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 Op erator), 5130 North Prairie Clov er Trail, Tucson, Arizona 85704 petitioned the Federal Aviati on 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 peti tioner to operate the SenseFly eBee unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct mappi ng and precision agriculture operations.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner proposes to operate the Sens eFly eBee UAS to conduct mapping and precision agriculture operations. See Appendix A for th e petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations, including th e regulations from which the petitioner seeks an exemption.

The petition and the following supporting doc umentation, which includes proprietary supporting documents, are hereinafter re ferred 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 f our sections: (1) UAS, (2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating para meters, 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 crit eria provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration of the si ze, weight, speed, and limited operating area

associated with the aircraft a nd its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined

that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Theref ore, 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 ope rations thousands of pounds or more, are operated by an onboard pilot and may carry othe r 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 pr operty in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an in cident or accident is el iminated 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 experien cing 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-coordina ted automated landing maneuvers. These safety features provide an equivalent level of sa fety compared to a manned aircraft holding a

restricted airworthiness certifi cate 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 experime ntal certificates under3 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore the “experimental” marking is not required, an d 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 identif ication (N-Number) mark ings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as prac ticable, per § 45.29(f). Therefore, the requested relief from § 45.29(f) is not granted.

The petitioner requests re lief from14 CFR 91 Subpart E Maintenance, Preventative maintenance, and alterations (primarily §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required , 91.407(a)(1)

O

peration after maintenan ce, preventive main tenance, rebuilding, or alteration

, 91.409(a)(1)(2) Inspections , and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records ). The petitioner’s operating documents contai n 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 ex emption to the requirements of §§ 91.401 an d 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 fi nds that adherence to the operating documents, with respec t to the maintenance requirement s of the preceding sections and as specified by the c onditions and limitations below, is su fficient 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 it s UAS operators should not be required to hold a commercial or private pilot certificate. Instead, th e UAS operators should be required to complete an Academy of Model Aeronautics-affiliated UAS training program and education program, successfully complete a small UAS educati on and training program provided by any FAA- qualified entity, or hold a private pilo t certificate. Although Section 333 provides limited statutory fl exibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 fo r the purposes of

airworthiness certific ation, it does not provide flexibility relative to ot her sections of title 49. The FAA does not possess the aut hority to exempt peti tioners from the st atutory requirement

to hold an airman cer tificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. For further information see Exemption No. 11110 (Trimble Navigation, Ltd).

The FAA is also requiring a pilot certificat e for UAS operations becau se pilots holding an FAA issued private or commerci al pilot certificate are subjec t to the security screening by the Department of Homeland S ecurity that certif icated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary, th e 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 pi lot certification for the petitioner’s proposed operation.

Under current regulations, civi l operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificat e, per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations and in4 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 (Astraeu s), 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 exempti on previously filed with and considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11109 (Clayc o, 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 petitione r plans to operate in the NAS over controlled access property, with the permission of the pr operty owner/controller, while also limiting property access to consenting participants wh ile operations are underw ay. 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: Exemp tion 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 certific ated pilot would not ne cessarily correlate to the airmanship skills required for the petitioner’s proposed oper ations. Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a privat e pilot certificate and a third-cl ass airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operations.

The petitioner also reque sted 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 me dical certificates in th eir physical possession when exercising the privilege s of that certificate.

The petitioner additionally request ed 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 ha s completed the petitioner’s flight training requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS op erations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the safety case presented by the petitione r, the FAA finds that gran ting 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 plan s 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 visu al 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 tasks5 (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to struct ures, vehicles, or ot her 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 c ontact with the UAS. It is the responsibility of the PIC to be limit operations of the UA to distances within th e 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 petit ioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, th e FAA considers the pe titioner’s compliance with its operating documents to be a suffi cient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is granted. The petit ioner 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 stat ed 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 en sure compliance w ith § 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 conditi on for safe flight – based on compliance with the operating documents– prior to every flight.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 mate rials 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 woul d be utilized or requi red (i.e., dual flight instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other compa ny-designated individual) that would require that individual to have fully f unctioning 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 petitione r follows the training outlined in the operating6 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 achie ving an equivalent level of safety as having two se ts 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 request ed 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 op erating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA ex pects 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 conge sted areas, is not applicable, because the petitioner states that opera tions will be conducted over sparsely populated areas.

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the ai rcraft will be operate d 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 fe et 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 structur e. The petitioner states that it will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions re lated to § 91.119:

 Petitioner will conduct operations over privat e, controlled access, or public property with the permission of the landowner;

 Petitioner will avoid operati ons over congested areas;

 Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions (VMC) and daylight hours;

 Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations re main 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 ope rations conducted within 5 miles from an airport with the airport author ity, 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, count y or city jurisdictions ; including local law enforcement, fire, or other a ppropriate governmental agencies.

 Petitioner will conduct eBee operations in comp liance with existing safety procedures

inherent to the activitie s of the related company

The petitioner proposes to avoid congested ar eas; however, the petitioner did not describe specific minimum stand-off distances from pers ons, vessels, vehicles and structures. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 (Clayco), operati ons conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or7 objects that would not be possibl e without additional relief. Th erefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting UAS operations, all pe rsons not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating pers ons) must remain at appropriate di stances. 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 es sential 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 protec tion. The operator must also ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situ ation arises where nonparticipating persons leave su ch protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediatel y. 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 th an 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 determ ines that it does not present an undue hazard.

Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted, provided th e petitioner adheres to the procedures in the operating docume nts 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 perf orm 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 request ed relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings , the FAA notes that the petitione r’s UAS has a barometric pressure sensor and GPS derived altitude capabilities. However, as stated in the condi tions and limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to Air Tra ffic Control (ATC) to be in feet above ground level (AGL). Considering the limited altitude of the propos ed 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 reque sted 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 re serve for flight in daytime VFR conditions is reasonable. These factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 148 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 landi ng 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 ev aluates the safety of these operations relative to the reque sted airspace, through the existi ng Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process. The majority of current UAS operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated through AT C 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 opera tions. 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 th e public interest. The UA is able to collect high-resolution data that, according to the petiti oner, 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, quarrie s, and polluted sites. The enhanced safety achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petiti oner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned airc raft 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 exempti on 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

limitations10 The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant 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 Cree k 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 neces sary to allow petitioner to operate a UAS for the purposes of mapping and precis ion agriculture operati ons. This exemption is subject to the

conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

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

operator.

The petition and the following supporting documen tation 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 an d 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 ex emption are limited to the following aircraft, described in the operating documents, wh ich 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 sp ecified in the operating documents. All altitudes reported to AT C 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 sp ecified 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 PI C 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 pe rmitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and ca nnot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensu re 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 availabl e to the Administrator upon re quest. If a discrepancy

exists between the conditions and limitati ons in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the c onditions 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 revise d 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 contacte d 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 docum ented in the aircraft records.

9) Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics (e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical 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 a ll potential discrepancies (e.g., inoperable components, items, or equipment not already covered in the releva nt sections of the operating documents).

11) The operator must follow the UAS manufact urer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspecti on, and life limit requirements.

12) The operator must carry out its maintena nce, inspections, and record keeping requirements in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection,12 alterations, and status of re placement/overhaul component pa rts 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 mu st comply with all manufacturer safety

bulletins.

14) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancie s 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 revi ew requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PI C 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 a ppropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structur es. PIC qualification, flight hours, and currency must be logged in a manner c onsistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The PIC must ensure that the VO is trained appropriate ly 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-buildin g) are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and e xperience-building fli ghts, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonpa rticipants 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 conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (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 aeronautic al chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obt ained, 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 air port 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 ope rating 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 f light 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 Or ganization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to c onducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will require the ope rator 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 accord ance 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 CF R 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 (F CC) 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 activit ies at all times.

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

29) The UA may not be operated over congest ed 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 pr otect 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, operat or trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons, per § 91.119(a).

31) All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/cont roller 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 Sa fety 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 al l 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, F light Standards Service