1 

AFS-15-087-E 

Exemption No. 11193 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

3D AERIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC

for an exemption from part 21; 

§§ 45.23;45.29; 61.113; 61.133; 91.9; 91.109;

91.119; 91.121; 91.151; 91.203; and 91.401-

91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0872

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 13, 20141, Mr. Bret R. Givens, President (hereinafter 

Petitioner or Operator), 3D Aerial Solutions, LLC, 4725 Constitutional Court, Dayton, Ohio 

45440, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21; 

§§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.113, 61.133, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203, and 91 

Subpart E (91.401-91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption 

would allow the petitioner to operate the SenseFly eBee Mini Drone unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) to conduct precision photogrammetry and crop scouting for precision 

agriculture. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner proposes to operate the SenseFly eBee Mini Drone UAS to conduct precision 

photogrammetry and crop scouting for precision agriculture. See Appendix A for the petition 

submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations, including the regulations that the 

petitioner seeks an exemption. 

The petitioner has provided the following information to support its request for an exemption: 

 

1

 By letter dated February 2, 2015, and posted to the public docket on February 3, the petitioner responded to the 

FAA’s request for information. 
2 

1) SenseFly eBee User Manual Rev. 14 

The petition and the document above are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. 

The FAA evaluated the petition and determined it was not precedent-setting. Therefore, a 

summary of the petition was not published in the Federal Register for public comment.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) UAS, (2) the UAS pilot in 

command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the public interest. 

Unmanned Aircraft System 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21 Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance 

with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC 

§ 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated 

with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this 

aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief 

from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, and any associated noise certification and testing 

requirements of part 36, is not necessary. 

Manned aircraft conducting aerial imagery operations can weigh thousands of pounds, are 

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

large quantities of fuel. The petitioner’s UA weighs approximately 1.5 pounds with no 

onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The 

limited weight and construction reduces the potential for harm to persons or damage to 

property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during 

an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UAS for the proposed operation. 

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

unmanned aircraft (UA) carries no fuel and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or 

accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated. 

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

contingencies or failures and is also able to respond to a loss of global positioning system 

(GPS) or a lost-link event with pre-coordinated automated landing maneuvers. These safety 

features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a 

restricted airworthiness certificate performing a similar operation. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b) Display of marks and § 

45.29 Size of marks the petitioner presumably requests this relief under the assumption that 

marking with the word “experimental” will be required as a condition of a grant of exemption. 

However, this marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under 

14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore 
3 

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

under § 21.191, a grant of exemption for § 45.23(b) is not necessary. However, the 

petitioner’s UA must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 

14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 

14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable, per § 45.29(f). 

The petitioner requested relief from14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 

91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(1)(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, as well as scheduled maintenance every 10 hours 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 

The petitioner requested relief from FAA Order 8900.227 paragraphs 16(c)(2)(c). 2 The FAA 

does not grant exemptions from its Orders, such as 8900.227. 

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

privileges and limitations and 14 CFR 61.133(a) Commercial pilot privileges and limitations, 

the petitioner requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an FAA-certificated pilot. 

However, the FAA does not possess the authority to exempt the petitioner from the statutory 

requirement to hold an airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. Although Section 

333 provides limited flexibility to the statutory requirement to hold an airworthiness 

certificate, it does not provide flexibility for other requirements of title 49. For further 

information see Exemption No. 11110, Trimble Navigation, Ltd. 

The FAA is also requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations because pilots holding an 

FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to security screening by the 

Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously 

determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates 

security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 333. 

Given these grounds, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot certification for 

the petitioner’s proposed operation. Under current regulations, civil operations for 

compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate, per 14 CFR part 61. 

Based on the private pilot limitations, in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR 

§ 61.113(a), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for 

 

2

 The FAA notes that the notice referenced above is now incorporated into FAA Order 8900.1, vol. 16, chap. 4, 

sec. 1. 
4 

compensation or hire. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial 

(Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the 

Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to 

persons or property on the ground. 

The petitioner proposes to operate with a pilot who does not possess any FAA issued pilot 

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

considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11109 (Clayco, Inc.) and 11170 (Viafield), 

the FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and determined it does not differ 

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

controlled access property with the permission of the property owner/controller, while also 

limiting property access to consenting participants while operations are underway. Given: 1) 

the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Clayco and 

Viafield, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those 

of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062, Astraeus Aerial], and 3) the 

airmanship skills necessary to operate in the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not necessarily correlate to 

the airmanship skills required for the petitioner’s proposed operations. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate 

is appropriate for the proposed operations. 

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the petitioner has proposed 

pilot qualification criteria and a training program. The conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has completed 

the petitioner’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. The petitioner 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 visual line of sight 

(VLOS), and navigational skills. Abnormal condition skills may include the ability to avoid 

obstacles, avoid air traffic, and respond to loss of link. 

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a current private pilot certificate and a thirdclass airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s flight training 

requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the 

safety of the National Airspace System (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 relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) is warranted. 

The FAA also finds that relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(b) is not necessary. Additionally, relief 

from 14 CFR § 61.133(a) is not necessary. 

The petitioner indicates it plans to supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual observer 

(VO), and likewise requests relief from the requirement (in FAA Order 8900.1) that the VO 

possess a second-class medical certificate. The FAA notes that one of the determinations for 
5 

operations under section 333 is operation within VLOS. As the PIC is determined to be in 

command of the UA, he or she must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA also 

notes that a visual observer complements the PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft 

including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks (e.g., 

maneuvering the aircraft close to structures, vehicles, or other objects). The VO provides an 

additional level of operational safety and thus the UA must never be operated beyond the 

actual visual capabilities of the VO, and the VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain 

VLOS with the UA at all times. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC 

must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. It 

is the responsibility of the PIC to be limit operations of the UA to distances within the visual 

capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to 

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

UAS Operating Parameters 

While the petitioner did not request relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft 

airworthiness, the FAA considers the petitioner’s compliance with its operating documents 

to be a sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 

91.7(a) is granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in an airworthy 

condition, based on compliance with the operating documents prior to every flight, and as 

stated in the conditions and limitations below. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b) Civil aircraft airworthiness, the PIC of the UAS is 

responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. 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). 

The petitioner is 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 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2) and 14 CFR § 91.203 

Civil aircraft: Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined in Grant of 

Exemption 11062, Astraeus Aerial, that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant 

materials may be kept in a location accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 Flight instruction; 

Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests, the petitioner did not describe training 

scenarios in which a dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight 

instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other company-designated individual, that would 

require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, the petitioner intends to 

accomplish training as described in the operating documents. This exemption will require 

that training operations only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. The FAA finds 

that safety will not be adversely impacted if the petitioner follows the training outlined in the 

operating documents. Therefore, the FAA finds that relief is not necessary. 
6 

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

petitioner did not specify the paragraph(s) in 14 CFR § 91.119 from which it requires relief. 

Relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency 

landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the petitioner to be able to 

perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface if a 

power unit fails. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, 

because the petitioner states that operations will be conducted over sparsely populated areas. 

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes below 

400 feet above ground level (AGL). Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an 

aircraft below the following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an altitude of 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. Section 91.119(c) 

provides that in operations over water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be 

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

that it will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions related to § 91.119: 

 

 Petitioner will conduct operations over private property with the permission of the 

landowner; 

 Petitioner will avoid operations over congested areas, heavily trafficked roads, or any 

open-air assembly of persons; 

 Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions 

(VMC) and daylight hours; 

 Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations remain within VLOS no greater than 0.5 

nautical miles of the PIC and will be visually monitored at all times; 

 Petitioner will operate no closer than 3 miles from an airport or heliport 

Though the petitioner states that it will operate its UAS within VLOS, at distances no greater 

than 0.5 nautical mile, at all times, the FAA notes that the UAS’s small size (96cm wingspan) 

may make such a distance impractical and stresses the requirement for VLOS at all times. 

The petitioner proposes to avoid congested areas and operations over open air assemblies of 

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

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

Inc., operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that the UA be 

operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or objects that would not be possible 

without additional relief. Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to conducting UAS 

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

remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from 

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

persons). 

The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 1.5 pounds. If barriers or 

structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or 

debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons 
7 

afforded such protection. The operator must also ensure that nonparticipating persons remain 

under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such 

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. When 

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

nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer 

than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the property owner/controller grants 

such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects and determines that it does not present an undue hazard. 

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

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

outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarranted as the FAA expects the petitioner to 

be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the 

surface. Relief from §§ 91.119(b) and 91.119(d) are not applicable. 

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

petitioner has a barometric altimeter and GPS derived altitude capabilities. However, as 

stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires any altitude reported to Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the altimeter to 

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

the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 is granted to the 

extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in 

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

prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar 

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

VFR conditions. The operating documents state that the UA batteries provide approximately 

45 minutes of powered flight. Information provided in the operating documents discusses 

procedures regarding remaining battery power. Those documents provide explanation of the 

automatic landing procedures that are executed when the UA exhausts battery power. The 

FAA believes that, given the limitations on its proposed operations and the location of those 

proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve for flight in daytime VFR conditions 

is reasonable. These factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 

CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, which 

prohibit the PIC from beginning a flight unless the battery is fully charged, stipulate that the 

flight will never fly more than 1⁄2 nautical mile from the point of intended landing, and 

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) require enough power to fly at normal 

cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 30% battery power 

remaining. 

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 (ATO) 

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 
8 

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 UA is able to collect 

high-resolution data that, according to the petitioner, would provide farmers the ability to 

direct precise application of fertilizer, reducing the overall use of chemicals and impact on the 

environment, while maximizing crop yields. 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 and carrying crew in addition to 

flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this 

exemption is in the public interest. 

The following table summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief: 
9 

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

Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary 

45.23(b) Relief not necessary 

45.29 Relief not necessary 

61.113(a) and (b) 

Relief from 61.113(a) is granted with 

conditions and limitations; relief from 

61.113(b) not necessary 

61.133 Relief not necessary 

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary 

91.109 Relief not necessary 

91.119 

Relief not granted for paragraph (a); 

paragraph (b) relief not applicable; 

paragraph (c) relief granted with 

conditions and limitations; paragraph (d) 

relief not applicable 

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

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

with conditions and limitations 

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary 

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

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

limitations 

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations 

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

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, 3D Aerial Solutions, LLC is granted an exemption 

from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow petitioner to 

operate a UAS for the purpose of conducting precision photogrammetry and crop scouting for 

precision agriculture. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

 
10 

Conditions and Limitations 

Relative to this grant of exemption, 3D Aerial Solutions, LLC is hereafter referred to as the 

operator in the following Conditions and Limitations. 

 

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

operating documents: 

1) SenseFly eBee User Manual Rev. 14 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

1) Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft, 

described in the operating documents, which is a fixed-wing aircraft weighing 

approximately 1.5 pounds: SenseFly eBee Mini Drone. Proposed operations of any 

other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant. 

2) UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting operations for the 

purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. 

3) The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 45 mph. 

4) The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All 

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

5) The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command 

(PIC) at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any 

device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman 

medical certificate. 

6) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used 

to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS 

capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. 

Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC 

must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the 

duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions 

prescribed in the operating documents. 

7) The 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. 
11 

8) The operating documents and this grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS 

operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy 

exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures 

outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take 

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures 

as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its 

operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and 

present updated and revised documents to the Administrator upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or 

revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the 

operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or 

revisions to the operating documents. 

9) Prior to each flight, the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe 

flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, 

the UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground 

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and 

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records. 

10) 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. 

11) The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the 

operating documents. 

12) The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, 

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

13) The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, 

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

aircraft records. This includes total time in service, description of work accomplished, 

and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service. 

14) Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety 

Bulletins. 
12 

15) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

16) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current thirdclass 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. 

17) The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s 

qualification criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a 

manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including 

evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from 

persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency 

must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The PIC must ensure 

that the VO is trained appropriately in order to fulfill her or her duties. A record of 

training must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. 

Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, 

and experience-building) are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training 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. 

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

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

under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

19) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as 

denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement 

with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in 

accordance with a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), as required by the operator’s 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The letter of agreement between the 

petitioner and the airport management must be made available to the Administrator 

upon request. 

20) The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet 

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

21) If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 
13 

23) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

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

intended landing point and land the UA with 30% battery power remaining. 

24) The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued COA prior to 

conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will require the 

operator to request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 

hours prior to the operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with 

airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude 

level and potential transponder requirements. 

25) All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be 

as large as practicable. 

26) Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. 

27) The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the 

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating. These 

documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request. 

28) The UA must remain clear of and yield the right of way to all manned aviation 

operations and activities at all times. 

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

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

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

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

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

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

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

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

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or; 

b) The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles, or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission 

and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and; 
14 

c) Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do not 

present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a). 

32) All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

33) Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported 

to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be 

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. 

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 March 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2015. 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service