1

Summary of Regulations from which ERM is Seeking Exemption

and

Statement towards the Public Interest

Explosives Risk Managers LLC (ERM) requests exemption from the following regulations to operate 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) based on the justification provided with a summary of each standard.

ERM will operate UA only in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations, ERM’s standard 

operating procedures (SOP), industry standards and the terms of the exemption.

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.

Justification for exemption: Because the UAS will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the proposed 

operations can achieve an equivalent level of safety by requiring the person operating the unmanned 

aircraft (UA) to have taken an FAA ground school course rather than to have obtained a commercial pilot 

certificate.

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 risks associated 

with the operation of UAS are so diminished from the level of risk associated with commercial 

operations contemplated by 14 CFR part 61, Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground 

Instructors, when drafted, that allowing operations of the UAS with a private pilot as the operator, as 

requested, exceeds the current level of safety achieved by 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b).

ERM requires a pilot certificate for UAS operations. Pilots holding an FAA issued private or commercial 

pilot certificate are subject to the security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that 

certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the 

requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations 

conducted in accordance with Section 333.

Under current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial 

pilot certificate per 14 CFR Part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent 

parts of 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an 

aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or employment. 
2

However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC 

with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the 

NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

ERM proposes to operate with a pilot who does not possess an FAA issued pilot certificate. This is similar 

to other petitions for exemption previously filed with and considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 

11062 (Astraeus) and 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), ERM’s proposed operation does not differ significantly 

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

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

consenting participants while operations are underway.

Given: 1) the similar nature of ERM’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus and other 

petitioners granted exemption, 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 additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially 

certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for ERM’s proposed operations. 

Therefore, 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, ERM proposes a training program. 

ERM will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated through ERM’s 

training program 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 persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. ERM is responsible for assessing its 

operations and identifying any additional skills required to operate safely under normal and abnormal 

conditions. Normal condition skills may include the ability to maintain altitude, maintain VLOS, and 

navigational skills. Abnormal condition skills may include the ability to avoid obstacles, avoid air traffic, 

and respond to loss of link.

A risk assessment is not required by FAA or conducted for thousands of civilian flights over explosives 

every day. Nonetheless, ERM will conduct a pre-flight quantitative risk analysis (QRA), as described in 

ERM’s SOP, to ensure that the risks of flying the UA in the vicinity of explosives, if present, are below 

tolerable levels. 

In conclusion, if risks identified in the QRA are tolerable, a PIC holding a private pilot certificate, a thirdclass airman medical certificate and who has completed ERM’s training requirements, can conduct the 

proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on 

the ground.
3

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

condition.

Justification for exemption: Since no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by FAA 

regulations, this regulation is inapplicable. ERM will operate UA only in accordance to the 

manufacturer’s recommendations and ERM’s standard operating procedures (SOP).

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

an aircraft below the following altitudes over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above 

the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be 

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Justification for exemption: 14 CFR § 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. 

ERM seeks relief to operate at altitudes up to 400 AGL, underneath navigable airspace and in class E and 

G airspace during the day. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of 

the UA as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken without the permission of the 

property owner or local officials. Because of the advance notice to the property owner and participants 

in the filming or surveillance activity, attempts will be made to contact all affected individuals regarding 

the planned flight operations. Compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighting far 

more than the UA proposed herein, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with these 

operations is far less than those presently presented with conventional aircraft. In addition, the lowaltitude operations of the UA will ensure separation between these UA operations and the operations of 

conventional aircraft that must comply with § 91.119.

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

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

would not be possible without additional relief. As required by the ERM SOP, prior to conducting UAS 

operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at 

appropriate safe distances or under protective cover. In open areas, this requires the UA to remain 500 

feet from all unprotected persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. PIC, VO, operator trainees or 

essential persons).

The maximum gross weight ERM’s UA is approximately 3 pounds. If barriers or structures are present 

that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, 

then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The PIC will also 

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

nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will 

cease immediately. 

When considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concern is the safety of those 

nonparticipating persons. Operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and 

structures when the owner/controller of any such vessels, vehicles or structures grants permission for 
4

the operation and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and 

determines that it does not present an undue hazard.

Section 91.121 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the 

cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set when operating below 18,000 feet mean sea 

level (MSL) to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before 

departure.

Justification for exemption: ERM’s UAS has a GPS altitude readout instead of a barometric altimeter. An 

equivalent level of safety will be achieved via the operating documents requiring confirmation of the 

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

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

generated from a GPS to transmit altitude information to the PIC. ERM may choose to set the GPS 

altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. 

The UA will operate at limited altitude.

Section 91.151(a)(1) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under visual flight rules 

(VFR) conditions during the day 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 to fly after 

that for at least 30 minutes.

Justification for exemption: Regarding the fuel requirements, in order to meet the 30-minute reserve 

requirements in 14 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to approximately 10 minutes. 

Given the limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its proposed operations within 

a predetermined area, a longer timeframe for flight in daylight conditions is reasonable. An equivalent 

level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 60 minutes or when low battery power is indicated 

by the UAS, whichever occurs first.

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to 

operate at less than prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In 

addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for 

daytime, VFR conditions. The operating documents indicate that two low-voltage (low battery) alerts 

are issued - warning that the first alert should be followed (30% - low battery level warning). Also, the 

UAS has an automated function which results in immediate landing when a low battery (15% battery 

level warning) is detected. The PIC will not begin a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

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

the UA with 30% battery power remaining.
5

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 part 43, 

Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration.

Justification for exemption: Since no such inspections and maintenance will be applicable in the form 

contemplated by FAA regulations, this regulation is inapplicable. ERM will operate UA only in 

accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations and ERM’s standard operating procedures (SOP).

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 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness 

certificate in accordance with part 21.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribe, 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.
6

(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 of this chapter shall be 

retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

Justification for exemption: The maintenance requirements in §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 

and 91.417(a) and (b) are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. ERM’s routine and 

preflight maintenance will be accomplished by the operator, who will keep a log of any performed 

maintenance. The operator is most familiar with the UA and best suited to maintain it in an airworthy 

condition to provide an equivalent level of safety. If a mechanical issue arises, the UA can land 

immediately, and given its small size, it poses minimal risk to persons or property.
7

Statement towards the Public Interest

ERM has proposed measures to maintain an equivalent level of safety to the public while being 

exempted from certain regulations identified above. The UA is lightweight (3 pounds) and will be 

operated in controlled industrial settings such as mines and construction sites. ERM’s SOP for operating

UAS provides for a high degree of safety to ground based personnel and the NAS. ERM has proposed 

measures substantially equivalent to other entities granted exemption by FAA.

To address the unique circumstance of explosive materials potentially being on site while UAS 

operations are conducted, ERM will conduct a pre-flight QRA to ensure that risks from a UA-caused 

explosives event are below tolerable levels. A similar assessment is not required by FAA or conducted 

for thousands of civilian flights over explosives each day. 

ERM has clearly shown that it can maintain an equivalent level of safety to the public while being 

exempted from certain regulations identified above.

Additionally, ERM’s proposed operations will make significant improvements to blasting safety and 

security and provide significant public benefit. Flyrock and failure to maintain blast area security 

account for over half of all accidents during the use of explosives in mining and construction. The U.S. 

Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reports that 61 percent of all mine 

blasting accidents are caused by blast area security failure (49 percent) and flyrock (12 percent). From 

1978 to 2010 (the latest period reported), MSHA has recorded 192 fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by 

failure to maintain blast area security and 141 fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by flyrock in surface 

mines.1

 A 1999 report by the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health describes several 

fatal accidents in mining and construction due to flyrock and lack of blast area security.2

 Virtually every 

incident of failure to maintain blast area security can be prevented by operation of UAS as proposed by 

ERM. The probability of flyrock can be greatly reduced by operation of UAS as proposed by ERM. In 

addition, although no summary statistics are available in mining or construction, fatalities and injuries 

have occurred to individuals being exposed to environmental hazards while collecting imaging data or 

doing post-blast inspections.3

 ERM proposes to conduct the same activities without exposing individuals 

to these same environmental hazards. 

The techniques proposed by ERM have been used elsewhere in the world since at least 2012 with great 

success.4

 ERM is unaware of any detrimental effects from this type of UAS use. 

ERM’s proposed use of UAS and FAA exemption from certain regulations identified above is clearly in 

the public’s best interest.

 1 Mine Blasting Safety: Decades of Progress, Harry Verakis and Thomas Lobb, U.S. Dept. of Labor, MSHA, Technical 

Support, 38th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Nashville, TN, February 12 - 15, 2012. 2 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/userfiles/works/pdfs/fadtf.pdf

3 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/ky/09KY079.html

http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2010/FAB10m23.asp

4 http://www.suasnews.com/2014/02/27259/terrestrial-lidar-and-uav-aerial-triangulation-for-open-pit-mines/

http://www.miningweekly.com/article/uavs-to-streamline-blasting-technology-2012-11-30