AFS-14-373-E

Exemption No. 11138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

DOUGLAS TRUDEAU, REALTOR® 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0481

for an exemption from Part 21; and

§§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) & (b); 

91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103(b);

91.109; 91.119; 91.121, 91.151(a); 

91.203(a) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);

91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) & (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated July 12, 2014, Mr. Douglas Trudeau, Realtor®, of Tierra Antigua Realty

(Trudeau), 1650 E River Road, Suite 202, Tucson, AZ 85718 petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21, subpart H; and Sections 45.23(b),

61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) 

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

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption would allow Trudeau to operate the 

PHANTOM 2 Vision+ quad-copter unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial 

videography and cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for those 

individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of the metro Tucson area

and augment real estate listing videos.

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.
2

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 

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 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that—

(a) no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, 

for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. 

(b) a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft 

in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or 

hire.

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

airworthy condition.

Section 91.7(b) prescribes that the pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for 

determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight and that the PIC shall 

discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. 

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

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

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

Section 91.103(b) prescribes that a pilot shall for any flight, become familiar with runway 

lengths at airports of intended use, and takeoff and landing distance information.

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:
3

(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.

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.
4

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—

(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.
5

(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

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

aircraft is approved for return to service.

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petitioner has provided the following information – contained in his petition and 

supporting documentation including: 1) Supplemental Response for Petition, 2) PHANTOM

Flying Flow Chart V1.0 (Simplified Version), PHANTOM Quick Start Manual v1.7, 

PHANTOM Advanced Manual v.1.4, 3) PHANTOM 2 Vision+ User Manual 4) restricted 

areas map, 5) personal protocols and controls, and 6) Safety/Flight Manual (all hereinafter 

referred to as operating documents).

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 he plans to operate a UAS, the PHANTOM 2 Vision+, which is 

comprised of an unmanned aircraft (UA or PHANTOM) and a transportable ground station. 

The PHANTOM 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. Petitioner plans to attach a small ultra-
6

lightweight GoPro 3+ camera to his UA and operate the UA over various areas near Tucson, 

Arizona to enhance academic community awareness and augment real estate listing videos.

Petitioner makes the following representations of operational enhancements which he 

proposes to abide by to ensure this exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to 

existing rules:

He will only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are 

away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; and

He will conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocols, during which safety 

carries primary importance.

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

with the aircraft to be utilized by him, 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).

Petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23 Marking of the aircraft because his UA will 

not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, 

he 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, petitioner states that he 

will mark his UAS in the largest possible lettering by placing the word “Experimental” on its 

fuselage as required by § 45.29(f) so that he or anyone assisting him as a spotter will see the

markings.

The petitioner states that an exemption from §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 

91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance inspections may be required and should be granted since they 

only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner states as a 

safety precaution he will perform a preflight inspection of his UAS before each flight as 

outlined in his operating documents.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that under § 61.113 (a) and (b) private pilots are limited to noncommercial operations, however he can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by 

current regulations because his UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, he 

states that, while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. He 

further indicates that the risks of operating a UAS are far less than the risk levels inherent in 

the commercial activities outlined in 14 CFR part 61, et seq., thus he requests an exemption 

from § 61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in command.

Regarding UAS operational training, the petitioner states he has flown numerous practice 

flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain 

familiarization with the characteristics of his UAS’ performance under different temperature 
7

and weather conditions. He further states that he practices computerized simulated flights to 

maintain adequate skills and response reflex time.

In a supplemental request to the FAA, the petitioner requests consideration of a 120 day 

temporary airman certificate in accordance with § 63.13, to allow him time to obtain a private 

pilot certificate or to allow the FAA time to establish minimum UAS airman certification 

standards.

UAS Operating Parameters

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

this exemption:

operate his UAS below 300 feet and within a radius distance of 1000 feet from the 

controller to both aid in direct line of sight visual observation;

1

operate the UAS for 3-7 minutes per flight;

land his UAS prior to the manufacturer’s recommended minimum level of battery 

power;

operate his UAS only within visual line of sight (VLOS);

use the UAS’ global positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature whereby it hovers 

and then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost;

conduct all operations under his own personal and flight safety protocols (including 

posting a warning sign reading: “Attention Aerial Photography in Progress – Remain 

Back 150 feet”) contained in the operating documents and will actively analyze flight 

data and other sources of information to constantly update and enhance his safety 

protocols;

contact respective airports if operations will be within 5 miles to advise them of his 

estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation of flight and other pertinent 

information;

always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and

have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential 

danger.

Petitioner states that § 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness 

certificate. The petitioner asserts that since there is currently no certificate applicable to his 

operation, this regulation is inapplicable.

Petitioner states that § 91.9(b)(2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft, however 

since there are no pilots or passengers on board his aircraft and given its size, this regulation is 

inapplicable. He further indicates an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by 

maintaining a safety/flight manual with the UAS ground station.

 

1 As specified in Douglas Trudeau Supplementary Information No. 2
8

Although petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.103(b) Preflight action, he provides no 

information supporting his request.

Similarly, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.109 Flight instruction; simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight test, and provides no information indicating how safety 

will be maintained if an exemption to this section is granted.

Petitioner states that § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft, but 

that it allows helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. Petitioner 

states he will not operate his UAS above the altitude of 300 feet above ground level (AGL)

and will also only operate in safe areas away from the public and traffic, thus “providing a 

level of safety at least equivalent to or below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes.” 

The petitioner asserts that given the size, weight, maneuverability, and speed of his UAS, an 

equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

Petitioner indicates that § 91.121 Altimeter settings is inapplicable since he UAS utilizes 

electronic GPS with a barometric sensor.

While petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR

conditions, he provides no information supporting his request for this exemption.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that aerial videography for geographical awareness and for real estate 

marketing has been around for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and 

helicopters, but for small business owners, its expense has been cost-prohibitive. Granting 

this exemption to the petitioner would allow him to provide this service at a much lower cost. 

Further, the petitioner indicates his small UAS will pose no threat to the public given its small 

size and lack of combustible fuel when compared to larger manned aircraft. The petitioner

also states that the operation of his UAS will minimize ecological damage and promote 

economic growth by providing information to companies looking to relocate or build in the 

Tucson metro area.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2014 

(79 FR 46500). The petition received five comments. During the comment period, the 

petitioner submitted supplemental information in response to several of the comments.

Of the five comments received, including four from trade organizations and one submitted by 

an individual, three raised concerns with the petition and one was specifically opposed. The 

other two supported the petition. Three trade organizations submitted letters expressing 

various concerns with the petition for exemption, including the Air Line Pilots Association 
9

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

United States Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (USHPA).

ALPA expressed concern regarding certain conditions outlined in Trudeau’s petition. ALPA 

noted that the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,” and believes the UAS 

pilot must hold at least a current FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with an appropriate 

category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown and a current second-class airman

medical certificate. ALPA also noted that this is the requirement for compensation or hire 

operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) today. NAAA and USHPA raised similar 

concerns on pilot qualification. NAAA and USHPA asserted that the operator should hold a 

pilot certificate and be thoroughly familiar with the limitations of manned aircraft flight. 

NAAA further stated that requirements for UAS pilot licensing should be developed along 

with other rigorous rules and qualifications to ensure safe integration of the unmanned aircraft 

into the NAS. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) disagreed with ALPA, NAAA and 

USHPA, asserting that a pilot certification should not be required for small unmanned 

operations such as the petitioner’s.

The FAA has carefully reviewed the concerns expressed in these comments and the discussion 

regarding knowledge, training, and medical certification required by holders of both private 

and commercial pilot certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of 

this issue with regard to 14 CFR part 61.

ALPA stated that the petitioner asserts that although he plans to fly below 300 feet above the 

surface and will generally not operate near populated areas, he also states he plans to survey 

real estate development which ALPA believes are by definition populated areas. ALPA also 

stated that the petitioner’s area of operations as outlined in his exhibits show he would be 

within the airport traffic area of both Tucson International Airport and Davis-Monthan AFB. 

ALPA also raised concerns about whether the petitioner’s UAS’ barometric sensor will enable 

him to accurately address his altitude restrictions. ALPA also asserted that processes or 

mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail-safe systems, and backups, and specific, 

validated procedures for system and equipment failures, must be in place to ensure the aircraft 

and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated 

commercially in the NAS. NAAA stated commercial UAS should have to receive 

airworthiness certification by the FAA to ensure they can safely operate in the NAS without 

posing a hazard to persons or property.

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common 

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent UA 

fly-away or other scenarios. If lost-link occurs, mitigations like auto-hover, auto-land, returnto-home and geo-fencing boundary protection must be incorporated into the navigation and 

control systems for the UAS to safely land or re-establish C2.
10

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 Trudeau has sufficient design 

features to address these hazards. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

Regarding use of the NAS, ALPA noted there must be means to ensure the UA remains within 

the defined airspace and to ensure the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is 

mitigated. ALPA stated given the absence of an onboard pilot, the means to meet the 

requirements to “see and avoid” must be specified. ALPA also expressed concern, stating that 

“because the waiver request is not for a specific operation but rather for all operations of the 

same general type, the FAA’s oversight task is considerably increased.” Per the conditions 

and limitations below, the FAA has prescribed operator, pilot and notification requirements to 

ensure that appropriate oversight can occur.

The FAA agrees and has required specific conditions and limitations outlined below related to 

the use of a visual observer, that the pilot be a current FAA certificated private pilot and that a 

notice-to-airmen (NOTAM) be issued prior to operations.

NAAA stated that it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots licensed as 

commercial applicators and ensuring safe low-level airspace includes minimizing obstructions 

which are difficult to be seen and identified by the pilots. NAAA members operate in lowlevel airspace, and clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA 

stated that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for 

agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their 

see and avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believes that UA operations at 

low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural aircraft. NAAA

requested that operators of UAS develop ways of making the presence of UAS known to VFR 

air traffic if they are to be integrated into the NAS and, for areas with less UAS activity, 

recommended a procedure for issuing NOTAMs when they are present.

The FAA agrees and has incorporated this into the conditions and limitations of this 

exemption. NAAA’s notification concerns are also addressed by the conditions and 

limitations that will require an Air Traffic Organization issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA) to address airspace requirements and notification. Further detail is 

contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below.

NAAA proposed UAS comply with 13 measures similar to those presented by the North 

Dakota Agricultural Aviation Association to the North Dakota Department of Commerce, the 

organization awarded the North Dakota UAS test site.

The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or 

below 300 feet AGL) and the UAS emergency procedures as outlined in the petitioner’s 

supplemental documentation are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will 
11

not adversely affect safety. Further, the FAA addressed additional concerns raised by NAAA 

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

airports, stand-off distance from clouds, altitude restrictions, and operating distance from nonparticipating persons. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating 

parameters below.

The USHPA also raised concerns about the identification marking regulations as well as the

petitioner’s need to coordinate his operations with airports and comply with local and state 

notification regulations associated with his type of activity. 

Commenter James Lee wrote in support of Trudeau’s petition, so long as he does not fly 

higher than 200 feet within a quarter mile from an airport or any flight path or flight operation 

and never flies above 400 feet AGL.

The FAA considered USHPA’s and Mr. Lee’s concerns and included conditions and 

limitations to address these issues as outlined below.

Lastly, the Small UAV Coalition submitted extensive comments supporting the petition. 

These included suggestions that the FAA: apply regulations differently to small UAVs versus 

those in the air transport category, not require all seven factors outlined in Section 333 as a 

prerequisite for every exemption (i.e. beyond visual line of sight (VLOS); weight; size, 

altitude, airspace, geographic area, and proposed technology), and consider Trudeau’s safety 

protocols including his posting of signs warning of flights as sufficient to enable operations in 

populated areas. Regarding use in the NAS, the Small UAV Coalition stated, in part, that the 

FAA's safety evaluation of UAV operations should not hinge on the type of operation (i.e. 

public, commercial, recreational or philanthropic) rather operational risks and steps that can

be taken to eliminate or reduce such risks. The Small UAV Coalition also commended the 

petitioner for developing a “Personal Protocols and Controls” document that details how he 

will contact any airport within a 5 mile radius in advance of his proposed UAV operation. 

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 

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 aerial filming and photography can weigh 5,000 lbs. or more, are 

operated by an onboard pilot and may carry other onboard crewmembers, as well as 100 
12

gallons or more of fuel. 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 

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 

Phantom 2 Vision+ 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 NAAA and ALPA regarding 

awareness of UAS operations occurring in the airspace

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

contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. 

The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with pre-coordinated 

automated flight maneuvers. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety 

compared to a manned aircraft holding a restricted airworthiness certificate performing a 

similar operation and address concerns raised by ALPA and NAAA.

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

petitioner 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 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.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.405(a), Maintenance required, 

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

91.409(a)(2), Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b), Maintenance records, the FAA has 

determined that relief from § 91.409(a)(1) is also necessary because it is an alternate 

inspection requirement of § 91.409(a)(2). The petitioner proposes to inspect and ensure that 

the UAS is in a condition for safe flight.

Therefore, the FAA finds that adherence to the petitioner’s operating documents and the

conditions and limitations below, describing the requirements for maintenance, inspection, 
13

and recordkeeping, are sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected. Accordingly, 

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.

Pilot In Command (PIC) of the UAS

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

privileges and limitations, the petitioner requested regulatory relief to operate his UAS 

without an FAA-certificated pilot. In support of his request, the petitioner states that “while 

helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills.” 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 § 44711.2 Although Section 333 provides limited 

statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of airworthiness certification, 

it does not provide similar flexibility relative to other sections of Title 49.

Unlike operations pursuant to public COAs, the FAA is also requiring a pilot certificate for 

UAS operations for two reasons, the first of which is to satisfy the statutory requirements as 

stated above. The second is because pilots holding an FAA issued private or commercial pilot 

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

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

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

operations conducted in accordance with Section 333.

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) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot 

certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only 

incidental to a business or employment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 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.

As discussed above, the petition received three comments registering concern about pilot 

certification. ALPA stated its opposition to the proposed operation by a non-certificated pilot 

without a required medical certificate. ALPA believes that the operation should be conducted 

by a PIC holding a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and 

 

2 49 USC § 44711 prohibits a person from serving “in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft, 

aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance used, or intended for use, in air commerce...without an airman certificate 

authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued . . . .”.
14

class rating for the type of aircraft being flown and a current second-class airman medical 

certificate. NAAA stated that the UAS pilot should be a commercial pilot or have similar 

training and can demonstrate knowledge of aviation safety and communication procedures. 

USHPA stated that since the petitioner has not indicated any restriction to location of his 

operations, nor his knowledge of airspace rules, and because his operations would constitute 

commercial operations, he should be required to meet that level of certification.

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation, considered the comments above, 

and determined it does not differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of 

Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeus). The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over private 

property while also limiting access to the property at times he is operating the UA. Given: 1) 

the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus, 2) 

the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of 

commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062], and 3) the airmanship skills necessary 

to operate the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a 

commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for the 

petitioner’s 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 provided 

no training program, minimum flight time hours, or test standards to demonstrate his 

capability to meet some of the conditions and limitations below including avoiding hazards, 

reacting to emergencies, or maintaining specific distances from persons or property. The 

petitioner indicates he avoids risks that may cause a crash and that he has flown numerous 

practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to 

gain familiarization with the characteristics and performance of this UAS under different 

temperature and wind conditions. He also mentions his computerized simulated flights to 

maintain adequate skills and response reflex time.

Since the petitioner provides no information regarding a training program, minimum flight 

time hours, or test standards to demonstrate his capability to operate safely, and in response to 

concerns raised by ALPA, NAAA, and USHPA, the FAA reviewed the minimum 

requirements for providing a waiver to manned operations under 14 CFR 91.119. While this 

process applies to an operator seeking a waiver rather than an exemption, the exemption 

process is similar. Manned operations that require relief from 14 CFR 91.119 in the form of a 

waiver have established minimum requirements for pilot personnel (PIC). 3

 

3 FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization: § 91.119(b) 

and/or (c) (Minimum Safe Altitudes) and FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1, Issue a Certificate 

of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming. 
15

1) at least 500 hours logged as the PIC and at least 20 hours logged as the PIC in the 

aircraft type;

2) a minimum of 25 hours (or 100 hours in the case of motion picture operations) in 

the same category and class of aircraft to be used; and

3) a minimum of 5 hours in the make and model aircraft to be used under the waiver.

However, given the relative size, weight, speed and operating parameters of the proposed 

UAS operations and its accompanying reduction in risk to persons and property when 

compared to manned operations, these minimum requirements should be reduced, but not 

eliminated. UAS operators still need to establish airmanship skills in order to meet the 

conditions and limitations listed below such as the ability to maneuver near but maintain 

specific distances from persons and property, respond to unexpected emergencies, or avoid 

objects as well as the ability to avoid potential conflicts with manned aircraft. In 

consideration of the above, the FAA must determine the appropriate level of pilot flight hours

necessary to qualify the PIC for the petitioner’s proposed operations. The FAA has 

considered minimum skills and associated flight-hours necessary to practice and build 

proficiency in these skills. 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 

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

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

In making its determination the FAA considered the requirements proposed by Astraeus in 

Exemption No. 11062. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s proposed operation is similar to 

that authorized in Exemption No. 11062 because both include operations closer than 500 feet 

from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. In Exemption No. 11062, the FAA required

that prior to conducting operations for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar 

operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with

14 CFR 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours 

logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Prior to operations under Exemption No.

11062, the PIC must also have accumulated and logged a minimum of 5 hours as a UAS pilot 

operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption. 

For clarification, the FAA considers these minimum hour requirements to be inclusive rather 

than additive; i.e. 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multirotor time and the 10 hours may be included in the total 25 hours of UAS rotorcraft time. In 

addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). The FAA finds that at a minimum, the flight-hour 

requirements in Exemption No. 11062 are appropriate to practice and build proficiency in the 

skills necessary to safely conduct the petitioner’s proposed operations. The FAA also finds 

that prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable 

regulations would satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building 

flights can also be conducted under the grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight 
16

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.

The flight-hours above are considered appropriate given the circumstances of the proposed 

operation and the description provided by the petitioner of the preparations he has undertaken 

to conduct the UAS operation safely. The petitioner may determine through its safety 

assessment that additional hours are necessary to address all potential flight hazards and 

requisite airmanship skills. Consequently, the FAA has included in the conditions and 

limitations below that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate 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.

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

private pilot certificate, a third-class airman medical certificate, and completed the minimum 

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

the FAA finds relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) is warranted.

In a supplemental request to the FAA, the petitioner requests consideration of a 120 day 

temporary airman certificate in accordance with 14 CFR 63.13, to allow him time to obtain a 

private pilot certificate. The requested relief is not applicable to pilot certificates because, 

14 CFR 63.1, Applicability, states this part prescribes the requirements for issuing flight 

engineer and flight navigator certificates and the general operating rules for holders of those 

certificates, only. Thus, 14 CFR 63.13 does not provide a basis from which to issue a 

temporary pilot certificate as requested by the petitioner and the requested relief is denied.

The petitioner has also indicated he will supplement his proposed operation(s) with a spotter, 

hereafter referred to as a visual observer (VO). The conditions and limitations below stipulate 

that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating 

documents. Additionally, as discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no 

regulatory requirements for visual observer medical certificates. Although a medical 

certificate is not required for a VO, the UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual 

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

sight (VLOS) with the UA at all times. It is the responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the 

VO’s visual limitations and limit operations of the UA to distances within the visual 

capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. 

Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a 

medical certificate necessary for the VO.

Operating parameters of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness,

petitioner’s request is based on his belief that since no FAA regulatory standard exists for 
17

determining airworthiness of the UAS, the regulation is inapplicable. 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 his operating documents to be 

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

granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that his 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 91.103, Preflight Action, the 

petitioner requires each PIC to take certain actions before flight to ensure the safety of the 

flight. The exemption is needed because the pilot will take separate preflight actions as 

referenced in the operating documents. Although there will be no approved Airplane or 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual available, the FAA believes that the petitioner can comply with the 

other applicable requirements in 14 CFR 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the 

operating documents address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103(b). 

The PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, 

landings, and takeoff distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The 

FAA has imposed stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this 

is to both keep the UA from departing the VLOS and to preclude the UA from operating in the 

NAS. The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes that the 

PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a 

return-to-home sequence, are sufficient mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account 

for all relevant site-specific conditions in his or her preflight procedures. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that exemption from 14 CFR 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91.109(a), 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 refers to 

his “numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist.” But, as outlined above, the 

FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s PIC possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. Also, 

the currency requirements expressed in the conditions and limitations below will help ensure 
18

that a PIC training on the UAS has the authority to operate the UAS during training flights as 

PIC in accordance with § 61.31(l). The FAA will impose a limitation that those training 

operations are only conducted during dedicated training sessions. As such, the FAA finds that 

the petitioner can conduct his operations without the requested relief from § 91.109.

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 granted, because, as 

discussed below, operations over congested areas will not be permitted under this exemption.

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

300 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 he will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions related to § 91.119: 

operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are away from 

power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas away from public 

and traffic;

conduct all operations under his own personal safety protocols (including posting a 

warning sign reading: “Attention Aerial Photography in Progress – Remain Back 150 

Feet”) contained in the operating documents and will actively analyze flight data and 

other sources of information to constantly update and enhance his safety protocols;

contact respective airports if operations will be within 5 miles to advise them of his 

estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation of flight and other pertinent 

information; and 

always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation.

The petitioner proposes to avoid “actively populated areas” but does not explain how these 

areas are determined. As in Exemption No. 11110 (Trimble Navigation, Ltd.), the FAA notes

that avoidance of areas which are depicted in “yellow” on VFR charts is a practicable step in 

assuring that operations are not conducted over congested or densely populated areas. 

However, using these “yellow” areas solely to make this determination is not sufficient. Pilots 

may obtain information regarding congested areas from the local Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO). Therefore, operations over congested or densely populated areas are 

prohibited as stated in the conditions and limitations below.

The petitioner did not describe 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 (Clayco, Inc.), operations 

conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 
19

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 the UA’s maximum gross weight of approximately 3 pounds. If barriers or 

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

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

afforded such protection. The 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 owner/controller of any such

vessels, vehicles or structures grants permission for the operation and the PIC makes a safety 

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not 

present an undue hazard.

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) is not granted and 91.119(d) is 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 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 his commitment to land the 

UAS prior to the manufacturer’s recommended minimum level of battery power. The 

operating documents indicate that two low-voltage (low battery) alerts are issued - warning 

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

petitioner has indicated his flights will last only 3-7 minutes each. Also, the UAS has an 

automated function which results in immediate landing when a low battery is detected. These
20

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, that prohibit the PIC from 

beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough 

power to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, 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. This 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.

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 Relief not necessary

45.23(b) Relief not necessary

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

limitations

63.13 Relief not granted

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.9(b)(2) Relief not necessary

91.103(b) Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119 Paragraph (c) granted with conditions 

and limitations

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.151(a) Paragraph 91.151(a)(1), day, granted with 

conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and 
21

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

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, Mr. Douglas Trudeau, Realtor®, of Tierra Antigua 

Realty, is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), 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 an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the 

purpose of aerial videography/cinematography and augment real estate listing videos. This 

exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Trudeau is hereafter referred to as the operator.

The following documents provided by the operator in its petition, 1) Supplemental Response 

for Petition, 2) PHANTOM Flying Flow Chart V1.0 (Simplified Version), PHANTOM Quick 

Start Manual v1.7, PHANTOM Advanced Manual v.1.4, 3) PHANTOM 2 Vision+ User 

Manual 4) restricted areas map, 5) personal protocols and controls, and 6) Safety/Flight 

Manual, are hereinafter referred to as operating documents.

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 less than 

3 pounds: PHANTOM 2 Vision+ Unmanned Aircraft System. Proposed operations of 

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

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

3) The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 300 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.
22

4) 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.

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

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the 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. The PIC must be 

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

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

the operating documents. 

6) The 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 he 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 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.

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

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

the 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.

8) Any UAS 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.

9) The pre-flight inspection section in the operating documents must account for all 

discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already covered in 

the relevant sections of the operating documents.
23

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

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

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

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

and alterations must be noted in the aircraft records, including total flight hours, 

description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning 

the UAS to service.

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

Bulletins.

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

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.

14) UAS operations must be conducted by a PIC possessing at least a private pilot 

certificate and at least a current third-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.

15) Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography 

and augmenting real estate listing videos (or similar operations), the PIC must have 

accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), a minimum of 

25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a 

UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Prior documented flight experience that was 

obtained in compliance with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. 

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

this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time. However, said 

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

16) Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography 

and augmenting real estate listing videos (or similar operations), the PIC must have 

accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), a minimum of 

5 hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to be used in

operations under the exemption; 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 

10 hours of multi-rotor time prescribed above. The PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs 

and landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). Training, proficiency, 

experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted 

under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day 

currency. However, said training operations may only be conducted during dedicated 

training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the 
24

PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 

14 CFR 91.119.

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

videography/cinematography and augmenting real estate listing videos (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.

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).

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

denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart. 

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.

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 Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman 

(NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the 

operation.

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.
25

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 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;

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 land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission 

from land 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.
26

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 5, 2015.

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service