AFS–15–011–E

Exemption No. 11158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

TEAM 5, LLC

for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and (b); 

91.103; 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a);

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); 

and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0783

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated September 29, 2014, Mr. Alan D. Purwin, Managing Member, Team 5, 

LLC, (Team 5) 16303 Waterman Drive, Van Nuys, California 91406, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.119(c), 

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow Team 5 to operate the Gryphon 

Dynamics X8 with eight rotors and eight motors in a coaxial quadcopter configuration or the DJI 

S1000 with eight rotors and eight motors in an octocopter configuration as its unmanned aircraft 

systems (UAS) for aerial filming in the motion picture and television industry.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that—

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command 

(PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or 

hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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.
2

Section 91.103 prescribes that each PIC shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar 

with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include—

(a) For a flight under instrument flight rules (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 known traffic delays of which the 

PIC has been advised by air traffic control (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 Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and 

landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft 

performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, 

aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Section 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no 

person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(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.

Section 91.121 prescribes, 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 visual 

flight rules (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; or 

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

Section 91.405(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each owner of an aircraft shall have 

that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall, between required 

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies 

repaired as prescribed in 14 CFR part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, 

Rebuilding, and Alteration.
3

Section 91.407(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate any 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 this chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft 

unless, within the preceding 12 months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Certification Procedures for 

Products and Parts.

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 

(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 that 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.
4

(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) 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 

shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for 

return to service.

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) Team 5 Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM), 

2) Team 5 Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM), and 

3) Additional supplemental documents submitted by petitioner

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 (UAS)

The two UAS proposed by the petitioner are of propriety design, conceived and constructed by 

the petitioner: a Gryphon Dynamics X8 Serial No. 001 and a DJI S1000, Serial No. 001. The 

petitioner states each UAS is less than 55 pounds including payload, flies at a speed of no more 

than 50 knots, carries neither a pilot nor a passenger, carries no combustible fuels, and operates 

over private or controlled access areas defined as “sterile areas” in Team 5’s operating 

documents, which requires the establishment of a “security perimeter” for each flight operations 
5

area. The petitioner adds that if either UAS loses communications or its Global Positioning 

System (GPS) signal, it will have the capability to return to a predetermined location within the 

security perimeter and land. The petitioner adds that each UAS will have the capability to abort 

a flight in case of unpredicted obstacles, weather, or emergencies. The petitioner states the 

requested exemption would provide greater safety in connection with aircraft operations in the 

film and television industry as established by the exemptions already granted by the FAA under 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. 

The petitioner requests an exemption from the maintenance, preventative maintenance, and 

alterations requirements in part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.405 through 91.417). The petitioner notes 

the maintenance requirements in §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) 

only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. The petitioner states the operator will 

accomplish any maintenance including preflight maintenance, and will keep a log of any 

performed maintenance in accordance with their operating documents. The petitioner adds the 

operator is most familiar with the UAS and best suited to maintain it in an airworthy condition. 

The petitioner states that if a mechanical issue arises, the unmanned aircraft (UA) can land 

immediately and will be operating from no higher than 400 feet above ground level (AGL).

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner states each UAS at minimum will have a crew for each operation consisting of the 

UAS pilot, a visual observer (VO), and the camera operator. The UAS pilot will be the PIC and 

if an appropriately qualified pilot certificate holder other than the UAS pilot is on the set, that 

pilot can be designated as PIC. The petitioner asserts that because the UAS will not carry a pilot 

or passengers, the proposed operations can achieve an equivalent level of safety by requiring the 

PIC to have a private pilot’s certificate and third-class airman medical certificate rather than a 

commercial pilot certificate to operate the UAS. The petitioner notes the pilot and observer must 

be trained in UAS operations and receive current information on the particular UAS to be 

operated as required by the operating documents. 

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated within controlled and restricted areas, and all 

flights will be planned and coordinated in advance such that a commercial pilot certificate is 

unwarranted. The petitioner asserts the risks associated with the operation of a UAS are so 

diminished from the level of risk associated with commercial operations contemplated by 

part 61, Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors, when drafted, that 

allowing operations of the UAS with a private pilot as the PIC, as requested, exceeds the current 

level of safety achieved by § 61.113(a) and (b).

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated with a UAS pilot and VO, within line of sight,

and notes the pilot and VO will be able to communicate by voice, radio, and/or text at all times. 

The petitioner states that the UAS flights will be limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet AGL 

and not more than 200 feet above an elevated platform from which filming is planned. The 

petitioner asserts an equivalent level of safety can be achieved given the size, weight, and speed 
6

of the UAS, as well as the location where it is operated. In addition, low altitude operation of the 

UAS will ensure separation between UAS and conventional aircraft.

The petitioner adds the operator will obtain the consent of all persons involved in the filming and 

ensure only consenting persons will be allowed within 100 feet of the flight operation. The 

petitioner notes that radius may be reduced to 30 feet based on an equivalent level of safety 

determination, as required in the operating documents, and operations at a closer range may be 

approved with the advance permission of the appropriate flight standards district office (FSDO). 

The petitioner states it will obtain written and/or oral permission from affected property holders 

and any required permissions and permits will be obtained from appropriate governmental 

agencies. The petitioner states all flights will occur in accordance with any state and local laws 

regarding privacy.

Regarding preflight actions, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.103, because it will 

not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner asserts an equivalent level of safety 

will be achieved by the operator taking all preflight actions including reviewing weather, flight 

battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data before 

commencing flight. Additionally, the petitioner notes that a briefing will be conducted before 

each day’s production activities and attendance is mandatory for all personnel performing duties 

within the boundaries of the safety perimeter. Further, the petitioner states it will submit a 

written plan of activities to the appropriate FSDO 3 days before the proposed filming as required 

in the operating documents.

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

the petitioner states that because it requests authority to operate at altitudes only up to 400

AGL, and not more than 200 above an elevated platform from which filming is planned, an

exemption is needed to allow such operations. Except for the limited conditions stated in

the operating documents the UA will never operate higher than 400 AGL. It will,

however, be operated in a restricted area within a security perimeter, where buildings and

people will not be exposed to operations without their pre-obtained consent.

The petitioner asserts an equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight,

and speed of the UAS as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken

without the permission of property owners or local officials. Because of the advance

notice to the property owners and participants in the filming activity, all affected

individuals will be informed of the planned flight operations. The petitioner states that 

compared to flight operations for manned aircraft and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk

associated with the proposed UAS operations is far less than conventional aircraft operating at

or below 500 AGL. In addition, the low-altitude operations of the UAS will ensure 

separation between a UAS and conventional aircraft.

The petitioner also requests an exemption from § 91.121, as its UAS may have a GPS altitude 

readout instead of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner states the operator will achieve an 

equivalent level of safety via the operating documents and safety checklist by confirming the 

altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.
7

Regarding the fuel requirements, the petitioner states that to meet the 30-minute reserve 

requirements in § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to approximately 10 minutes. 

The petitioner argues that given the limitations on the UAS’s proposed flight area and the 

location of its proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer timeframe for flight in 

daylight VFR conditions is reasonable. The petitioner believes an equivalent level of safety can 

be achieved by limiting flights to 30 minutes or not less than 25 percent of battery power, 

whichever occurs first. The petitioner notes it is not seeking an exemption for night operations.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that granting the requested exemptions is in the public interest because of 

the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations and the significant 

public benefit, including enhanced safety and reduction in environmental impacts, specifically 

reduced emissions and noise.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2014 

(79 FR 64244). The FAA received seven comments on the petition for exemption; three

commenters supported the exemption request and four opposed it.

Two commenters in support of the exemption state petitioner’s operations are safe, professional, 

and efficient, and cite petitioner’s expertise in aerial filming, specifically regarding safety and 

environmental impacts.

In support of the petition, the Small UAV Coalition (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 urged 

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 suggested 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 used for 

defense and aerospace purposes. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the 

petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate 

regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors1 in section 333 as a minimum. The 

Coalition stated the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those specified in 

 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; ...”
8

section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, and pilot training and experience. The 

Coalition maintained 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 emphasized the FAA must evaluate each factor within 

the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented 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 asserted 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 notes that under this exemption 

the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding private certificates and it will be able to use the 

training program it proposed. Finally, 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.

The Coalition commented 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.

The FAA received comments opposing the petition from two individuals, the Air Line Pilots

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

One of the two individual commenters states the exemption does not serve the public interest.

ALPA expresses concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA notes the petitioner’s 

reference to operations conducted within “limited or predetermined” sterile areas is not defined, 

nor does the petitioner detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of operation. 

Specifically, 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. 
9

VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations 

will not adversely affect safety.

Regarding the petitioner’s statement that the PIC and observer will be able to communicate by 

voice or text, ALPA notes that text messaging could have an unknown latency extending to 

several minutes. ALPA also states that 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-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.

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from part 21, § 91.7, or § 91.203, 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 
10

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

although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, 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 night operations will not be conducted and 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.
11

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.

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-ofway 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.

The other commenter opposing the petition states it appears the petitioner has copied 

documentation from current exemptions, which raises suspicions about the petitioner’s actual 

qualifications and operational abilities. The commenter also states additional information 

provided by the petitioner does not serve the public interest nor specify the level of expertise and 

skills required to operate a drone safely on a closed set. The commenter further states it is in the 

public interest that each applicant undergo identical scrutiny of its qualifications and safety 

standards. The commenter urges the FAA to delay granting additional exemptions pending 

real-world operational data from the current group of exempted operators. 

The petitioner responded to this comment noting that its additional information submitted on 

October 3, 2014, shows Team 5’s members are experienced and highly regarded pilots and 

camera operators and have performed aerial coordination and filming work on hundreds of major 

motion pictures and television shows and commercials. The petitioner states its chief UAS and 

training pilot is a certificated airline transport pilot for turbine rotor-wing aircraft and 

multiengine jet aircraft. The petitioner adds the chief UAS pilot has extensive experience 

operating and building radio-controlled (RC) aircraft for over 20 years and has competed 

professionally in pylon racing and 3D aerobatic demonstrations.
12

 

The petitioner notes the commenter is unaware of the comprehensive proprietary UAS

operational documents submitted by the petitioner to the FAA under separate cover. The 

petitioner states these confidential documents are based on the intended operations, FAA

guidance on UAS operations, the petitioner’s experience in the entertainment industry, and the 

Astraeus Aerial grant of exemption (Exemption No. 11062). 

The FAA notes that the nature of this exemption process requires an individual review of the 

petitions received, including proprietary materials submitted to the agency. It has reviewed this 

petition and, as discussed below, finds that it is in the public interest and operations would pose 

no adverse impact on safety.

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

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in 

reference to section 44704 of Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.), 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 relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise 

certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary. 

Commercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with manned aircraft are 

typically conducted with aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates issued under part 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 aerial filming can weigh 6,000 pounds or more and are operated 

by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s 

UAs will weigh less than 55 pounds with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be 

remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential for 

harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or 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 UA for the aerial filming operation.

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

UA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident because of a 

fuel spillage is eliminated.
13

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

an FAA issued Certificate of Waiver, aircraft can be operated in very close proximity to 

participating persons. The safety of these individuals is maintained through use of an aircraft 

with standard airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, operation of the 

aircraft by a qualified and competent pilot, and operating according to limitations necessary to 

ensure safety. In these situations, the filming subject and production personnel are exposed to 

risk by virtue of their close proximity to an aircraft 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 standoff distance from clouds, 

permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within VLOS and 

yield right-of-way to all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that the 

operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS. These 

mitigations address concerns raised by NAAA and ALPA regarding awareness of UAS 

operations occurring in the airspace.

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

failures. The UAS is also able to respond to a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, 

automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared 

to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and address ALPAs comment on mitigating 

risk of command and control link failures. These additional safety features have no adverse effect to 

participating and nonparticipating individuals compared to a manned aircraft that holds a standard 

airworthiness certificate performing a similar operation.

The petitioner requests relief from 14 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 (PIC)

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 sections 
14

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 14 CFR part 61, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a 

commercial pilot certificate. Based on the limitations 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 (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 FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and has determined that it does not 

differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus. 

The petitioner plans to operate over private property with controlled access in the NAS. Given: 

1) the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus, 

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 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.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS (item #3 stated above), the 

petitioner has proposed a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours 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 multi-rotor). The conditions and limitations below stipulate that petitioner may not permit any 

PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated through petitioner’s training and currency 

requirements that the PIC is able 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 people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Some of the petitioner’s PIC requirements are provided in its 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 exemption. An abbreviated summary of those PIC requirements include the following:
15

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 

hours 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 multi-rotor).

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 

petitioner’s operating documents.

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

airman medical certificate, and who has completed petitioner’s UAS training and currency 

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 the 

requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed below.

The petitioner has also indicated all flights will be operated within visual line of sight of the PIC 

and/or observer or VO. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure 

that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. Additionally, as 

discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for 

visual observer medical certificates. Although a medical certificate is not required for a VO, 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 visual line of sight (VLOS) with the UA at all times. It is the 

responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of the 

UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will 

not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the 

FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO.

The FAA considers the PIC to be designated for the duration of the flight. Therefore, per the 

conditions and limitations below, the PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot 

transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight.

UAS Operating Parameters

Although the petitioner did not seek 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 
16

an airworthy condition. 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.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.103 Preflight Action, although there will be 

no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph (b)(1), the FAA 

believes the petitioner can comply with the other applicable requirements in § 91.103(b)(2). The 

procedures outlined in the petitioner’s operating documents address the FAA’s concerns 

regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). The PIC will take all actions including reviewing 

weather, flight battery requirements, landings, 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 the VLOS and to 

preclude the UA from operating in the NAS. The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun 

glare; the FAA believes the that PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, 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 exemption for 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s request for relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(c), the FAA finds that this is 

consistent with the relief typically provided to manned operations in FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8, 

S1. This Order allows for relief from § 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, 

vehicles, and structures directly involved in the performance of the actual filming. Consistent 

with FAA Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, persons other than participating persons2 are not allowed 

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 safety 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 nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) 

from debris in the event of an accident. The stand-off distances above are applicable to all UA 

operations, including takeoff, flight, and landing of the UA.

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 

 2 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 proposed flight operation(s) and must acknowledge and accept those 

risks. Nonparticipating persons are the public, spectators, media, etc., not associated with the filming production.
17

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

additional conditions and limitations outlined below. However, all nonparticipating 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.

The petition refers to proposed operations 200 feet above a platform of unspecified and therefore 

unlimited height. This could put the aircraft at the same altitude strata as other aircraft in the 

NAS, with only geographic separation to mitigate the risk of collision. Therefore, the FAA has 

determined that operations from elevated platforms are not permitted as stated in the conditions 

and limitations.

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

will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft rather it uses information 

generated from GPS to transmit altitude information to the PIC. 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 GPS altitude indicator 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 14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight 

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

minimums prescribed in § 91.151(a), 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 FAA agrees with petitioner’s proposal to limit UAS 

flights to not more than 30 minutes, or enough battery reserve to ensure that the UAS lands at the 

ground station with at least 25% battery power reserve, whichever occurs first. Given the 

limitations on its proposed operations, the FAA finds sufficient reason to grant the relief from 

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

This exemption requires that the operator obtain a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA) 

from the FAA. As part of that process the FAA Air Traffic Organization evaluates whether the 

operations could be conducted safely in the requested airspace. The majority of current UAS 

operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated through ATC by the issuance of a COA. 

This process not only makes local ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides 

ATC the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will 

require the operator to request a NOTAM, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the 

NAS to the UAS activities being conducted. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the 

requirement for the petitioner to obtain an ATO-issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The 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 
18

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)

61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.7(a) Relief granted from 91.7(a), with 

conditions and limitations

91.103 Relief not necessary

91.119(c) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

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

with conditions and limitations

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.409(a)(2)

Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations; relief from 91.409(a)(1) also 

granted with conditions and limitations

91.417(a) and (b) Relief granted 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, Team 5, LLC is granted an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) 

and (b); 91.7(a); 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (a)(2); 

and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow Team 5 to operate UAS for the purpose of 

aerial filming in 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, Team 5 is hereafter referred to as the operator.
19

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

operating documents: 

1) Team 5 Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM), 

2) Team 5 Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM), and 

3) Additional supplemental documents submitted by petitioner

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 unmanned 

aircraft (UA): 1) Gryphon Dynamics X8 SN#001, a co-axial quad copter with eight rotors 

and motors, and, 2) the DJI S1000, octocopter with eight rotors and motors. Each weighs 

less than 55 pounds. Proposed operations of any other UAS 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 

of aerial filming in the motion picture and television industry. 

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

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 human 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 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.

6. The VO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not permitted

to operate the camera or other instruments.

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 
20

determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted 

this exemption, then the operator must petition for 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 aircraft is 

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS 

is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station must be included in 

the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the 

aircraft records. 

9. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or 

flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a 

functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in 

the aircraft records. 

10. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 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, and alterations 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 airman certificate and at least a third-class airman 

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 VO is also required to complete the operator’s 

training requirements. A record of training must be documented and made available upon 
21

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

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under 

special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

18. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a 

current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as 

required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must 

be made available to the Administrator upon request.

19. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally 

from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

20. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a pre-determined 

location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the 

operating documents.

21. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in 

accordance with the operating documents.

22. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing 

point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining.

23. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This 

COA will 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.

24. The UA may not be operated from an elevated platform.

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 (N-Number) markings 

in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable. 
22

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. 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 FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS filming 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 in 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; the list of those who gave 

permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

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 state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to 

accomplish the operation.

29. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times.

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

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

32. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operating documents have safety 

procedures for UA operations to be conducted closer than 500 feet to authorized and 

consenting production personnel. At all times, operations must not present an undue hazard 
23

to those participating persons per § 91.119(a).

33. Regarding distance from nonparticipating persons, the operator must ensure no persons are 

allowed within the perimeter of 500 feet from the area of primary filming 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 debris in the event of an accident. 

This is also consistent with the same FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1.

34. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission 

from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land 

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be 

conducted.

35. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries 

of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service