AFS

- 14

- 320

- E Exemption No. 11062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AS TRAEUS AERIAL Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 201 4

- 0352

for an exemption from p art 21; § § 45.23 (b); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103 ; 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91. 407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) and (b)

o f Tit le 14, Code of F ederal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated May 27, 2014, Jonathan B. Hill, Cooley LLC, Counsel for Astraeus A erial,

and John McGraw

, Aerospace Consulting, LLC, Agent for Astraeus Aerial, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

. , Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus) for an exemption

from p art 21

, § § 45.23(b)

, 61.113(a) and (b)

, 91.7(a)

, 91.9(b)(2)

, 91.103

, 91.109

, 91.119

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)

, 91.203(a) and (b)

, 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(1)

, 91.409(a)(2)

, and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, C ode of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exempti on, if granted,

would allow operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of scripted

, closed

- set filming for the motion picture and television industry.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes

, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, prod uction approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals

.

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

ca pital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light

sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator2

must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockp it, 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 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that

—

(a) no person who holds a priv ate 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 compe nsation 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.

S ection 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that n o person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b) (2) prohibits operation of U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless there is

available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that e ach pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with al l available inf ormation concerning that flight , to in clude

—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any k nown traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

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

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorc raft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein;

and3

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropr iate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and
temperature.

Section 91.109 prescribes , in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

Section 91.119 prescribes that, e xcept when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the f ollowing 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 a ir 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 populate d 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 pr operty 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 b y 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 referenc e to an altimeter that is set “ to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”4

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that n o p e rson m a y b e g in a f l i g ht i n a n a irpl a ne und e r
VF R c ondi t io ns unless ( c onsid e ring wind a nd f o r e ca st w ea ther c ondi t ions) the r e is

enou g h fu e l t o fly to t he fi r st po i nt of in t e nd e d landing a nd, a ssu m ing norm a l

c r uis i ng spe e d

, (1) d uring the da y , to f ly after that for at l e ast 30 minutes ; or (2) At night, to fly afte r that for at least 45 minutes. [ e mph a sis added ]

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has within it (1) a n appropriate and current airworthiness certificate ; and (2) a n effective U.S. regist ration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft R egistration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c) . Section 91.203(b) prescribes , in pertinent part, that n o person may operate a civil a ircraft unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall

, between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter

.

Section 91.407(a)(1 ) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operat ing an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, r ebuilding, or alteration

unless i t has been approved for return to service by a person authorized un der § 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 a n inspection for the

issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accord ance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribe s , in pertinent part, that

—

(a) E ach registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

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

and records of the 100

- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor , and appliance of an

aircraft

. The records must include

—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and5

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

the aircr aft 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, r otor, 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 inspecti on 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 dir ective 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 cu rrently 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 repe ated 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 furnishe d 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 petitioner has provided the following information

– contained in its petition and supplemental proprietary Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (hereafter FOPM) and Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (hereafter MPTOM)

– in support of its exemption request

. T he petitioner submitted additional information in response to the FAA’s August 7, 2014 request which is posted to the docket. T he FAA has organized the petitioner’s

information into three sections : 1) the unmanned aircraft system, 2) the UAS Pilot In

Co mmand (PIC), and 3) the UAS operating parameters

. Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a proprietary design, conceived and constructed by Astraeus Aerial, and referred to as the Astraeus Aerial Cinema System V.3CS UAS aircraft

var iant, serial #001 onward ( hereafter referred to as V.3). This aircraft has eight rotors and eight motors in a quadcopter configuration (X8)

. T he petitioner states that given the size

, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft t o be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 CFR p art 21, S ubpart H (Airworthiness Certificates)

, subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR p art 11 and S ect ion 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112

- 95)

. The petitioner further states that UAS operated without

an airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14

CFR p art 21, S ubpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations.

The petitioner states tha t the unmanned aircraft ( UA ) to be operated under this request is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded , flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclu sively

within a secured area as set out in the MPTOM . In addition, the petitioner has integrated safety features into the design of the UAS, as described in the petitioner’s FOPM

, to ensure the safety of persons and property within and surrounding the limi ted operating area. The petitioner further describes that

, i n the event the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal,

the UA will have the capability to return to a pre

- determined location with in the Security Perimeter and land. It will also have the cap ability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

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

ex emption may be needed from 14 CFR § 45.23 as the UA will have no entrance to the ca bin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “experimental” can be placed. Given the size of the

UA

, the petitioner notes that the two

- inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided by havi ng the UA marked with t he word “experimental” on the fusela ge in compliance with 14 CFR § 45.29(f), in a location where the pilot, obser ver
, and other s working with the UA will see the identification

.7

The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 CFR

p art 91 are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate in accordance with p art
43. The petitioner states that its V.3 UAS does not have specific maintenance instructions ; therefore the petitioner has developed and documented in its MPTOM and FOPM an “on

condition” maintenance process for the V.3 UAS affected by this exemption. The petitioner

has also stated that it intends to follow any manufacturers ’ recommended instructions and procedures when those procedures exist for certain components of its V.3 UAS.

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the proposed operations will not adversely affect safety by requiring the PIC operati ng the aircraft to have a private pilot’s license rather than a commercial pilot’s license. In support of its position, the petitioner argues that

, since there are no standards for either private or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of airspace regulations and dexterity in the control and operation of the UAS acquired from actual operation of the aircraft will be the most important factors in establishing an equivalent level of safety. Furthermore, the petitioner explains that, given the restrict ed and controlled airspace within which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge of the airspace within which

the “closed

- set filming” operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the National Airspace System (NAS). The petitioner also states that it cannot be assumed that a commercial pilot, approved to operate a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or ability to safely operate an unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 400 feet AGL or lower,

within strictly controlled pre

- approved airspace. The petitioner asserts that there are relatively few certificated pilots who are also qualified to fly the type of UAS utilized in motion picture

indu stry image

- capture operations. Astraeus further asserts that t here are even fewer commercially certificated pilots that can fly these UAS, to the point that to do both is

considered rare.

Additionally, the petitioner states that the aircraft will be opera ted within a secure environment, which no one will be allowed t o enter unless they are part of the production, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to operation of the UAS, and have consented to the risks associated with being in the operating area. Should there be a mishap, the UA being flown pose significantly less of a threat than the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are a fraction of the size, carry no flammable fuel, and do not carry crew or passengers. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft that are flown to th e site,

carry flammable fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate in a much larger area.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that all flights will be operate d within visu al line of sight (VLOS) of a pilot a nd/or observer, and that the UA flig hts will be limited to a maximum altitude of 400

feet AGL. The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only consenting production personnel will be al lowed within 100 feet of the UA operation, but this radius may

be reduced to 30 feet b ased upon an equivalent level of safety determination, as stated in their MPTOM, with the advance permission of the local Flight Standards District Office ( FSDO )

. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved given the size, wei ght,8

and speed of the UAS

, as well as the location where it is operated

. The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within a safe operating perimeter, the boundaries of which will be determined by production personnel and the UAS PIC based on the site

- specific filming activities and speed of the UAS required for the operation, and coordinated with the jurisdictional FAA FSDO and local government officials as applicable, as outlined in the MPTOM and FOPM. The petitioner states that only participatin g and consenting production personnel will be allowed within this perimeter; the petitioner also states their intention to comply with the guidelines outlined in Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1 with regard to nonparticipating personnel outside the safety perimeter

. The petitioner argues that

, compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more than its maximum 55 lb . UA

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

those with conventional aircr aft operating at or below 500 feet AGL in the movie industry.

With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner notes it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103

, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner asserts

that a n equivalent level of safety will be achieved by t he PIC taking all preflight actions as set

forth in their M P T OM and FOPM, including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data before initia tion of flight. Additionally, the petitioner states that a briefing will be conducted prior to each day’s filming regarding planned UAS operations, and all personnel who will be performing duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter will be requir ed to attend.

With respect to the fuel requirements, the petitioner notes that

, in order to meet the 30 minute reserve requirements in 14 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limit ed to approximately 10 minutes. The petitioner argues that

, given the limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer time frame for flight in daylight or night VFR conditions is reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent level of saf ety can be achieved by limiting flights to 30 minutes or 25% of battery power, whichever occurs first.

The petitioner notes that it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, as its UAS may

have a GPS altitude read out instead of a barometric altimeter. T he petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, as outlined in its M P T OM. Specifically, the altitude information will be provided to the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the PIC

.
Public Interest

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted sterile

environment within which it will operate, its proposed operation “fal ls squarely within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of UAS to commence immediately.” Also

due to the size of the UA and the restricted areas in whi ch the UAS will operate, approval of the application presents no national security issue. The petitioner states that, given the clear direction in Section 333, the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant p ublic benefit, including enhanced safety, reduction in9

environmental impacts, and including reduced emissions associated with allowing UAS for movie and television operations, granting the requested exemptions is in the public interest.

Discussion of Publ ic Comments :
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on June 2 6 , 2014 (79 FR

36378 ). Eighty

- six comments were received.

Of the 86 comments received, in cluding eight from associations, 50 comment s supported the exemption request, 22 opposed

, and 1 4 were neutral. The petition received comments on the following topics: economic impact, UAS, PIC , operational capabilities, airspace, privacy, sense and avoid, and data link.

Comments supporting the exemption request came from individuals an d industry groups, including the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Aerospace

Industries Association (AIA) , the National Association of Realtors, the News Media Coalition, and the National Press Photographers Association. Suppor ting comments cited the petitioner’s intent to use controlled access airspace, licensed airmen, and preflight safety briefings, as well as the economic benefits of UAS.

Several trade organizations submitted letters to the docket, expressing various issues and

concerns with the Astraeus p etition for e xemption, including the Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA), the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), and the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA )

.

ALPA expr essed concern regarding certain conditions outlined in Astraeus’ petition. A LPA notes that the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,” and ALPA believes that the pilot must hold at least a current FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with an ap propriate 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, a current 2nd Class FAA Medical certificate should be required for a UAS pilot oper ating an aircraft for compensation or hire commercial operations as is required in the NAS today. NAAA and USHPA also commented on pilot qualification. Specifically,

NAAA believes that the Part 61 regulations current ly in effect do not address the licensin g of pilots of an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. We believe it is necessary for the FAA to evaluate pilots of these aircraft on their knowledge and skills in UAV operations. Requirements for this licensing should be developed along with ot her rigorous rules and qualifications to ensure safe integration of the unmanned aircraft into the NAS.

The FAA has carefully reviewed the knowledge and training required by holders of both private and commercial certificates , as well as the separation of Astraeus’ proposed operations from other manned operations

. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this issue with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113.

ALPA commented that although the anticipated operation is expected to occur below 400 feet

a bove the surface, the petition also makes reference to operations 200 feet above structures of unspecified and therefore unlimited height. This would put the aircraft at the same altitude10

strata as other aircraft in the NAS, with only geographic separation to mitigate the risk of

collision. However, in subsequent materials posted to the docket, Astraeus has removed

oper ation from elevated platforms. All operations will be limited to 400 feet AGL, which is specified in the conditions and limitations below.

ALPA further notes that the aircraft “may not have a barometric altimeter” so the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed. NAAA n oted the same in its comments. The FAA agrees with ALPA and NAAA and addresses this concern in its analysis o f the exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance proposed by Astraeus does not adversely affect safety.

ALPA and an individual comment 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

- aways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s MPTOM and FOPM addressed potential hazards related to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by Astraeus has sufficient design features to address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the MPTOM and FOPM have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational

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

below.

NAAA stated that it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots lice nsed as commercial applicators. NAAA members operate in low

- level airs pace
, and clear low

- level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators.

NAAA stated that s eeing 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 col lisions. NAAA believes that UA operations at low altitudes will increase the potential of collision haza rds with agricultural

aircraft. In its comments, the USHPA submitted similar concerns rel ative to activities of other low altitude user groups including ballooning, skydiving, powered ultralights, etc.

NAAA acknowledged Astraeus’ plan to submit a written Plan of Activities to the FSDO three days before the proposed operations, as required by t he petitioner’s MPTOM

. However, NAAA maintains, as does the USHPA, that in addition to this, issuan ce of a NOTAM advising non participating pilots of the planned activity is vital to dissemin ating this safety

information. The FAA agrees and has incorporated this into the conditions and limitations of this exemption. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the operating parameters below.

NAAA commented that UA should have assigned numbers that can be read from a suitable

distance to aid in identificati on when enforcement of flight regulations is required. The USHPA commented similarly, noting that while the current identification standar ds are not

feasible on small UA given their reduced size, identification appropriate for these design parameters could be defined and created without undue burden or negative impacts on UAS operations. The FAA partially agre es with NAAA and USHPA. UA operated under this exemption will be marked in accordance with 14 CFR part 45 or as otherwise authorized by

the FAA. Furth er detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.11

USHPA states that it is a nonprofit member organization with the specific and primary purpose to engage exclusively for scientific and educational purposes in the development, study, and use of fuel

- less flight systems and aircraft capable of being launched by human power alone. USHPA commented that it believes with proper notification of time and place, along with other considerations, safety can be maintained. USHPA’s notification concerns

will be a ddressed by the conditions and limitations that will require an Air Traffic Organization issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to address airspace requirements and notification. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below.

Related to the operation of the UA within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot and/or observer, U SHPA believes operation of any UA in three

- dimensional space presents unique challenges in accurately determining position in relation t o stationary or mobile objects. USHPA comments that utilization of an observer for operational redundancy is prudent and encouraged, but should not be considered a viable replacement for the pilot in command. USHPA believes that the identification of navig ational requirements and accurately conveying them to the pilot in command would not be provided with adequate precision or sufficient response time in a crisis situation and recommends that dual control systems be utilized as a redundant safety measure co mmon in commercial aviation environments. The FAA notes

USHPA’s concerns ; additional detail is provided in the analysis of the UAS below

. USHPA also asserts that manned flight should always maintain right of way over all UA operations. The FAA agrees and h as incorporated this into the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

Several comments noted that small UAS can be hard to see during the day, due to their small size and factors such as sun glare . Commenters also noted concerns with regard to weathe r and wind conditions affecting operations. The FAA addressed these concerns by adding operating restrictions in the conditions and limitations regarding stand

- off distance from

clouds

, altitude restrictions , and operating distance from non

- participating p ersonnel . Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below.

The petition received several comments suggesting that UAS operated under this exemption should have the ability to monitor and communicate with other aircraft or install transponders, or that the UAS should not operate until they can sense and avoid other aircraft. One commenter suggested that the FAA should implement a buffer between these UAS operations and manned operations, while another raised concern with nea r misses with other aircraft. Two comments noted that UAS are susceptible to accidents and GPS jamming. The FAA

believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL) and the UAS emergency procedures as ou tlined in the petitioner’s FOPM and

MPTOM are sufficient mitigation s to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety. F urther information is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

One commenter suggested that the FAA should requir e testing of software and systems prior to operation, including testing to RTCA standards. The FAA believes the preflight checks discussed in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters are sufficient to mitigate this risk,

and addresses this in the condi tions and limitations below.12

The FAA also received comments not related to the UA and its operation as proposed by the petitioner, but rather addressing more general UAS issues, which are discussed below.

The FAA received two comments asking how the FAA pl ans to monitor or conduct surveillance of the petitioner’s UAS operations. The FAA expects operators to comply with

its regulations and the terms of the exemption. The jurisdictional F SDO will be the primary office responsible for oversight of the operatio ns.
The FAA received several comments that integrating UAS operations via a broadly applicable rule was a more suitable method than the exemption process, and that industries other than the motion picture industry should be allowed to participate. Section 333 provides interim authority to the Secretary of Transportation, which facilitates limited, controlled UAS operations prior to the completion of a UAS regulatory structure. The FAA is using its exemption process to facilitate implementation of Section 33 3 and to address FAA rules that would be applicable to the proposed operations. We have received and are considering exemption petitions from a broad array of industries and applications for this technology. Additionally, t he FAA is engaged in a rulemaking process that will allow broader applications of UAS operations.

Two commenters suggested this exemption process should be available to anybody, regardless of organizational size or resources. The FAA will consider any request for exemption

submitted to i t

, no matter the source.

One commenter stated that meaningful public review of the petition was not possible because some of the documents submitted by the petitioner are confidential. The FAA routinely considers confidential materials in its exemption pro cess. The FAA reviewed and considered the petitioner’s information in its analysis of the petition.

The petition received several comments on privacy. A commenter expressed concern that the UAS could be used for spying. Other commenters stated that there a re strong privacy regulations in place. Specifically, a commenter states that the petitioner addressed privacy issues in its request by mandating that all filming be within a contained environment with all participants fully aware that they are being filme d. The petitioner states that all UAS flights will occur over private or controlled access property with the property owner’s prior consent and knowledge, and that only people who have consented or otherwise have agreed to be in the area where filming will take place will be filmed. The FAA notes that the terms of this grant of exemption are consistent with the petitioner’s proposal in this area.

The FAA's analysis is as follows :

U nmanned aircraft system (UAS )

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief f rom 14 CFR part 21 Certification procedures for products and parts

, the FAA finds that

, based on the limited size, weight, operating conditions, design safety features, and the imposed conditions and limitations, the petitioner

has demonstrated that its op erations would not adversely affect safety compared to similar13

operations conducted with aircraft that have been issued an airworthiness certificate under

14 CFR p art 21, S ubpart H.

Commercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with ma nned aircraft are typically conducted with aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates issued under

p art 21, subpart H. These aircraft are normally modified via the Supplemental Type Certificate ( STC ) process to install cameras and other equipment not included in the original aircraft design.

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

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

as necessary. The petiti oner’s UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remo tely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential fo r harm to participating and non participating individuals or prope rty in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident

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

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

UA carries no fuel

, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.

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

of an FAA is sued Certificate of Waiver, aircraft can be operated in very close proximity to participating persons

. The s afety of these individuals is maintained through use of an aircraft

with standard airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21, S ubpart H, opera tion of the aircraft by a qualified and competent pilot

, and operating according to limitati ons necessary to ensure safety. In these situations, the filming subject and production personnel are exposed to risk by virtue of their close proxi mity to an aircr aft in flight. Compared to manned aircraft, the UA being operated by the petitioner reduces the risk to participating persons in close proximity to the aircraft due to the limited size, weight, operating conditions, and design safety features of the UAS.

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

aircraft , such as transponders or sense and avoid technology . Rather the FAA is mitigating the risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand

- off distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within visual line of sight and yield right of way t o all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that the operator will request a NO TAM prior to operations to alert other users of the

NAS.

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experienci ng certain in

- flight

failures. The UA is also able to respond to a lost

- link event with a pre

- coordinated, predictable, auto mated flight maneuver. With regard to USHPA’s concerns about dual control
systems, c urrent FAA regulations permit motion picture and television filming operations by manned aircraft that do not require a copilot

. Additionally, u nder this exemption, the FAA requires that the UAS PIC hold a current th ird class medical certificate. Historically, instances of complet e PIC incapacitation are rare. I n all other cases other than complete incapacitation,14

the PIC has the ability to terminate the flight operation or initiate the automated return to home proce dure outlined within the FOPM. T he FAA also believes that the multiple control redundancies described in the petitioner’s FOPM are sufficient to mitigate risks associated

with the loss of GPS signal

. In considerat ion of these factors and the UA size, weight, speed and other operating limitations associated with this aerial filmmaking operation, the FAA finds that there is no adverse safety affect relative to similar operations conducted by manned

aircraft with a fl ight crew complement of one.

These safety features also provide for no adverse safety affect to participating and

non participating individuals compared to a manned aircraft that holds a standard airworthiness certificate performing a similar operation.

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 33 3 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 Transport ation has determined

that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR part 21 , and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted relief from 14 CFR § 45.23 (b) Display of marks , t he petitioner’s request is made under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” will be required as a condition of an exemption request. T his marking is reserved for ai rcraft that are issued experim ental certificates under § 21.191. Since t he petitioner’s UAS will not

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

necessary.
The petitioner’s UA must be identified by serial numbe r, 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.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § § 91.405(a) Mainte nance 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

determined that relief from 91.409(a)(1) is also necessary

, becaus e it is an alternate inspection requirement of 91.409(a)(2)

.
The petitioner ’s FOPM contains the maintenance requirements for the V.3 UAS, to include

“ on

- condition ” maintenance and modifications. The petitioner ’ s MPTOM and FOPM wer e reviewed and do not suf ficiently support the regulatory relief sought under 14 CFR part 91

, Subpart E. The FAA has carefully considered the petitioner ’ s supplemental information and

determined that its operations will not adversely affect safety with regard to the regulatory

mai ntenance and alteration requirements of 14 CFR § § 91.405(a) (1), 91.40 7 (a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2) , and 91.417(a) and (b)

, provided changes are made to th e MPTOM and

FOPM as required by the conditions and limitations included in this exemption. These chang es include : requirements to develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements in the absence of manufacturer’s requirements; procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with regard to the petitioner’s UAS; and UAS15

technician qualification criteria. They also require the petitioner’s FOPM to include preflight inspection procedures that account for any discrepancies not already covered in the manual.

The FAA finds these additional requirements are necessary to en sure the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations do not adversely affect safety in the NAS and of people and property on the ground. Therefore, t he FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

9 1 .409(a) (1) and (2), and 91.417 (a) and (b) is warranted subject to the conditions and

limitatio ns below.

Pilot In Command of the UAS

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

, c omments were received that voiced concerns about pilot

certification

. One such comment came from ALPA

, which states that one of the “areas that must be addressed to ensure safe operations” is Astraeus ’ proposal to use a private pilot with a

third class medical as its UAS PIC . ALPA believes that the UAS p ilot should possess a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown and the corresponding second class medical certificate, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and mo del i ntended to be used. S imilar concerns were also raised by other associations such as USHPA and NAAA.

Given these grounds, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot certification for Astraeus’ proposed operation. Title 14 CFR part 61 requires tha t operations conducted for compensation or hire necessitate a commercial pilot certificate and at least a sec ond class

medical certificate. In considering the petitioner ’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a)

and (b)

, the FAA must consider the followin g factors as they relate specifically to Astraeus ’ proposed oper a tions:

Separation from manned aircraft operations : Astraeus proposes operations in a “sterile

environment” of closed

- set motion

- picture filming. In this controlled environment, t heir operati ons will remain within visual line of site (VLOS) and below 400 feet AGL

. Additionall y, the FAA has added further conditions and limitations that will require a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA Air Traffic Organization to
address a irspace requirements and notific ation requiring Astraeus to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation. Astraeus will al so be required to avoid and yield right

- of

- way to all manne d operations.

The current aeronautical knowledge requirements for a private pilot compared to a commercial pilot : The FAA analyzed the areas of knowledge specified in 14 CFR part 61 f or that of a commercial pilot versus a private pilot. The results show t hat the required areas of knowledge for a commercial v ersus private pilot cover the same fundamental princip les, as shown in the following table.16

Commercial Knowledge Private Knowledge
**Airplane Single Engine Land (ASEL) used for comparison**
§ 61.125 Aeronautical knowledge. (a) General. A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate must receive and log ground training... § 61.105 Aeronautical knowledge. (a) General. A person who is applying for a private pilot certificate must receive and lo g ground training... (b) Aeronautical knowledge areas. (b) Aeronautical knowledge areas. (1) Applicable Federal Aviation Regulations of this chapter that relate to commercial pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations; (1) Applicable Federal Avia tion Regulations of this chapter that relate to private pilot privileges, limitations, and flight operations;

(2) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board; (2) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportat ion Safety Board; (3) Basic aerodynamics and the principles of flight; (10) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems; (4) Meteorology to include recognition of critical weather situations, windshear recognition and avoidance, and t he use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts; (6) Recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts; (5) Safe and efficient op eration of aircraft; (7) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoidance of wake turbulence; (6) Weight and balance computations; (9) Weight and balance computations; (7) Use of performance charts; (8) Effects of density altitude on takeoff and climb performance; (8) Significance and effects of exceeding aircraft performance limitations; **Related to other areas within the private requirements but not referenced specifically** (9) Use of aeronau tical charts and a magnetic compass for pilotage and dead reckoning; (4) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation
systems; (10) Use of air navigation facilities; (4) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning
, and navigation
systems ; (5) Radio communication procedures; (11) Aeronautical decision making and judgment; (12) Aeronautical decision making and judgment; and (12) Principles and functions of aircraft systems; (10) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems; (13) Maneuvers, procedures, and emergency operations appropriate to the aircraft; (7) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoid ance of wake turbulence; (11) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques for the airplane and glider category ratings; (14) Night and high

- altitude operations;  Although not mentioned in § 61.105, 3 hours of night flight trainin g is required for the private per §

61.107 and § 61.109. For this comparison, high

altitude operations are considered not applicable.**  (15) Procedures for operating within the National Airspace System; and (3) Use of the applicable portions of the “Aer onautical Information Manual” and FAA advisory circulars; (13) Preflight action that includes

— (i) How to obtain information on runway lengths at airports of intended17

use, data on takeoff and landing distances, weather reports and forecasts, and fuel requ irements; and (ii) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or delays are encountered. (16) Procedures for flight and ground training for lighter

- than

- air ratings.** **For this comparison (ASEL), these operations are

conside red not applicable.** § 61.127 Flight proficiency. (a) General. A person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate must receive and log ground and flight training § 61.107 Flight proficiency. (a) General. A person who applies for a private pilot

ce rtificate must receive and log ground and flight training (b) Areas of operation. (1) For an airplane category rating with a single

- engine class rating: (b) Areas of operation. (1) For an airplane category rating with a single

- engine class rating: (i) Pr eflight preparation; (i) Preflight preparation; (ii) Preflight procedures; (ii) Preflight procedures; (iii) Airport and seaplane base operations; (iii) Airport and seaplane base operations; (iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go

- arounds; (iv) Takeoffs, landings, and go

- arounds; (v) Performance maneuvers; (v) Performance maneuvers; (vi) Ground reference maneuvers; (vi) Ground reference maneuvers; (vii) Navigation; (vii) Navigation; (viii) Slow flight and stalls; (viii) Slow flight and stalls; (ix) Emergency operations; (x) Emergency operations; (x) High

- altitude operations; and **For this comparison, high

- altitude operations are considered not applicable.** (xi) Postflight procedures. (xii) Postflight procedures. **Not referenced specifi cally** (ix) Basic instrument maneuvers; **Not referenced specifically** (xi) Night operations, except as provided in §61.110 of this part; and

The specific UAS airmanship skills required for Astraeus’ PIC(s) : Some of the requirements for Astraeus’ PI C ( s ) are provided in their proprietary documents. However, as with other exemptions that contain specific pilot qualifications, e.g. Exemption Nos

. 7830, 6802K, and 6540N, those pilot requirements become conditions and limitations within the grant of exemp tion. An abbreviated summary of those PIC requirements include the following:

a. The PIC must possess a Private Pilot’s Certificate and a valid third

- class medical certificate;

b. The PIC must have accumulated and logged a minimum of 200 flight cycles

and 25 hou rs of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor).

c. The PIC must have accumulated and logged a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot with the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take

- offs and landings in the preceding 90 days.

d. The PIC must have successfully completed the qualification process as specified in the MPTOM and FOPM, to include a knowledge and skill test.

T he FAA’ s a nalysis regarding PIC requirements : The parallel foundation of aeronautical knowledge required for private and commercial pilots is shown in the above table. Private18

pilot a irmanship skills are furthered through manned flights in the NAS. Commercially

ce rtificated pilots build additional experience through these manned flights as well . The

additional experience and airmanship skills obtained by commercially certificated airmen

contribute to their ability to overcome adverse situations that could be encoun tered in flights conducted for compensation or hire . However, the experience obtained beyond a private pilot certificate in pursuit of a commercial pilot certificate in manned flight does not necessarily aid a pilot in the operational environm ent proposed by the petitioner; the FAA considers the overriding safety factor for the limited operations proposed by the petitioner to be the airmanship skills acquired through UAS

- specific flight cycles, flight time, and specific make and model experience , culminatin g in verification through testing

. The FAA shares ALPA’s concerns regarding appropriate training on the UAS being utilized. The FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s knowledge and experience criteria for its PICs. The

FAA finds that the combination of aeronaut ical knowledge, UAS airmanship skills, and verification through testing is a sufficient method for Astraeus to evaluate a pilot’s qualifications, given that operations will be conducted within the limitations outlined in this exemption.

T he knowledge and airmanship test qualifications have been developed by Astraeus for the UAS operations proposed in their petition for exemption

. There are no established practical test standards that support a jurisdictional FAA FSDO evaluation and approval of company

desi gnated examiners. The petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with its FOPM and the conditions and limitations noted below. Given the constraints of the proposed operations, the FAA believes this would not adversely affect the safety of the NAS.

The petitioner plans to operate in a unique and limited environment. Given the 1) separation

of the se closed

- set filming operations from other manned operations

, 2) t he parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commer cial requirements , and 3) the UAS airmanship skills of Astraeus’ PICs, the FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for Astraeus’ specific propose d operations. Upon consideration of the overall safety case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113 (a) and (b) , provided the

c onditions and l imitations outlined b elow, would not adversely affect the safety of the NAS.

Another consideration supporting the certificate requirement is that p ilots holding a private pilot certificate are subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland Security

. This requirem ent should ameliorate security concerns over UAS operations under this exemption.

Operating parameters of the UAS

Astraeu s has stated that it plan s to comply with the waiver process as described in FAA Order 8900.1, V olume 3 , C hapter 8 , S ection 1 (V3, C8

, S1) Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming

. The FAA agrees with this philosophy ; however, the current
section of Order 8900.1 has specific processes that preclude a jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required C ertifi cate of Waiver

, because the section did not originally provide for19

UA operations. One example of this is the minimum pilot qualifications

– t he pertinent

section of Order 8900.1 provides n o way to reli e ve Astraeus from the pilot requirements. Also, the sam ple form 7711

- 1 used for issuing the Certificate of Wai ver specifically states

“ this section not used for Unmanned Air Vehicle authorizations.”

Therefore, the FAA will exempt Astraeus from the applicable regulations normally waived during that process . The FAA will then in clude the required notification s and coordination

with jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and li mitations listed below. M otion picture and television filming waivers similar to Astraeu s’ operation are normally issued from one juri sdictional FSDO and can be used in locations covered by other geographically responsible FSDOs through notification . Those local FSDOs then have the ability to review the proposed plan of activities and associated o perations manual (s) and levy any addition al local special provisions

. Since Astraeu s’ operation deals specifically with UAS, this exempt ion will take the place of the Certificate of W aiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under 8900.1 V3, C8, S1

. Every FSDO with jurisdiction over the area that Astr aeu s plans to op erate within

must still be notified

, just as with manned fi lming operations

, and those FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate further conditions and limitations with the UAS Integration Office to address any local concerns

, as stated below in the conditions and limitations section of this exemption.

The petitioner must also obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) prior to conducting any operations. This is an existing

p rocess that not only makes local Air Traffic Control ( ATC ) facilities aware of UAS operations

, but also provides ATO the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM)

, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being

conducted. Therefore, the FAA believes that adherence to this process is the safest and most expeditious way to permit Astraeus to conduct their proposed UAS op erations. The conditions

and limitations below prescribe the requireme nt for Astraeus to obtain an ATO

- issued COA.

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

Airworthiness

, Astraeus ’ request is based on the fact that n o airworthiness certificate will be

issued for the UAS . As previously noted, the petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H. Based on the fact that

an airworthiness certificate will not be is sued, exemption from § 91.7(a) is not necessary

.

I n accordance with the pertinent part of 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The petitioner’s manuals for

maintenance and operations include s afety check lists to be used prior to each flight.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9 (b)(2) Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements and § 91.203 (a) and (b) Civil aircraft:

Certificatio ns required

, t he original intent of these regulations was to display an aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents so they would be easily available to inspectors and passengers. Based on the FAA Memorandum subject “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station

, ”20

dated August 8, 2014, t he request ed relief from 14 CFR § § 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b) is

no t necessary

. Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief fr om 14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight action

, although there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph (b)(1)

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

in 14 CFR § 91.103(b)(2). T he procedures outlined in the petitioner’s MPTOM and FOPM

address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). The petitioner has also stated its intent to comply with § 91.103 (a): “The PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, f light battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. ” The FAA has imposed stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to both keep the UA from departing V LOS and to preclude the UA from operating so close to a cloud as to create a hazard to other aircraft operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes that the PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traf fic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return

- to

- home sequence, are sufficient mitigations in this respect. The PIC

will also account for all relevant site

- specific conditions in their preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exempti on from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

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 c ontrols 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, Astraeus evaluates the qualific ation of its PICs based on their experience with the UAS to be operated and verifies through testing, in lieu of formalized training. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can

conduct its operations without the requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109

.

R egarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes, the petitioner failed to specify the pertinent part of 14 CFR § 91.119 from which they require

relief. Relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(a) , which requires operating at an a ltitude that allows a safe emergency landing if a power unit fails, is unprecedented and unwarranted. Relief from §

14 CFR 91.119(b) , operation over congested areas, is not applicable

, because the petitioner states that operations will only be conducted wi thin the sterile area described in the MPTOM.

Although the petitioner specifically mentioned relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(d), the FAA finds that relief is only needed from 14 CFR § 91.119(c), which is consistent with the relief typically provided to manned operations in FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8 , S1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming. This Order allows for relief from § 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly involved

in the per formance of the actual filming. In accordance with the petitioner’s stated intention to

adhere to O rder 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, persons other than participating persons 1 are not allowed

1 Per Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, participating persons are all persons associated with the filming production, and they must be briefed on the potential risk of the p roposed flight operation(s) and must acknowledge and accept those risks. Nonparticipating persons are the public, spectators, media, etc., not associated with the filming production.21

within 500 feet of the operating area. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if an equivalent level of safety can be achieved and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of saf ety may be determined through evaluation by an aviation safety inspector of the filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings,

etc . Such barriers may protect non participating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debris in the event of an accident.

The FAA notes the petitioner’s additional guidelines in its MPTOM to protect its participating production personnel , and finds that relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(c) is warranted, provided

adherence to the procedures outlined in the petitioner’s MPTOM and FOPM , and the FAA’s

additional conditions and limitations outlined belo w. However, all non participating personnel will be required to be at least 500 feet from flight operations , with possible relief to allow reductions to 200 feet, as specified above.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimete r Settings

, the FAA believes that an altitude reading is a critical safety component of the petitioner’s proposed operation. Although the petitioner will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft, the FAA finds the petitioner’s intention to operate the UA within VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL, combined with the petitioner’s intention to provide altitude information

to the UAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground

- based on

- scre en display , to be a sufficient method for ensuring the UAS operations do not adversely affect safety

. The altitude information will be gene rated by equipment installed on board the aircraft, as specified using GPS triangulation, or digitally

encoded baromet ric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the

UAS PIC

. The FAA has determined that good cause exists for granting the requested re lief to

14 CFR § 91.121.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.15 1 (a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in 14 CFR § 91.151(a), including Exempt ion Nos. 2689, 5745, and

10650. In addition, similar UAS

- specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, Visual Flight Rules (V FR) conditions. The petitioner states that its UAS operations will be cond ucted in a controlled c losed

- set filming environment, with

UA under 55 pounds , at speeds below 50 Knots, and within VLOS . These factors, combined

with Astraeus’ stated intention to terminate flights after 30 minutes or with 25% remaining battery power (whi chever occurs first)

, provides the FAA sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations proposed by Astraeus

. With respect to the petitioner’s request to operate at night, the FAA finds that the petitioner has not provided a sufficient safety case and mitigations, p er FAA Order 8900.1 V16, C5, S3 General Operational Requirements, to avoid collision hazards at night. All previous UAS

specific grants of relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) have restricted flights to daytime VFR conditions only

. While t he FAA acknowledges the petitioner’s stated film set lighting techniques to mitigate the risks of nighttime operations

, the petitioner has not provided22

sufficient data and analysis regarding t he PICs’ and VOs’ ability to maintain VLOS with the UA and conduct their functions to see and avoid other potential obstacles and air traffic,

relative to the lighting configuration on the film set. There is a limitation outlined below that precludes night time UAS operations. The petitioner may provide additional data and seek an amendment to its exemption to permit night operations.

Additionally, in evaluating the petitioner’s proposed operating parameters with regard to VLOS and a safe operating perimete r, the FAA considered operations from a moving device or vehicle. Since the petitioner did not discuss provisions for these circumstances, the conditions and limitations below preclude operations from moving devices or vehicles.

Public Interest

The FAA f inds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. T he e nhanced 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, ca rrying

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 FAA also finds that UAS provide an additional tool for the filmmaking industry, adding a greater deg ree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.

The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding the relief sought by the petitioner:

Relief sought by petitioner (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)

P art 21 Not necessary

45.23(b) Not necessary

61.113(a) and (b) Granted with conditions and limitations

91.7(a) Not necessary

91.9(b)(2) Not necessary

91.103 Not necessary with conditions and limitations

91.109 Not necessary

91.119 Paragraph (c) grant ed with conditions and

limitations

91.121 Granted with conditions and limitations

91.151(a) 91.151(a)(1), day, granted with conditions and limitations; 91.151(a)(2), night, denied

91.203(a) and (b) Not necessary

91.405(a) Granted with conditions and li mitations

91.407(a)(1) Granted with conditions and limitations23

91.409(a)(2) Granted with conditions and limitations; relief from 91.409(a)(1) also granted with

conditions and limitations

91.417(a) and (b) Granted with conditions and limitations

The FA A’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, Astraeus Aerial is gr anted an exemption from

14 CFR § § 61.113(a) and (b); 91 .119 (c) ; 91.121; 91.151(a); 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 Astraeus to
operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of scripted, closed

- set filming for the motion picture and television industry. This exemption is subject to the conditions and

limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Astraeus is hereafter referred to as th e o perator.

The Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) and Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) are hereafter collectively referred to as the o perator’ s m anual.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of th is grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

The operator proposed the following conditions and/or limitations, which were accepted by

the FAA. 2

1. The unmanned aircraft (UA) must weigh less than 55 po unds (25 Kg), including energy source(s) and equipment. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operator’s manual : Astraeus Aerial Cinema System V.3CS UAS aircraft variant, serial #001 onward (V.3). Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

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

3. Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground l evel (AGL) , as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

2 Conditions and limitations outlined by the operator may have been modi fied for clarity.24

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use h uman vision unaided by any device other than

corrective lenses , as specified on the PIC’s FAA

- issued medical certificate

.

5. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always main tains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times.

6. The operator’s manual is considered acceptable to the FAA, provided the additional requirements identified in these conditions and limitations are added or amended. T he operator’s manual and this grant of exemption must be maintained 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 operator’s manual, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.

The operator may update or revise its operator’s manual. It is the operator’s responsibil ity 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. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis for which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s manual.

7. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the nec essary maintenance has been performed

and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be include d in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircr aft records.

8. 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 in accordance with the operator’ s manual. Th e PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft record entry must be added to the operator’s manual.

9. The operator must fo llow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements

. When unavailable, aircraft maintenance/component/overhaul, replacement, and inspection/maintenance requirements

must be established and identified in the operator’ s manual. At a minimum, requirements

for the following must be included in the operator’s manual:25

a. Actuators / Servos ;

b. Transmission (single rotor) ;

c. Powerplant (motors) ;

d. Propellers ;

e. Electronic speed controller ;

f. Batteries ;

g. Mec hanical dynamic components (single rotor) ;

h. Remote command and control ;

i. Ground control station (if used) ; and

j. Any other components as determined by the operator ;

10. The Pilot In Command (PIC) must possess at least a private pilot c ertificate and at least a

cu rrent third

- class medical certificate

. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft i n which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

11. P rior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion pict ure filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with

14 CFR § 61.51(b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least ten hours logged as a UAS pilot w ith a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights can also be conducted u nder this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight cycles and flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights

, all persons not essential for flight operations

are considered non participants , and the PIC must operate t he UA with appropriate distance

from non participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119

.

12. P rior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), t he PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with

14 CFR § 61.51(b), a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take

- offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience

- building, and take

- off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish26

the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency, experience

building, and take

- off and landing currency flights all persons not es sential for fligh t operations are considered non participants , and the PIC must operate the UA wit h appropriate distance from non participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119

.

13. Prior to any flight operations authorized by this grant of exemption, the PIC and VO must have successfully completed a qualification process, as outlined in the operator’s manual. As this is a requirement stipulated by the operator, the test must be developed and implemented by a qualified person designated at the sole discretion o f the operator. A record of completion of this qualification process must be documented and made available

to the Administrator upon request.

14. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), a flight demonst ration, administered by an operator

- approved and

- qualified pilot must be successfully completed and documented . This documentation must be available for review upon request by the Administrator . Because the knowledge and airmanship test qualifications hav e been developed by the operator, and there are no established practical test standards that support a jurisdictional FAA FSDO evaluation and approval of company designated examiners, the petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with the operator’ s manual.

15. The UA may not be operated directly over any person, except authorized and consenting production personnel, below an altitude that is hazardous to persons or property on the surface in the event of a UAS failure or emergency.

16. Regarding the dist ance from participating persons, the operator’s manual has safety mitigations for authorized and consenting production personnel. At all times, those persons must be essential to the closed

- set film operations. Because these procedures are specific to part icipati ng persons, no further FSDO or a viation s afety i nspector approval is necessary for reductions to the distances specified in the petitioner’s manuals. This is consistent with the manned aircraft procedures described in FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8

, S1 Is sue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming.

17. Regarding distance from non participating persons, the operator must ensure that no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved and

necessary for the filming production. This provision may be reduced to no less than

200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of safety may be determined by an aviation safety inspector ’s evaluation of the filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. Such barriers may protect nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debri s in the event of an accident. This i s also consistent

wi th the same FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8 , S1.27

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a pre

determined location within the security perimeter and land or be recovered in accordance with the operator’s manual

.

19. The UAS must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operator’s manual

.

20. Each UAS operation must be completed within 30 minutes flight time or with 25% battery power remaining, whichever occurs first.

In addition to the conditions and limitations proposed by the operator, the FAA has determined that any operations conducted under this grant of exemption must be done
pursuant to t he following c onditions and l imitations:

21. 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.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N

Number) markings in accordan ce with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. The operator must develop procedures to document and maintain a record of the UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul
component pa rts, and the total time in service of the UAS. These procedures must be added to the operator’s manual.

24. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety

Bulletins.

25. The operator must develop UAS technician qualification crit eria. These criteria must be added to the operator’s manual.

26. The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to include the following requirement: The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable compo nents, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection sections of the operator’s manual.

27. 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

.28

28. At least three days before scheduled filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local FSDO with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3

- day notification may be waived with the

concurrence of the F SDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights ;

b. Name and pho ne number of the operator f or the UAS film ing production conducted under this grant of exemption ;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on

- scene operation of the

UAS ;

d. Make, model, and serial or N

- number of UAS to be used ;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved i n the filming production event ;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or

local officials to conduct the filming production event; t he list of those who gave permission must be made availabl e to the inspector upon reques t ;

g. Signature of exemption

- holder or representative ; and

h. A description of the flight activity

, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or s tate over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essent ial to accomplish the oper ation

.

29. The documents required under 14 CFR § § 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at

the G round C ontrol S tation of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement offi cial
upon request.

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

activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).

31. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1

. All

o perations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

32. The UAS may not be operated by th e PIC from any moving device or vehicle

.

33. 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 tha n 3 statute miles from the PIC

.29

34. The UA may not operate in Class B, C, or D airsp ace without written approval from the

FAA

. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non

towered airport 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.

35. Any incident, accident, or flight oper ation 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 Saf ety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the

NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov

. Further flight operations may not be conducted until the

incident , accident

, or transgression is reviewed by AFS

- 80 and authorization to res ume operations is provided.

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 termin ates on September 30

, 2016 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 25, 2014.

.

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service