to be used prior to each flight that can ensure compliance with § 91.7(b). 

Therefore, relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary. The petitioner is still required to ensure that 

its aircraft is in a condition for safe flight – based on compliance with the operating 

documents– prior to every flight. 

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

marking, and placard requirements; and 14 CFR § 91.203, 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 § 91.109(a), Flight instruction; 

Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petitioner 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) that 

would require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, the petitioner 

intends to accomplish training as described in the UA training program and through the use of 

“qualified instructors familiar with the eBee.” This exemption will require that training 

operations only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. The FAA finds that safety 

will not be adversely impacted if the petitioner follows the training outlined in the operating 
6 

documents. The FAA notes that the UA ground control station is computer-based and 

therefore will be accessible to both an instructor and a student at all times and the controls can 

be passed back and forth between the instructor and student, thus achieving an equivalent 

level of safety as having two sets of controls. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can 

conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109(a). 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes, 

the petitioner did not specify the paragraph(s) in § 91.119 from which it requires relief. 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. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because the 

petitioner states that operations will be conducted over sparsely populated areas. 

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

400 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. Section 91.119(c) provides that in 

operations over water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 

500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The petitioner states that it will operate 

pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions related to § 91.119: 

 

 Petitioner will conduct operations over private, controlled access, or public property 

with the permission of the landowner; 

 Petitioner will avoid operations over congested areas; 

 Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions 

(VMC) and daylight hours; 

 Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations remain within VLOS and will be visually 

monitored at all times; 

 Petitioner will pre-program a GPS geo-fence around the operator of 0.5 miles, and a 

flight ceiling at 400 feet; 

 Petitioner will verbally coordinate all operations conducted within 5 miles from an 

airport with the airport authority, or air traffic control when a control tower is present 

at the airport; 

 Petitioner will ensure all operations shall comply with required permissions and 

permits established by territorial, state, county or city jurisdictions; including local law 

enforcement, fire, or other appropriate governmental agencies. 

 Petitioner will conduct eBee operations in compliance with existing safety procedures 

inherent to the activities of the related company 

The petitioner proposes to avoid congested areas; however, the petitioner did not describe 

specific minimum stand-off distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. As 

discussed in Exemption No. 11109 (Clayco), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the 

ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or 
7 

objects that would not be possible without additional relief. Therefore, the FAA is requiring 

that prior to conducting UAS operations, all persons not essential to flight operations 

(nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires 

the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e., PIC, VO, 

operator trainees, or essential persons). 

The FAA has also considered that the UA will have a maximum take-off weight of 1.7 

pounds. If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating 

persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer 

than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must also 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. When considering how to immediately cease operations, 

the primary concern is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA 

finds that operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures 

when the property owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety 

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not 

present an undue hazard. 

Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted, provided the petitioner adheres 

to the procedures in the operating documents and the FAA’s additional conditions and 

limitations, outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is not granted as the FAA expects the 

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

property on the surface. Relief from § 91.119(b) is not applicable, as is relief from § 

91.119(d), which pertains to helicopters only. 

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

notes that the petitioner’s UAS has a barometric pressure sensor and GPS derived altitude 

capabilities. However, as stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires any 

altitude reported to Air Traffic Control (ATC) to be in feet above ground level (AGL). 

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 § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in 

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

prescribed minimums, 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 

VFR conditions. The operating documents state that the UA batteries provide approximately 

45 minutes of powered flight. Information provided in the operating documents discusses 

procedures regarding remaining battery power. Those documents provide explanation of the 

automatic landing procedures that are executed when the eBee exhausts battery power. The 

FAA believes that, given the limitations on its proposed operations and the location of those 

proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve for flight in daytime VFR conditions 

is reasonable. These factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 
8 

CFR § 91.151(a)(1), as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations, below. 

These conditions and limitations prohibit the PIC from beginning a flight unless there is 

enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA 

with 30% battery power remaining. 

The petitioner proposed operating in other than congested areas. 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 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 COA will require the operator to 

request a Notice to Airmen (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 ATO-issued COA. 

Public Interest 

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The UA is able to collect 

high-resolution data that, according to the petitioner, would provide farmers with a more costeffective method to assess and manage crops, and also a safer way for businesses to access 

dangerous working areas such as mines, quarries, and polluted sites. 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 and 

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 regulatory relief: 
9 

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

Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary 

45.23 Relief not necessary 

45.29 Relief not granted 

61.3 Relief not necessary 

61.23 Relief not granted 

61.113(a) and (b) 

Relief granted for paragraph (a) with 

conditions and limitations; paragraph (b) 

relief not necessary 

61.133(a) Relief not necessary 

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.9 Relief not necessary 

91.109(a) Relief not necessary 

91.119 

Relief not granted for paragraph (a); 

paragraph (b) relief not applicable; 

paragraph (c) relief granted with 

conditions and limitations; paragraph (d) 

relief not applicable 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.151(a) Relief granted for 91.151(a)(1), day, 

with conditions and limitations 

91.203 Relief not necessary 

91.401 Relief not necessary 

91.403 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 
10 

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, Quiet Creek Corporation is granted an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(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 petitioner to operate a UAS for 

the purposes of mapping and precision agriculture operations. This exemption is subject to the 

conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

Relative to this grant of exemption, Quiet Creek Corporation, is hereafter referred to as the 

operator. 

 

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

operating documents: 

1. eBee Maintenance Procedures 

2. eBee Training Documentation 

3. eBee Extended User’s Manual (Revision 12) 

4. SenseFly Justification of Airworthiness and Safety Assessment 

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 a fixed-wing aircraft weighing 

approximately 1.7 pounds: senseFly eBee (eBee). 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 

purposes mapping and precision agriculture. 

3) The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 55 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. 
11 

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 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 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) 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 UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

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

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

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records. 

9) 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, 
12 

alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the 

aircraft records. This includes total time in service, description of work accomplished, 

and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service. 

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

bulletins. 

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

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

15) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current 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 the UAS unless the PIC meets the 

operator’s 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 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). The PIC 

must ensure that the VO is trained appropriately in order to fulfill her or her duties. 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 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. 

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 between the petitioner and 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. 
13 

20) If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined 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 30% battery power remaining. 

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 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. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements 

in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential 

transponder requirements. 

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

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be 

as large as practicable. 

25) Before conducting operations, the operator must ensure that the radio frequency 

spectrum used for operation and control of the UA complies with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight 

agency requirements. 

26) The operator is required to keep a copy of the UAS manufacturer’s operating/flight 

manual and all other operating documents in a location accessible to the PIC, during 

flight operations. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or 

any law enforcement official upon request. 

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

operations and activities at all times. 

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

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

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

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 
14 

a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or; 

b) The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles, or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission 

and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

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

c) Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do not 

present an undue hazard to those persons, per § 91.119(a). 

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

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

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

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

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

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

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

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, 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 3, 2015. 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service