AFS-15-039-E

Exemption No. 11170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

VIAFIELD

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0824

for an exemption from Part 21; and

§§ 45.23; 45.29; 61.23; 61.3; 

61.113(a) & (b); 61.133(a);

91.7(a); 91.9; 91.109(a); 

91.119; 91.121, 91.151(a); 

91.203; Subpart E 91.401 - 91.417 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated October 10, 2014, Ms. Regina Hoffman, Agronomy Account Relationship 

Manager, Viafield Agricultural Cooperative (Viafield),1001 Blunt Parkway, Charles City, IA 

50616 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21; 

and Sections 45.23, 45.29, 61.23, 61.3, 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9, 91.109(a), 91.119, 

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203, and Subpart E (91.401 – 91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow Viafield to operate the eBee unmanned 

aircraft system (UAS) to conduct precision agriculture operations. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, 

productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23 prescribes that—

(a) Each operator of an aircraft must display on that aircraft marks consisting of the 

Roman capital letter “N” (denoting United States registration) followed by the 
2

registration number of the aircraft. Each suffix letter used in the marks displayed must 

also be a Roman capital letter. 

(b) When marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number 

is displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport 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,” “light-sport,” 

“experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 45.29 prescribes, that the registration number or “N” number on fixed-wing aircraft 

must be displayed in letters no less than 12 inches high.

Section 61.23 prescribes that a person must hold a first-class medical certificate when 

exercising the pilot-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate; that a 

person must hold at least a second-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of 

a commercial pilot certificate; and that a person must hold a third-class medical certificate 

when exercising the privileges of a private pilot certificate.

Section 61.3 prescribes that no person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a 

civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person has in the person's physical possession or 

readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or 

authorization a pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with §61.19.

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 61.133(a) prescribes that a person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, 

provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of 

this chapter that apply to the operation; and may act as a pilot in command for compensation 

or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable 

parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an 

airworthy condition.
3

Section 91.9 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 91.109(a) 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 [emphasis added].

Section 91.203 prescribes the following:

(a) Prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has 

within it 
4

(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). 

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft 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.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft with a fuel tank installed within the passenger 

compartment or a baggage compartment unless the installation was accomplished 

pursuant to part 43 of this chapter, and a copy of FAA Form 337 authorizing that 

installation is on board the aircraft.

(d) No person may operate a civil airplane (domestic or foreign) into or out of an airport 

in the United States unless it complies with the fuel venting and exhaust emissions 

requirements of part 34 of this chapter.

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
5

(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 

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.
6

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) Justification of airworthiness and safety assessment, 

2) Inspection and maintenance requirements, 

3) eBee User Manual, 

4) eBee Training documentation, 

5) Academy of Model Aeronautics Safety Requirements, and 

6) The Viafield sUAS Scouting Announcement Form 

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) public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System 

The petitioner states it plans to operate a UAS, the eBee, which is manufactured by SenseFly 

SA of Switzerland and includes a lightweight battery operated aircraft, ground control station, 

and associated data link equipment. The eBee airframe is constructed of EPP foam and 

weighs 1.5 lbs. with a wingspan of 3.2 feet. The eBee is powered by a lithium polymer battery 

that drives an electric pusher propeller. It is hand launched, has a maximum flight time of 45 

minutes, and operates at a cruising speed of 22 mph – 35 mph. The aircraft is linked to the 

ground control station via a 2.4 GHz USB radio modem with a maximum data link range of 

1.6 NM. If onboard sensors detect a critical situation at any time (low battery, close proximity 

to the ground, weak data link signal, etc.) the eBee will automatically initiate a 

preprogrammed safety procedure. 

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated 

with the aircraft to be utilized, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness 

Certificates) and § 91.203 (a) and (b) (Certifications required), 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 P.L. 112-95 (Section 333).

The petitioner requests an exemption from the marking requirement in §§ 45.23 and 45.29 

(Display of marks and Size of marks, respectively), because its UA will not have a cabin, 

cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, it states that twoinch lettering is impossible to place on such a small aircraft with dimensions smaller than the 

minimal lettering requirement. Petitioner proposes to attain an equivalent level of safety “by 

having the upper part of the eBee stick with a copy of the Aircraft Modeling Association 

(AMA) membership of the operator in charge. The AMA agrees to provide 2 original copies 

of the AMA license to every eBee operator.”
7

Regarding the requirements in § 91.109 (Dual controls), the petitioner states that an 

equivalent level of safety during the in-flight training will be achieved by the 

manufacturer or affiliate providing the training as described in the eBee training 

program and through the use of experienced and qualified instructors familiar with the 

eBee and members of the AMA.

Regarding the maintenance requirements in §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 

91.417(a) and (b) (Subpart E), (Maintenance, preventive maintenance & inspections) the 

petitioner proposes that the maintenance of the eBee will be accomplished by the owner or the 

operator according to the eBee user manual, and that an equivalent level of safety will be 

achieved because the eBee is small in size, it is not a complex mechanical device and does not 

carry any external payload. Moreover, the petitioner states that the operator is the person most 

familiar with the aircraft and is best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition 

and to ensure an equivalent level of safety. Finally, the petitioner notes that before every 

flight, the eBee automatically runs a sequence of pre-flight tests to make sure that every 

sensor and every critical part is operating properly. If a problem is detected, the eBee will not 

be able to be switched on and an error message is displayed on the main screen of the control 

module. The owner or the operator can then refer to the eBee user manual to troubleshoot the 

issue. Finally, petitioner states that several parts of the eBee are easily interchangeable 

(propellers, wings), which allows the operator to make sure the wings and propulsion system 

are always airworthy when a mission is initiated.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner states that the eBee will be operated by an individual who fulfills the following 

requirements: 

• Is a registered member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA); 

• Has passed SenseFly’s training program for the eBee 

• Has completed an AMA-affiliated small UAS education and training program and 

has achieved an AMA UAS endorsement, or has successfully completed a small UAS 

education and training program provided by any FAA qualified entity;

• Has a valid driver’s license. 

The petitioner asserts that relief from the commercial and private pilot certificate 

requirements in §§ 61.3, 61.113(a) and (b), and 61.133(a) is warranted because an equivalent 

level of safety can be attained by having an operator trained by the AMA (or any FAA 

qualified entity) and SenseFly, and using the integrated features of the aircraft.

Regarding the medical certificate requirements in § 61.23, the petitioner asserts that, given the 

size of the eBee, its structure, the limited flight area, and the safety features integrated in the 

autopilot (among others the Flight Termination System), SenseFly believes that an equivalent 

level of safety can be reached if the operator has a valid driver’s license.
8

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner makes the following representations of operational enhancements which it 

proposes to abide by to ensure this exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to 

existing rules:

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

where approved; 

• Petitioner will obtain permission from the landowner/authority before commencing 

any flight; 

• Petitioner will avoid operations over congested areas; 

• Petitioner will not conduct operations that interfere with manned aircraft operations, 

will yield the right of way to manned aircraft, and will see and avoid other aircraft and 

obstacles at all times; 

• Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions 

(VMC) and daylight hours; 

• Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) 

and will be visually monitored at all times; 

• Petitioner will ensure VLOS operations with a GPS geo-fence around operator of 0.15 

miles; 

• Petitioner will pre-program 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 states that § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, prohibits the operation of an 

aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. The petitioner asserts that since there is currently 

no certificate applicable to its operation, this regulation is inapplicable. Moreover, petitioner 

states that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by ensuring compliance with the 

eBee user manual prior to each flight.

The petitioner states that § 91.9(b)(2) Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard 

requirements, requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. However, since there are no 

pilots or passengers on board his aircraft and given its size, this regulation is inapplicable. The 

petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping a hard copy of 

the eBee user manual in the eBee transport box that will be within reach of the operator at all 

times. 
9

The petitioner requests an exemption from the minimum altitude requirements in § 91.119(c) 

Minimum safe altitudes, over other than congested areas, since the eBee will be operating at a 

maximum of 400 feet above ground level (AGL). The petitioner proposes to achieve an 

equivalent level of safety by flying the eBee only fly over private property with the 

permission of the landowner. Before every flight, the operator will define a working area 

radius and a flight area ceiling, preventing the eBee to go beyond the flight area. The 

landowner and the persons who may be on the ground in the flight area will be briefed on the 

expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. Due to 

the small size of the eBee, the material with which the eBee is built and its specific safety 

procedures (among others ground detection), the petitioner states that the hazard to persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to that posed by manned aircraft and 

should be considered in granting the exemption. The petitioner adds that operations will not 

be conducted over any open-air assembly of persons. 

The petitioner asserts that § 91.121, Altimeter settings, is inapplicable since the UAS utilizes 

electronic GPS with a barometric sensor. The petitioner notes that the eBEE autopilot 

calculates the reference altitude (ground level) with the on-board GPS during the pre-flight 

tests.

The petitioner requests relief from the requirements of § 91.319(a)(1), regarding operational 

limitations of aircraft with experimental certificates, but does not indicate why relief is being 

sought or how an equivalent level of safety would be achieved if an exemption to this 

regulation were to be granted. 

Petitioner requests an exemption from the reserve fuel requirements in § 91.151(a), and 

asserts that given the area of operation for the eBee, an equivalent level of safety can be 

achieved via a mechanism preventing the eBee from accepting a take-off order if the battery 

level is below a given value. Moreover, petitioner states that SenseFly has integrated “low” 

and “critical” battery level warnings and implemented “return to home” and “go land” actions 

in these situations.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that by allowing Viafield to conduct agricultural operations with an eBee 

UAS, the FAA would promote the public interest not only by reducing the risk to persons and 

property inherent in the use of manned aircraft, but would facilitate economic growth and 

agricultural sustainability by helping to maximize crop yields.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2014 (79 

FR 67536). The petition received four comments. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) and 

the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) supported the petition, and the Air Line Pilots 
10

Association, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NAAA) opposed it. 

In support of the petition, the Coalition states the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger

safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition 

states that it does not believe that heightened safety measures should be required for the

petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition urges the

FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 

112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational 

circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles 

based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggests FAA safety

regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by

distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than 

larger UAS. The Coalition asserts that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose

minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition notes the FAA is to consider the seven factors 1 in section 333 as a minimum. 

The Coalition states the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those

specified in Section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, and pilot training and

experience. The Coalition maintains that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the

seven factors in section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the

safety and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasizes the FAA must 

evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition comments that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold an 

airman’s certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exception from 

part 61 and approve training and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial operations 

pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserts that Congress 

intended the section 333 national security criterion to focus on the operation rather than on 

the pilot and that shifting that focus imposes an unnecessary burden.

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 

11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found 

in 49 USC 44701(f), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the statutory

requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA 

does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security finding poses an 

unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted 

previously to section 333 requests, are already required to hold a pilot certificate to 

satisfy 29 USC 44711.

 1 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary

shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size,

weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national

security; ...”
11

The Coalition comments that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small 

UAS operation. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may

allow the UAS to be operated beyond VLOS of the PIC and that the petitioner’s proposal to 

operate the UA within VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. The FAA notes 

that one of the determinations for operations under section 333 is operation within visual 

line of sight. As the PIC is determined to be in command of the UA, he must maintain 

VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA also notes that a visual observer complements the

PICs capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily

attending to other flying tasks (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to actors and actresses

and other objects on a film set). The VO provides an additional level of operational safety.

AMA comments that it shared the Coalition’s belief that Viafield’s choice of aircraft, program 

criteria and proposed method of operation meets and arguably exceeds the level of safety 

presented by other Section 333 exemptions previously granted. AMA states that it supported 

Viafield’s proposal to use the eBee in accordance with AMAs community-based guidelines. 

ALPA expresses concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA noted that the 

anticipated operation is expected to occur below 400 feet above the surface. ALPA states 

“there must be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and 

to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” The FAA

believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 

400 feet AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely

affect safety.

ALPA notes that the petition does not address whether the operator will use an observer, nor 

how the pilot and the observer will be able to communicate with each other. ALPA states 

that if voice communication is used, the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual 

observation of the aircraft and area of operation when using voice communication. NAAA 

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

most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual 

observer communications.

ALPA asserts the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of

Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage

(January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to 

determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given 

the size of the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the

use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed 

operations.

ALPA comments that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common 

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly-
12

aways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to 

ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents 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. The FAA also finds that the operating

documents have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participants

should a C2 failure occur. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

ALPA states the UAS should be certified to the same level of safety under part 21 and § 

91.203 as other commercially operated aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). 

ALPA also argues that under § 91.7, UAS operators must demonstrate their airworthiness to 

the same extent as operators of other aircraft.

ALPA also notes that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,”

and argues the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an 

appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific

and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

asserts a current second-class airman medical certificate should be required. NAAA also

commented on pilot qualification, stating—

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a

rigorous training curriculum and show that they are fit to 

operate a commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. 

Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to 

similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and 

ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial 

operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they

have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a

commercial aircraft repeatedly over a sustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training 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 § 61.113.

ALPA stated that although petitioner asked for an exemption from § 91.109 Flight 

instruction, they failed to provide any information regarding the qualifications of the persons 

providing instruction per 14 CFR § 61.195 which defines the requirements for flight 

instructors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instruction required for 

the certificates or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how 

to operate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated 

flight instructor because the instruction is not being provided for a certificate or rating listed 

in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such 

flight instruction because § 61.31(l) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is 

current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category and class rating. Of course, any instruction 
13

provided toward obtaining the pilot certificate required by this exemption would need to be 

provided by a certificated flight instructor.

ALPA opposes an exemption from the pre-flight action requirements of § 91.103. In 

addition, ALPA notes the petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid 

requirements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. This comment is 

addressed in detail in the FAA analysis below.

ALPA mentioned the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by

14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed,

and processes or mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail-safe systems, 

backups and specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in 

place. The FAA agrees with ALPA and addresses this concern in its analysis of the

exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance

proposed by the petitioner does not adversely affect safety.

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argues that using batteries as the only

source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and 

requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in 

detail below.

ALPA expresses concern on whether the petitioner’s UAS can comply with the aircraft 

light requirements for night operations in § 91.209, given its limited electric power. The

petitioner indicates that this exemption limits operations to daytime only.

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposes 

the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and 

recordkeeping requirements. ALPA states the UAS should comply with the same level of

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. This comment is addressed in 

detail below.

ALPA also expresses concern that the petitioner’s waiver request is not for a single specific 

operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA states this 

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs 

concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each

operator secure a Certificate of Authorization or COA which covers specific details of the

petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS

access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

NAAA states it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed

as commercial applicators. NAAA explains that its members operate in low-level airspace,

and clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators.
14

NAAA states that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the

backbone for agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to 

perform their see-and-avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UA 

operations at low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural 

aircraft. NAAA argues that until adequate see-and-avoid technology is developed, the FAA 

should require UAS operators to post a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 48 to 72 hours before

operations. NAAA proposes UAS aircraft be painted a highly visible color, be equipped

with strobe lights, and use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) or other

similar location reporting technology. To address these concerns the FAA 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-of- way to manned aircraft.

NAAA also proposes a number of operating limitations and requirements for UAS operators. 

NAAA states UAS operators should have procedures to immediately ground the UAS if

another low-flying aircraft is within 2 miles; be attentive and free from distractions; comply

with all applicable regulations, policies, and procedures; be equipped with aviation radios set 

to a locally defined frequency; have a separate VO with a second-class medical certificate

and perform duties for only one UAS at a time; maintain line-of-sight operations; and be

well-versed in the UAS operator document. NAAA further states UAS should be properly

maintained, have a registered N-Number on an indestructible and unmovable plate, and be

required to have an airworthiness certificate and liability insurance. These comments are

addressed in the FAA’s analysis and conditions and limitations.

Concerns raised in this comment section are addressed in the FAA’s analysis below and 

where necessary appropriate risk mitigations are implemented through the conditions and 

limitations on the operations.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System

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 can weigh 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. or more, 

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

100-200 gallons or more of fuel. The petitioner’s UA weighs approximately 1.5 lbs. The pilot 

and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction 
15

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 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, § 45.29

Size of Marks and § 91.319(a) (1) Aircraft having experimental certificates, 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 

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

the “experimental” marking is not required. Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated 

under § 21.191, a grant of exemption for §§ 45.23(b) and 91.319(a)(1) is not necessary. 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). 

The petitioner requests relief from14 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 post flight 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.

UAS Pilot In Command

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 with 

an FAA private airman certificate pilot in lieu of an FAA commercially certificated airman. 

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 
16

sections 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 also requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations because pilots holding an 

FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to 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 in 

accordance with pertinent parts 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 petitioner proposes to operate with a pilot who does not possess an FAA issued pilot 

certificate. This is similar to other petitions for exemption previously filed with and 

considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11062 (Astraeus) and 11138 (Douglas 

Trudeau), 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 

Astraeus and Trudeau, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge 

requirements to those of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062], 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.

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

airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s flight time 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 overall safety case 

presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting 
17

the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted. Additionally, the 

requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.23 is not granted.

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

authorizations). However, the FAA finds that relief 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 did not indicate whether it will 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 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 also 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 

(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 the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating 

documents. 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. 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

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

airworthiness, 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.

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. Although the 

petitioner did not seek relief from § 91.7(b) in its petition, 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.
18

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 91.109 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 eBee training program. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring that the 

petitioner’s PIC possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. Also, 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 documents. The FAA notes, however, that the eBee 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.

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

petitioner did not specify the paragraph(s) in 14 CFR § 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 not be conducted over congested 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 

where approved; 

• Petitioner will obtain permission from the landowner/authority before commencing 

any flight; 

• Petitioner will avoid operations over congested areas; 
19

• Petitioner will not conduct operations that interfere with manned aircraft operations, 

will yield the right of way to manned aircraft, and will see and avoid other aircraft and 

obstacles at all times; 

• Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions 

(VMC) and daylight hours; 

• Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations remain within VLOSand will be visually 

monitored at all times; 

• Petitioner will ensure VLOS operations with a GPS geo-fence around operator of 0.15 

miles; 

• Petitioner will pre-program 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 and operations over open air assemblies of 

persons; however the petitioner did not describe specific minimum stand-off distances from 

persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, 

Inc. (see Docket No. FAA-2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the 

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

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 weigh about 1.5 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. 
20

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

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

outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarranted 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) and 91.119(d) are not applicable.

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

petitioner has a barometric altimeter and GPS derived altitude capabilities. However, 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 altimeter 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 § 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 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. However, 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 CFR § 91.151(a) as 

requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, that prohibit the PIC 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.

The petitioner proposed operating in mostly rural 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 Air Traffic Control (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 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.
21

Public Interest

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

near infrared (NIR) and/or multispectral images that would provide scientists with important 

information to assist efforts to maximize crop yields. According to the petitioner, this would 

result in increased agricultural sustainability. In addition, the petitioner asserts that carrying 

out these operations using a battery-powered eBee rather than a manned aircraft would result 

in less risk to life and property on the ground. 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, Subpart H Relief not necessary

45.23 Relief not necessary

45.29 Relief not necessary

61.23 Relief not granted

61.3 Relief not necessary

61.113 (a) and (b) Relief granted

61.133 Relief not necessary

91.7(a) and (b)

Relief granted for paragraph (a) with 

conditions and limitations, (b) relief not 

necessary

91.9 Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119 Relief granted for paragraph (c) with 

conditions and limitations

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and limitations

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

conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.405 Relief granted for paragraph (a) with 

conditions and limitations

91.407 Relief granted for paragraph (a)(1) with 

conditions and limitations 

91.409 Relief granted for paragraph (a)(1) and (2) 

with conditions and limitations 
22

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

91.417 Relief granted for paragraph (a) and (b) with 

conditions and limitations 

The FAA’s Decision

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

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

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Viafield, an agriculture cooperative, is 

granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 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 

Viafield to operate a UAS for the purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. This 

exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

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

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

operating documents: 

1) Justification of airworthiness and safety assessment, 

2) Inspection and maintenance requirements, 

3) eBee User Manual, 

4) eBee Training documentation, 

5) Academy of Model Aeronautics Safety Requirements, and 

6) The Viafield sUAS Scouting Announcement Form 

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 1.5 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 

purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture.

3) The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 35 mph.
23

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.

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.
24

10) The pre-flight inspection section in the operating documents 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, 

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

aircraft records, including 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 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 operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

17) The operator may not permit the PIC to operate the UAS for the purpose of aerial 

imagery to support agriculture (or similar operations), unless the PIC has 

demonstrated and logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), the ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 
25

under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining 

appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

18) 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. Flights under special 

visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

19) 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. 

20) 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.

21) 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.

22) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in 

accordance with the operating documents.

23) 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.

24) 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. 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.

25) 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.
26

26) 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.

27) 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.

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

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

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

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

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

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

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately 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).

32) 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.

33) 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.
27

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 February 28, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 9, 2015.

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service