AFS–14–396–E

Exemption No. 11157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

SLUGWEAR, INC., dba

LIKEONATREE AERIAL 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0534

for an exemption from Part 21, 

Subpart H; and §§ 45.23, 45.29, 91.9,

91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151,

91.203(a) and (b); and 91.401-417

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 29, 2014, Mr. D. Douglas Branch, President of Slugwear, Inc. doing 

business as (dba) Likeonatree Aerial (hereinafter Petitioner or Operator), P.O. Box 16492, 

Seattle, WA 98116 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 

from part 21, subpart H; and §§ 45.23, 45.29, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) 

and (b), and 91.401-417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The petitioner 

also asked for an exemption from FAA Notice 8900.227 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Operational Approval, paragraphs 16(c)(4) and 16(e)(1). The proposed exemption would 

allow the petitioner to operate the DJI Phantom 2 quad-copter unmanned aircraft system 

(UAS) to conduct aerial photography and survey for various industries.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

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

productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and 

the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport category aircraft or 
2

experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that 

aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 

inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” 

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

Section 45.29(b)(iii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that marks at least 3 inches high may be 

displayed on an aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under 

§21.191(d), § 21.191 (g), or § 21.191(i) of this chapter to operate as an exhibition aircraft, an 

amateur-built aircraft, or a light-sport aircraft when the maximum cruising speed of the 

aircraft does not exceed 180 knots calibrated airspeed.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is available 

in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual 

material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

(except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has 

fully functioning dual controls.

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may 

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without 

undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over 

any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle 

within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over 

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

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

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies 

with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than 

the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
3

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain 

cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

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

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to 

fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, (1) during the 

day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes [emphasis added].

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft unless 

it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective 

U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the 

second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c). 

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is 

displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that 

aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required 

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

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that has 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

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

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

an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

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

records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved 

inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each 

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must 

include—
4

(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 which are 

required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the 

last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft 

and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety 

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety 

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major 

alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, 

and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until 

the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is 

performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under
5

§ 43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the 

aircraft is approved for return to service.

FAA Notice 8900.227, paragraph 16.c.(4), PIC Medical, states that the PIC must maintain, 

at a minimum, a valid FAA second-class medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, 

Medical Standards and Certification, or the FAA-recognized equivalent. 

Paragraph 16.e.(1), Medical, states that all observers must have a valid FAA second-class 

medical certificate issued under part 67; an FAA-recognized equivalent is an acceptable 

means of demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 

The FAA notes that the notice referenced above is now incorporated into FAA Order 8900.1, 

Volume 16.

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) Supplemental Response for Petition, 

2) Likeonatree Aerial UAS Operations Manual, 

3) Phantom 2 User Manual v1.2

The petitioner submitted additional information in response to FAA requests, which are 

posted to the docket. The FAA has organized the petitioner’s information into four sections: 

1) the unmanned aircraft system (UAS), 2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), 3) the UAS 

operating parameters and 4) public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System

The petitioner states it plans to operate a UAS, the Phantom 2, which is comprised of an 

unmanned aircraft (UA or Phantom) and a transportable ground station. The UA is referred to 

as a quad-copter with a maximum gross weight of about 3 pounds. It is equipped with four 

rotors that are driven by electric motors powered by batteries. The UA has a maximum 

airspeed of 30 knots. The petitioner plans to use the UA with an attached camera to conduct 

aerial photography and survey various industries. 

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

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

(Airworthiness Certificates) and § 91.203(a) and (b) (Certifications required), subject to 

certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent 

level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 (Section 333).

The petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23 Marking of the aircraft and § 45.29 Size of 

Marks because its UA will not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain 
6

words or phrases. Further, the petitioner states that two-inch lettering is difficult to place on 

such a small aircraft with dimensions smaller than the minimal lettering requirement. 

Regardless of this, the petitioner states that it will mark its UA in the largest possible lettering 

by placing the word “Experimental” on it as required by § 45.29(f) so that it will provide 

sufficiently identifiable should someone discover the aircraft on the ground. 

The petitioner states that an exemption from §§ 91.401 – 91.417 Maintenance, Preventive 

Maintenance, and Alterations may be required and should be granted since it is their intention 

that the PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the UA and be the person authorized to 

approve the aircraft for return to service. The petitioner states that prior to every flight, the 

PIC will inspect the aircraft to ensure that it is in an airworthy condition and will perform and 

general maintenance procedures or replacement of items as outlined by the UA’s 

manufacturer. The petitioner also states that under no circumstances will the UA be operated 

in a condition that is deemed, or suspected to be, unsafe. If such a determination is reached 

and the problem cannot be remedied to the satisfaction of the PIC, the UAS will not be 

operated until after consulting with the manufacturer or one of its authorized dealers to 

determine the necessary repairs. The petitioner has also included a pre-flight safety checklist 

which will be completed before each flight as outlined in its operating documents.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner states that the PIC will be an FAA licensed airman with at least a commercial 

pilot certificate or will be directly supervised by an FAA-certificated commercial airman. 

The petitioner notes that the FAA licensed airman will be considered PIC, whether flying or 

supervising and will be responsible for safe operations of the flight. 

In addition to the PIC, the petitioner states the minimum crew for each operation will consist 

of the UAS PIC and an observer will be utilized if the UA will be flown beyond visual line of 

sight (BVLOS) of the PIC. The observer, if required and PIC will at all times be able to 

communicate by voice and/or text. 

Regarding UAS operational training, the petitioner states the UA pilot will be trained in 

advance for the safe operation of the UAS to be operated. Said training will include a 

minimum of 100 takeoff/landing cycles, 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. Prior to operations the PIC 

must have accumulated and logged a minimum of 5 hours as UAS pilot operating the make 

and model of UAS as well as 3 takeoffs and landings in the proceeding 90 days. Specific 

training will include normal and emergency modes of operation and will include 

familiarization with the operation manual published by the UAS manufacturer. Training will 

also include types of maneuvers to be performed during operations including safe operation in 

relation to persons, property and applicable airspace.
7

Lastly the petitioner states that the PIC will establish a working relationship with a 

representative at the local Flight Standards district Office (FSDO) with which to annually 

review safety procedures and other operations to further enhance safety.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that it will abide by the following additional operating conditions under 

this exemption:

• Safety will be the first and foremost consideration in the UAS operation

• Flight will be operated in Class G airspace whenever possible. If operation in other 

airspace is required, the relevant controlling agency will be notified at least 24 hours 

prior to the operation and, if required, any necessary permission obtained. 

• Flights will be operated under visibility and cloud clearance requirements equivalent 

to Visual Flight Rules (VFR).

• The UAS will at all times give way to any aircraft carrying persons.

• Prior to a UAS flight, an area of operation will be established. This area of operation 

will include a defined lateral and vertical area, where the UAS will operate. Safety 

procedures will be established for persons, property and applicable airspace within the 

area of operation.

• Flight planning will include flight completion with at least 20% battery power 

remaining as measured by the UAS or appropriate timing. 

• The UAS will utilize GPS navigation, failsafe, return-to-home, and/or flight abort 

safety features, if equipped.

• A briefing will be conducted in regard to the planned UAS operations prior to 

operation at each new location. All personnel who will be performing duties within 

the boundaries of the area of operation will be present for this briefing.

• All required permissions and permits will be obtained from appropriate state, county 

or city jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, fire, or other appropriate 

governmental agencies.

• Written, to include electronic, and/or oral permission from the relevant property 

owners will be obtained prior to an operation.

The petitioner states that § 91.9(b)(2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft for 

review by the crew, however since there are no pilots on board the UA the flight manual 

would not be available for review by the crew. To obtain an equivalent level of safety, the 

petitioner proposes that a current, UAS operation manual or equivalent be available to the 

crew at the ground station anytime the aircraft is in, or preparing for, flight. 

The petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.109 Flight instruction; simulated instrument 

flight and certain flight test, concerning the need for dual controls during flight training. The 

petitioner states that UAS do not currently have a set of fully functioning dual controls and 
8

during training the pilot instructor could easily take over the controls from the pilot being

trained if the need arose – similar to the technique used with “throw-over-type” control wheels 

in some fixed wing aircraft. The petitioner states this would provide an equivalent level of 

safety. 

The petitioner states that § 91.119 (c) provides that aircraft cannot operate closer than 500 feet 

to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure over sparsely populated areas. The petitioner 

indicates that the typical mission of this UAS would be photography or survey of persons, 

vessels, vehicles or structures and thus it would be necessary to operate closer than 500 feet to 

the items listed. However, since the petitioner has committed to receiving prior permission to 

fly over property or person, that this along with careful preplanning, the slow speed of the UA 

and its smaller mass would maintain an equivalent level of safety. 

The petitioner indicates that § 91.121 Altimeter settings should be granted because the UA 

will normally be flying close to the ground and in line of sight of the PIC or an observer. The 

petitioner states that this line of sight operation will provide separation from other aircraft, 

obstructions and terrain, and would override the use of an altimeter for such purpose and thus 

an equivalent level of safety would be achieved if an exemption was granted. 

The Petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR

conditions, indicating that the purpose of the regulation was to provide a reasonable reserve of 

energy (fuel) to plan for a safe landing should there be a delay in landing. However, as 

previously indicated petitioner commits to concluding every flight with 20% battery power 

remaining and believes this would provide an equivalent level of safety. 

Lastly, the petitioner requests an exemption from FAA Notice 8900.227 requiring the PIC and 

observer to have a valid FAA second-class medical certificate issued under part 67 stating that 

it is an unnecessary burden. Instead the petitioner proposes that the minimum medical 

requirements for both the PIC and observer be vision correct to 20/20 and a valid, state-issued 

driver’s license. The petitioner states that an equivalent level of safety would be maintained 

under these conditions since the risk of the PIC and observer becoming incapacitated at the 

same time is very low, the UAS is operated low to the ground so it could land quickly if 

incapacitation was suspected and most UAS have an automatic return-to-home feature if 

needed. 

Public Interest

The petitioner states that operation of a UAS would provide significant safety, environmental 

and other enhancements not possible by larger sized aircraft. The petition further states that 

operation of the UAS will provide a beneficial and currently unavailable service to 

government organizations and the general public that would serve the public interest.
9

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2014 

(79 FR 49831). The petition received one comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA) on the following topics: reliability and safety of operation of a UAS, 

lack of an airworthiness certificate, lost link, qualifications of the flight instructor, “see and 

avoid” requirements, medical certification of the PIC and control of the airspace in which the 

UAS operates.

ALPA expressed concern regarding reliability, safety and operation of UAS including 

petitioner’s discussion about flying the UAS beyond line of sight as well as the use of a visual 

observer only when operating the UA beyond line of sight. The FAA shares these concerns 

and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) 

limiting operations within visual line of sight and b) requiring a visual observer for all 

operations. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

ALPA also specifically opposed petitioner’s request for an exemption under Part 21, subpart 

H and 14 CFR § 91.203 which requires an airworthiness certificate prior to flight. As 

discussed in greater detail below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of factors 

laid out in statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain operations. The 

Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the 

petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA. 

Next, ALPA stated that lost link failures are the most common failures of a UAS and that 

mitigations must be required in order to prevent fly-aways or other scenarios. These 

mitigations should include auto-hover, auto-land, return-to-home and Geo-Fencing boundary 

protection. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the 

vehicle design and the petitioner’s supporting documentation 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. As discussed in the analysis of the UAS 

below, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that the UAS and associated 

operations proposed in the petition meet the criteria of Section 333 and thus design standards 

are not required. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such 
10

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

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

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

provided by a certificated flight instructor.

Regarding 14 CFR 91.113 Right of Way, “See and Avoid” requirements, ALPA also stated 

that given the absence of an onboard pilot, a means to meet this significantly complex 

requirement must be specified. The FAA shares these concerns and has incorporated 

associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for 

all operations, b) operations conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO, and c) the UAS 

PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft.

Sixth, ALPA raised the issue of the need to maintain the current requirement that a 2nd class 

FAA medical certificate be required for all commercial pilots operating an aircraft for 

compensation or hire which they felt should apply equally to UAS pilots. ALPA cited the 

lack of information in the petition about minimum qualifications for the person at the actual 

controls, how supervision is to be conducted, what the qualifications of the PIC must be and 

what criteria the supervising pilot would use to determine when to intervene in the interest of 

safety. The FAA has carefully reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments regarding 

knowledge, training, and medical certification. Additional details are available in the ensuing 

analysis of this issue with regards to 14 CFR part 61.

Lastly, ALPA raised a concern about control of the airspace during UAS operations and a 

means to alert other aircraft in the area of the UAS operation. The FAA addressed these 

concerns by adding operating conditions and limitations regarding operations in the proximity 

of airports. 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 Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). 

Additionally, stand-off distance from clouds, altitude restrictions, and operating distance from 

non-participating personnel have been prescribed. Further detail is contained in the analysis 

of the UAS operating parameters below.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts. 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 
11

finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and 

testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

Manned aircraft conducting photography and aerial surveying operations can weigh 5,000 lbs. 

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

The petitioner’s UA weighs less than 3 lbs. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from 

the aircraft. The limited weight reduces the potential for harm to participating and 

nonparticipating 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 

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

spillage is eliminated.

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

aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating the 

risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand-off distance from clouds, 

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

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

operator will request a notice to airmen (NOTAM) prior to operations to alert other users of 

the NAS. These mitigations address concerns raised by 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 

contingencies or failures and uses a failsafe mode to return to home and land when connection 

is lost. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with precoordinated automated flight maneuvers. The petitioner identified circumstances which could 

lead to loss of link including obstacles obstructing the signal between the remote control and 

the UA or interference causing a signal problem with the remote control. The FAA finds that 

these risk mitigations, in addition to the operating environment requirements included in this 

grant, adequately address lost-link (C2) concerns raised by ALPA.

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

petitioner’s request is made under the assumption that marking with the word 

“experimental” will be required as a condition of an exemption request. However, this 

marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under § 21.191. 

Since the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under 14 CFR § 21.191, a grant of 

exemption for 14 CFR § 45.23(b) is not necessary. 

The petitioner’s UA must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 

CFR part 47, and have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 
12

45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f). Therefore a grant of 

exemption for § 45.29 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from §§ 91.401-417, the FAA has determined that 

relief from the following sections is required: 14 CFR 91.405 (a) Maintenance required, 

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

91.409(a) (1) and (2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has 

carefully evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for granting the 

exemption is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating documents contain 

preflight checks for the UAS. 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. In accordance with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and 

recordkeeping requirements, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted subject to the 

conditions and limitations below. These along with other conditions and limitations address 

reliability and safety concerns raised by ALPA.

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

Petitioner proposes operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) with the support of a 

visual observer (VO). The analysis below will first address the proposal to conduct UA 

operations BVLOS, followed by an analysis of the PIC qualifications and medical 

requirements, and lastly, VO qualifications and medical requirements.

Though it proposed operations BVLOS, the petition did not provide data or analysis to 

demonstrate that operating BVLOS can be performed without adversely impacting safety. 

Section 333 of the PL 112-95 specifically requires that operations approved by the Secretary 

under Section 333 be conducted within VLOS and does not permit operations BVLOS. As in 

all previous grants of exemption (Exemptions Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 11136, 11138) in order to maintain an 

equivalent level of safety, the FAA requires operations be conducted within VLOS of the PIC, 

and in addition, requires a VO to assist the PIC with maintaining VLOS with the UA. 

Therefore the FAA will require the same in this petition. PIC and VO requirements in this 

exemption address the “see and avoid” concern raised by ALPA. 

With regard to the qualifications and training necessary to operate the UAS, the petitioner has 

provided the following information regarding its minimum requirements: a minimum of 100 

takeoff/landing cycles, 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours 

logged as a UAS pilot with similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). Petitioner further 

states that the PIC must have accumulated a minimum of 5 hours as UAS pilot operating the 

make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under this exemption and three take-offs 

and landings in the proceeding 90 days. Specific training for the PIC is to include the use of 

the manufacturer’s training manual (if provided), petitioner’s operations manual including 
13

checklists as well as familiarization with basic flight maneuvers including takeoff, landing, 

climbs, descents, turns, maneuvering around objects, awareness and avoidance of other air 

traffic, and safe operations around consenting personnel and avoidance of non-participating 

personnel. 

The FAA finds that at a minimum, the flight-hour requirements provided by the petitioner are 

appropriate to practice and build proficiency in the skills necessary to safely conduct the 

petitioner’s proposed operations. The FAA also finds that any prior documented flight 

experience obtained in compliance with these minimums would satisfy this requirement. 

Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducted under the grant of

exemption to accomplish the required flight time. During training, proficiency, and 

experience-building flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in 

accordance with 14 CFR 91.119.

In addition to the minimum requirements proposed above, the petitioner may determine 

through a safety assessment of its proposed operations that additional hours are necessary to 

address all potential flight hazards and requisite airmanship skills. Therefore, as in 

Exemption No. 11136, (Advanced Aviation Solutions), the conditions and limitations below 

stipulate that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless that 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 has requested an exemption from FAA Notice 8900.227 Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (UAS) Operational Approval, paragraph 16(c) (4) and 16(e) (1) which addresses PIC 

Medical and Observer Medical requirements and proposes medical qualifications including a

valid, state-issued driver’s license along with vision corrected to 20/20. ALPA commented 

that the petitioner should be required to meet the current Class II, FAA medical certificate 

requirement for a commercially rated airman.

Regarding medical certification, the FAA does not grant exemptions from its Orders such as 

8900.227. Second, 14 CFR § 61.23(a)(2)(ii) requires airman excising the privileges of a 

commercial certificate must possess a current second class medical certificate. Therefore, the 

FAA finds that the PIC must hold a commercial airman certificate and a current second class 

medical certificate. This addresses the PIC’s medical certification issue raised by ALPA. 

Medical certification of the VO is addressed below.

In conclusion, the FAA finds that prior to operations any PIC must, at a minimum, hold a 

commercial pilot certificate, a second class medical certificate, and complete the minimum 

flight hour and currency requirements as stated in the conditions and limitations below. 

As discussed above, all flights will be operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO. The 

conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform 
14

the functions prescribed in the operating documents. Additionally, as discussed in Exemption 

No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for VO 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 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.

Operating parameters of the UAS

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

airworthiness, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is necessary. While the petitioner’s 

UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart 

H, the FAA considers the petitioner’s compliance with its operating documents to be a 

sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is 

granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in an airworthy condition –

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

conditions and limitations below.

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for 

determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA finds that the PIC 

can comply with this requirement, therefore relief from § 91.7(b) is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, 

marking, and placard requirements and 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b) Civil aircraft: 

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined 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 through the procedures referenced in the operating documents. 

Furthermore, the petitioner has indicated their PIC will possess at least a commercial pilot’s 

certificate. Also, this exemption will require that training operations only be conducted 

during dedicated training sessions. The FAA finds safety will not be adversely impacted if the 

petitioner follows the training outlined in the operating documents. As such, the FAA finds 

that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109. This 

addresses ALPAs concern about § 91.109.
15

The petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes. 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 only be conducted “in Class G airspace, whenever 

possible” and it will secure “written, to include electronic, and/or oral permission from the 

relevant property owners prior to operations.” The petitioner also states that an area of 

operations will be established before flight with defined lateral and vertical areas with safety 

procedures established for person, property and applicable airspace within the area of 

operations. Thus no operations will be conducted over congested areas.

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

400 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below the 

following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, 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: 

1. at or below 250 feet AGL based on the home point,

2. within a radius of 750 feet based upon the home point,

3. notification of the appropriate agency if the operation altitude of 250 feet AGL (as 

noted above) will be within the boundaries of Class B, C, D or E airspace,

4. flown in GPS mode and within flight limits set in the UA’s autopilot system to the 

values stated in 1 and 2 above, 

5. flight in proximity and speed that would not create a hazard to person and property, 

and

6. with the permission of the property owner.

The petitioner did not describe specific minimum stand-off distances from persons, vessels, 

vehicles and structures. Section 91.119(c) requires that aircraft operate no closer than 500 feet 

to these persons or objects. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket 

No. FAA-2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require 

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

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

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

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

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

persons). 

The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 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 
16

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 land 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. 

The petitioner proposed notifying the appropriate agency if the operation of the UAS will be 

within the boundaries of Class B, C, D or E airspace. The FAA Air Traffic Organization 

reviews all proposed UAS operations and evaluates the safety of these operations relative to 

the requested airspace through the existing COA process. 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.

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. 

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

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

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

to be in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the altimeter to zero feet AGL rather than 

local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight. Considering the limited altitude of the 

proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 is granted to the extent necessary to comply 

with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below.

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

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

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 petitioner’s only reference to this section is its commitment to land the 

UAS with 20% battery energy remaining. The operating documents indicate that two lowvoltage (low battery) alerts are issued - warning that the first alert should be followed (30% -

low battery level warning). Following the second alert with only 15% battery power 

remaining, the UA will begin to descend and land automatically. As in exemption No. 11138 

(Douglas Trudeau), the FAA finds that these factors provide sufficient reason to grant the 

relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations 
17

below following the manufacturer’s recommendation. Thus, 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.

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization 

(COA), the majority of current UAS operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated 

through Air Traffic Control (ATC) by the issuance of a COA. Although the petitioner 

indicates a COA and NOTAM should only be required if their UAS operates beyond visual 

line of sight, the COA and NOTAM requirement is an existing process that 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. This addresses a concern raised by ALPA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and 

reduced environmental impact achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the 

petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly 

greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to 

find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest. The following 

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

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

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119

Paragraphs (a) and (b) relief are not 

granted; paragraph (c) relief granted with 

conditions and limitations; paragraph (d) 

relief is not warranted

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.151(a) Relief granted from § 91.151(a)(1), day, 
18

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

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, Slugwear, Inc. dba Likeonatree Aerial is granted an 

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

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

operate an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of aerial photography and survey 

for various industries. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Slugwear, Inc. dba Likeonatree Aerial is hereafter referred 

to as the operator.

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

operating documents: 

1) Supplemental Response for Petition, 

2) UAS Operations Manual, 

3) PHANTOM 2 User Manual v1.2 

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 quad-rotor aircraft weighing about 3 

pounds: DJI Phantom 2 Unmanned Aircraft System. Proposed operations of any other 

aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.
19

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

purpose of aerial photography and survey for various industries.

3) The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 30 knots.

4) The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 250 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.

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.
20

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 section in the operating documents must account for all 

potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already 

covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents.

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, including 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.

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 commercial airman certificate and at least a current 

second class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review 

requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on 

his or her pilot certificate.

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 VO is also 

required to complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of training must be 
21

documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the 

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

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

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

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

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

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

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

photography and survey for various industries (or similar operations), unless the PIC 

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

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

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

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

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

visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

20) 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. 

21) 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.

22) 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.

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

accordance with the operating documents.

24) 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.

25) 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
22

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.

26) All operations shall be conducted in Class G airspace or as otherwise prescribed in the 

ATO issued COA. 

27) 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.

28) 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.

29) 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.

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

and activities at all times.

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

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

33) 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;
23

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).

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