AFS-15-017-E Exemption No. 11167

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

PRAVIA, LLC

for an exemption from part 21, Subpart
H (§§ 21.171-21.199) and §§ 45.23(b),
91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103, 91.109,
91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a),
91.203(a) and (b), and Part 91 Subpart
E (91.401–91.417) of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0789

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated September 30, 2014, which refere nced supplemental proprietary information submitted to the FAA under separate cover, Mr. Tim Ray and Mr. Scott Brink, Managing Partners, Pravia, LLC, 555 Falcon Trail, Nicev ille, Florida 32578, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an ex emption from part 21, Subpart H (§§ 21.171- 21.199) and §§ 45.23(b), 91.7(a), 91. 9(b), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), and Part 91 Subpart E (91.401–91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption, would al low Pravia, LLC to operate the eBee Ag Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) (hereinafter referred to as the eBee Ag) for the purpose of providing high-resolution aer ial imagery in support of, biomass analysis and estimation, yield monitoring, leaf area indexing and reporti ng of geographical data and overall crop health to a domestic ag ricultural seed company.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21, Subpart H (§§ 21.171-21.199) prescribes in pertinent part , the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design a pprovals, production appr ovals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.2

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part , that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the regi stration number is displayed on limited, restricted, or lightsport category aircraft or experimental or pr ovisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entr ance 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 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may opera te a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a 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 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all avai lable information concerning that flight, to

include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an ai rport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alterna tives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at air ports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing dist ance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data co ntained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specifi ed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, an d wind and temperature.

Section 91.109 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may opera te a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight in struction 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.3

(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 f eet 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—

(3) 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

(4) A powered parachute or weight-shift-cont rol aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.121 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set when operating below 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to the elevation of the departure airpor t or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions unless (consid ering 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) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may opera te a civil aircraft unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness ce rtificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration certi ficate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Applicat ion as provided for in §47.31(c).

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

unless the airworthiness certifi cate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is disp layed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.401-91.417), prescribes , in pertinent part, rules governing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and al terations of U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating within or outside of the United States.4

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petition and the following supporting documen tation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents:

1) proprietary site information 2) proprietary eBee SenseFly User Manual 3) proprietary eBee Inspection and Maintenance Requirements 4) proprietary SenseFly eBee Training documentation 5) proprietary eBee: Justification of airworthiness and safety assessments

The FAA has organized the petitioner’s informa tion into four sections: (1) the unmanned aircraft system (UAS), (2) the UAS pilot in command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner states it plans to operate a UAS, the eBee Ag, which is manufactured by SenseFly SA of Switzerland a nd includes a lightweight batt ery operated aircraft, ground control station, and associated da ta link equipment. The eBee Ag airframe is constructed of EPP foam and weighs 1.5 lbs. with a wingspan of 3.2 feet. The eBee Ag is powered by a lithium polymer battery that drives an electr ic pusher propeller. It is hand launched, has a maximum flight time of 45 minutes, and opera tes at a cruising speed of 22 mph – 35 mph. The aircraft is linked to the ground control station via a 2.4 GHz USB radio modem with a maximum data link range of 1.6 NM. The eBee provides inflight monitoring of current position, wind speed and direction, battery charge , flight time, and altitude, including both

above the takeoff location and above sea level. If onboard sensors detect a critical situation at any time (low battery, close proximity to the ground, weak data link signal, etc.) the eBee Ag will automatically initiate a pr eprogrammed safety procedure.

Regarding airworthiness certification, the peti tioner requests an exemption from part 21, Subpart H (§§ 21.171-21.199). The petitioner states that an equal level of safety will be achieved with the operational limitations desc ribed in the petition. As a result of the operational limitations proposed, combined with the eBee Ag’s lightweight airframe and Pravia’s pilot requirements, the petitioner states that the eBee Ag can safely operate without creating a hazard to other ai rcraft or to persons or structures on the ground.

Regarding aircraft markings, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23(b) because the eBee Ag is unmanned and therefore does not have an entrance on which the required markings could be displayed. In addition, the petitioner may not have a registration number assigned to it by the FAA. The petitioner proposes to achieve an equivalent level of safety by including the word “EXPERIMENTAL” in the largest lettering possible on the top of the aircraft. The petitioner adds it will display at the ground control station a flag with the words “EXPERIMENTAL UAS” in 3-inch lettering. Th e petitioner adds that because the eBee Ag would always be within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC (positioned at the ground5

station) and would be flown at 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or lower, the markings on the airframe and the flag at the ground station w ould allow parties to be visually informed of the UAS’s operating status.

Regarding civil aircraft certifi cation required under § 91.7(a), the petitioner notes that it is already seeking exemption from airworthiness certification and, thus, that no FAA standard will exist for determining airworthiness. The pe titioner states that it will achieve an equal level of safety by following the pre-flight pr otocol for each flight, safety checks, and comprehensive maintenance procedures prescribed in the operating documents. The petitioner references the eBee Ag’s “demonstrated ability to fly safely in the NAS under the current NMSU FAA-approved COA.”

Regarding the requirement in § 91.203 that all ci vil aircraft have “an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate” that must be “displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew[,]” the petitioner notes that it is alrea dy seeking an exemption from airworthiness certification requirements and therefore requires an exemption from this regulation as well. Moreover, due to its size and design, the eBee Ag has no cabin or cockpit and therefore no ability to affix or carry cert ificate or registration documents. The petitioner proposes that an equivalent level of safety can be attained by keeping any FAA-required documents at the ground control station where it will be readily accessible to the PIC and any other agencies that may require informa tion, and by affixing a small placard to the eBee Ag airframe with manufacture, regi stration, and contact information.

Regarding the requirements in § 91.109 for fu lly functioning dual cont rols, the petitioner notes the eBee Ag ground control station is computer-based, and by design does not have fully functioning dual controls; however, the ground control sta tion “will be accessible to

both the Instructor and Student at all times” a nd “[t]he ‘controls’ can in essence be passed

back and forth between the Instructor and Student , achieving an equivalent level of safety as having two sets of controls.”

Regarding keeping a current, approved flight ma nual aboard a U.S. –reg istered civil aircraft, the petitioner states it may need an exempti on from § 91.9(b) because “The eBee Ag’s small and lightweight airframe is not physically capable of carryin g an aircraft flight manual onboard.” The petitioner further states, “ If it were physically possi ble for these required documents to be placed onboard the aircraft, the PIC and Safety Observer would have no means of accessing the information due to th e fact that eBee Ag is unmanned with no aircrew onboard.” The petiti oner proposes to obtain an e quivalent level of safety by “keeping the eBee User Manual and Justificatio n of Airworthiness Document at the ground control station where it will be readily accessibl e (within arm’s reach) to the PIC who is operating the aircraft, thus meeting the intent of the regulation.”

The petitioner requests a full exemption from th e maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations requirements in pa rt 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.401 through 91.417) due to the fact that these sections apply to an aircraft with an airworthiness ce rtificate for which the petitioner is already seeking exemption. The petitioner propose s that the PIC perform, and be responsible for, maintenance and inspection of the aircraft according to the SenseFly eBee proprietary6

inspection and maintenance requirements, wh ich provide step-by-st ep instructions on Regular Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Corrective Mainte nance. The petitioner proposes that the PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airw orthy condition prior to flight and approve its return to service. The petitione r states that additional maintenance that is outside the scope of the eBee Inspection and Maintenance Requirements will be performed by the manufacturer. The PIC will document work performed in accordance with § 91.407(a)(1).

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

The petitioner states that while their proposed operation is considered to be a commercial operation, the UA will only be operated in design ated flight areas, with both a PIC and a ground-based Safety Observer. The Safety Observer will be located next to the PIC and will

ensure the aircraft remains within VLOS at all times and assist in spotting potential hazards . The petitioner’s operational limitations includ e that all eBee Ag ope rations over designated sites will be conducted by commercially certifie d pilots who have completed the training in accordance with the operating documents.

The petitioner suggests that by utilizing licensed commercial pilots as pilot in command, the proposed operations will not adversely affect sa fety because of the confined and controlled area of operations. The petitioner also stated that the PIC will have additional qualifications and training prior to operations conducted unde r this exemption. Additionally, anytime the PIC or Safety Observer spot a potential haza rd, such as a manned aircraft within close proximity to the designated flight area, th e PIC will immediately land the eBee Ag and operations will only resume after th e hazard is clear of the area.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states the aircra ft will be operated with both a PIC and a ground-based Safety Observer. The eBee Ag is hand-launched on- site, requiring no runway for takeoff and landing and no transit to or from the site. Once airborne, the eBee Ag will fly at an altitude of 400 feet AGL or less over the designated agricu ltural plot. Prior to flight, the PIC will set a designated flight area and flight parameters to ensure that the eBee Ag will remain within the confines of the approved site and not exceed a maximum altitude of 400 feet AGL. If

onboard sensors detect a critical issue at any time, such as a low battery state or loss of global positioning system (GPS) signal, the eBee Ag will immediately execute preprogrammed safety procedures. The petitione r states that the eBee Ag’s small operational footprint and built-in safety pr otocol provide a much safer a lternative for aerial imaging and would pose a minimal hazard to the nati onal airspace system (NAS) or public.

The petitioner states that th e eBee Ag will only operate over agricultural plots for the purpose of collecting aerial imagery. There are 10 sites over which the petitioner proposes the eBee Ag will be flown, although the petitioner s eeks approval to fly over future sites as well. All sites are owned and operated by a dom estic agricultural seed company, which has already granted approval to th e petitioner to conduc t eBee Ag flights. The petitioner notes

that there are a few small office and mainte nance buildings located among the agricultural7

plots and the petitioner will ensure all eB ee Ag operations avoid overflight of these structures. In addition, ther e are no commercial airports within 5 NM and no general aviation airports within 3 NM of any of the sites. The eBee Ag will also operate at an altitude of 400 feet AGL or less, and as a re sult will be laterally de-conflicted from manned aircraft operations. By operati ng at low altitudes over agricultu ral plots the petitioner asserts that the eBee Ag will pose no threat to i ndividuals or structures on the ground and will remain well clear of any and all air traffic. The petitioner’s operational limitations require the PIC to file a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) fo r eBee Ag flights at each site, providing at a minimum radial/DME, radius, and a date/time group.

The petitioner indicates the eBee Ag will be flow n in accordance with day visual flight rules (VFR) and only in visual meteorological cond itions (VMC) during daylight hours. The eBee Ag will operate within 1 NM and VLOS of the PIC (and the Safety Observer positioned next to the PIC) at an altitude 400 feet AGL or less. The Safety Ob server will be responsible for ensuring that the eBee Ag remains within VLOS at all times and will also assist in spotting potential hazards.

Regarding the requirement in § 91.103 that e ach PIC, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight such as weather and fuel requirements, as well as information found with in civil aircraft approved flight manuals relating to aircraft performance and take-off and landing distances, the petitioner notes that the eBee Ag has no FAA-approved flight manual and that therefore the petitioner seeks exemption from this requirement. The petitioner proposes to attain an equivalent level of safety by following the operating documents. A ccording to the petitioner, the information contained in these documents is comparable to that found in FAA-approved flight manuals, including comprehensive step-by- step pre-flight checklists.

With respect to operating altitudes, the peti tioner requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements in § 91.119. The pe titioner notes that § 91.119(c) provides that over sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated cl oser than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The peti tioner maintains because the aircraft will be operating at a maximum of 400 feet AGL, it ca nnot comply with this requirement. The petitioner notes that the sole function of the eBee Ag is to fly at low altitudes over agricultural plots, which the peti tioner asserts can be categori zed as “other than congested areas”. The petitioner states an equivalent level of safety w ill be maintained by operating the eBee Ag only over designated sites, details of which were provided in Appendix A to the petition. Additionally, the petitione r states that the eBee Ag’s small size and foam airframe is less hazardous to persons and structures on the ground than a manned fixed-wing aircraft performing the same service. The petitioner adds , moreover, that by operating at an altitude of 400 feet AGL or less the eBee Ag will not be in conflict with manne d aircraft that are subject to this minimu m altitude regulation.

Regarding the altimeter settings requirements in § 91.121, the petitioner st ates that the eBee Ag is not equipped with a programmable altimeter; rather, the eBee Ag determines location and altitude using and onboard GPS and barome ter. Moreover, because the eBee Ag will be operating at or below 400 feet AGL, the petitioner states that “there is no need to maintain8

hemispherical cruising altitudes for de-confliction with manned aircraft.” For the above reasons, the petitioner seeks exem ption from this regulation. The petitioner states that it will attain an equal level of safety by using the onboard GPS and barometer. The eBee Ag’s altitude will also be monitored by the PIC and VO, and if there is a failure of the GPS or barometer during flight, the eBee Ag will execute an emergency landing.

Regarding the fuel requirements in § 91.151(a) , the petitioner states the eBee Ag is battery-operated, does not carry “fuel,” and the maximum durati on of flight from a single battery charge is 45 minutes. Thus, the require ment that a flight be conducted with enough fuel to fly for 30 minutes beyond the intended landing point would allow for operations of no more than 15 minutes. The petitioner asserts that the risk or da nger associated with failing to reach a safe landing point with 30 mi nutes of extra “fuel” does not exist with the eBee Ag, and that an equivalent level of safety can be attained because the eBee Ag does not have to return to a landing point but can be safely put down anywhere over the agricultural plot. Additionally, the eBee is equipped with a battery monitoring system that displays the “raw voltage level” and estimated percentage of battery remaining based, in part, on the battery model, current voltage, and power used, as well as the ratio of estimated remaining energy versus the estimated energy required to reach the home point. A low battery warning appears when the battery level is under 20%.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that by authorizing eB ee Ag operations, the FAA would advance the public interest by reducing th e number of manned aircraft in the NAS; reducing air and noise pollution; reducing the risk to life and property on the ground; and increasing agricultural economic growth.

The petitioner supports these assertions by listing a number of benefits of eBee Ag operations compared to manned ai rcraft operations that are used for the same agricultural applications. The petitioner asserts that allowing eBee Ag operations would reduce the burden on air traffic controllers; would re duce air and noise pollution from the manned

aircraft that would otherwise be used; would reduce fuel use, as the eBee Ag is batterypowered unlike the manned aircraft it would re place; and would reduce the risk to life and property on the ground, as the eBee Ag contains no pilot and is constr ucted of a small, lightweight foam airframe.

Finally, the petitioner suggests that the high-resolution image data generated from eBee Ag flights would provide scientists with important information th at would assist efforts to maximize crop yields. The petitioner asserts that this would result in a major increase in economic growth, which would be in the public interest.

The FAA evaluated Pravia, LLC’s petition a nd determined it was not precedent-setting. Therefore, a summary of the petition was not published in the Federal Register for public

comment.9

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

Regarding the petitioner’s requested re lief from 14 CFR part 21 Subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates , the FAA finds that, based on the limi ted size, weight, operating conditions, design safety features, and the imposed c onditions and limitations , the petitioner has demonstrated that its operations would not a dversely affect safety compared to similar operations conducted with aircraft that have be en issued an airworth iness certificate under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H. Furthermore, in acc ordance with the statutory criteria provided

in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in refere nce to 49 USC § 44704, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this ai rcraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 14 CF R part 21, and any associated

noise certification and te sting requirements of pa rt 36, is not necessary.

Manned aircraft conducting aerial imagery opera tions can weigh 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. or more, are operated by an onboard pilot, and may ca rry other onboard crewmembers, as well as carry 100-200 gallons or more of fuel. The petitioner’s UA weighs approximately 1.5 lbs. The pilot and crew will be re motely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction reduces the potential for harm to pe rsons 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 fi re following an incidentor 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 se nse 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 visual line of sight and yiel d right of way to all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that th e operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert othe r users of the NAS.

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to land safely after experien cing certain in-flight contingencies, or failures, and is also able to respond to a loss of G PS or a lost-link event with “return home” or pre-c oordinated automated landing maneuvers. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a restricted airworthiness certificate perf orming a similar operation.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b) Display of marks, the petitioner requests this re lief under the assumption that marking with the word “experimental” will be require d as a condition of a grant of exemption. However, this marking is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental cer tificates under 14 CFR § 21.191. The petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under § 21.191, and therefore the10

“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.

The petitioner’s UA must be identified by seri al number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N-N umber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable per § 45.29(f).

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91 Subpart E, the relevant parts of subpart E include: 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive main tenance, rebuilding, or alteration , 91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections , and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records.

The FAA has carefully evaluated the petitione r’s request and determined that cause for granting the exemption is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating

documents contain sufficient information for the preparation and care of the UAS equipment. The FAA finds that adherence to these documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not a dversely affected. In accordance with the petitione r’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, the FAA finds that exem ption 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.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

As described in the petition, the PIC will be a commercially certified pilot who has completed the petitioner’s training require ments in accordance with the operating documents. The PIC must complete a ll manufacturers’recommended training and appropriate flight currency re quirements. The PIC must al so meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an ai rcraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

Although the petitioner specifies that its PICs will hold commercial pilot certificates, the petition did not specify the class of medical certificate the class of medical certificate that its PICs will possess. In accordance with 14 CF R § 61.23(a)(2), a pilot must hold at least a

second class medical certificate when exerci sing the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate. Therefore, the PICs are required to possess a current second class medical

certificate.

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual observer (VO), referred to in th e petition as a Safety Observer . In Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the FAA agreed with the petitioner’s pro posed use of a VO and required a VO to be used in all UAS operations; however, the FAA c onsiders the PIC’s ability to maintain VLOS with the UAS to be of primary significan ce. 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 respon sibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit opera tions of the UA to distances w ithin the visual capabilities of11

both the PIC and VO. The conditions and limit ations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions pr escribed in the operating documents. Lastly, as discussed in Exemption No. 11109, Clayco, Inc., there are no regulatory requirements for

VO medical certificates. A medical certificat e is not required for a VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefor e, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO.

UAS Operating Parameters

Regarding the petitioner’s requested 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 certi ficate 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 ai rworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is granted. The petitioner is still requi red 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 accor dance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b), the PIC of the UAS is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a conditi on for safe flight. Alth ough the petitioner did not seek relief from § 91.7(b), the FAA, as in grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, has determined that the operator’ s manual include procedures to be used prior to each flight that can ensure compliance wi th § 91.7(b). The FAA finds th at 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(b) Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements and 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b) Civil aircraft: Certifications required , the FAA has previously determ ined in Grant of Exemption 11062,

Astraeus Aerial that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location immediatel y accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight action , although there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual as specified in paragraph (b)(1), the FAA believes that the petitione r can comply with the other applicable requirements in § 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlined in the petitioner’s documents address the FAA’s concerns regarding complia nce with § 91.103(b). The PIC will take all actions including reviewing w eather, flight battery require ments, landings, and takeoff

distances and aircraft performance data before initiati on of flight. The FAA has imposed stricter requirements with rega rd to visibility and distance fr om clouds; this is to both keep the UA from departing the VLOS and to prec lude the UA from operating in the NAS. The

FAA also notes the risks associated with s un glare; the FAA believes that the PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combin ed with the PIC’s ability to initiate a returnto-home sequence, are sufficient mitigations in this respect. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions in his or her preflight proce dures. Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.12

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 woul d be utilized or required, i.e. dual flight instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other compa ny-designated individual, that would require that individual to have fully functioning dual contro ls. The petitioner did, however, assert that because the eBee Ag ground control station is computer-based it will be

accessible to both an instructor and a student at all times, as the controls can be passed back

and forth between the instructor and student, thus achieving an e quivalent level of safety as having two sets of controls. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the reque sted relief from § 91.109.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed 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 unprecedented and unwarrant ed. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable , because the petitioner states that the “sole function of the eBee Ag is to fly at low alti tudes over agricultural plots, which can be categorized as “other than congested areas.”

The petitioner proposes to fly at low altitude s over agricultural plots, which can be categorized as “other than congested areas .” Accordingly, this exemption prohibits operations over congested or densely populated areas as stated in the conditions and limitations below. Pilots may obtain inform ation about congested areas from the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the ai rcraft will be operate d at altitudes below 400 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below an

altitude of 500 feet above th e surface over “other than conge sted areas,” except over open water or sparsely populated areas. Section 91.11 9(c) provides that in operations over water or sparsely populated areas, th e aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

The petitioner did not describe stand-off di stances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. Section 91.119(c) requi res 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 esse ntial persons, or objects that would not be possible without additional relief. Therefore, the FAA is requi ring that prior to conducting UAS operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonpa rticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than e ssential flight personnel (i.e. PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons). The FAA has also consid ered that the UA will weigh about 1.5 pounds.

If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticip ating 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 ensu re that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a s ituation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, f light operations must cease13

immediately. When considering how to immedi ately 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 pe rmission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those obj ects and determines that it doe s 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 th e FAA’s additional conditions and limitations outlined below. Relief from § 91.119(a) is unwarra nted as the FAA expects the petitioner to be able to perform an emergency landing w ithout undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. Relief from §§ 91.119(b) and 91.119(d) are not applicable.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter Settings , the petitioner’s UAS determines a ltitude via an onboard GPS and barometer, and includes an automatic pre-flight test to check GPS signa l and barometer values. The UA can maintain altitude via GPS, barometer i nput, or both and displays altitu de at the takeoff location and

altitude above mean sea level. Furthermor e, if the UA loses GPS signal or encounters a barometer error, the eBee is programmed to go to the Home point. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, the F AA has determined that good cause exists for granting the requested relief to 14 CFR § 91.121.

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted relief from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, prior relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the prescribed minimums, including Exemp tion Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been gr anted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The UA batteries pr ovide approximately 45 minutes of powered flight. Information provided in the operati ng documents discusses procedures regarding remaining battery power. Those documents pr ovide explanation of the automatic landing procedures that are executed when the eBee Ag exhausts battery power at 20% battery remaining and again at 5% ba tter remaining. However, th e FAA believes that, given the limitations on its proposed operations and th e location of those proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve for flight in daytime VFR conditions is reasonable. The FAA is requiring that the PIC return the UA to a suitable landing zone when the battery level reaches 30% as stated in the operati ng documents. These factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR § 91.151(a) as requested in

accordance with the conditions and limitations be low, that prohibit the PIC from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weat her conditions) there is enough power to fly to the intended landing point and land, assuming normal crui sing speed, with 30% battery power remaining.

Regarding an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issu ed 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 issuan ce of a COA. This is an existing process that not only makes local ATC facilities aw are 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, whic h is the mechanism for alerting other users14

of the NAS to the UAS activities being c onducted. Therefore, the FAA believes that adherence to this process is the safest and most expeditious way to permit the operator to conduct its proposed UAS operations. The condi tions and limitations below prescribe the requirement for the operator to obtain an ATO-issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Th e UA carries an onboard camera that provides high-resolution image data th at would provide scien tists with important information to assist efforts to maximize crop yi elds. According to the petitioner, this would result in increased economic growth. In addi tion, the petitioner asse rts that carrying out these operations using a battery-powered eBee Ag rather than a manned aircraft would result in reduced air and noise pollution, less fuel use, lower burdens on air traffic control, and less risk to life and property on th e ground. The enhanced safety achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and ca rrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportio ns, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that th e UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

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

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)
Part 21, Subpart H Relief not necessary
45.23(b) Relief not necessary
91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.9(b) Relief not necessary
91.103 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) Relief granted from 91.1 51(a)(1), day, with

conditions and limitations
91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary
91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.417(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C.15

§§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Pravia, LLC 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 Pravia, LLC to operate UAS for the purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. This exemption is subject to the conditi ons and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

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

The petition and the following supporting documen tation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents:

1) proprietary site information 2) proprietary eBee SenseFly User Manual 3) proprietary eBee Inspection and Maintenance Requirements 4) proprietary SenseFly eBee Training documentation 5) proprietary eBee: Justification of airworthiness and safety assessments

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspensi on or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of ex emption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents wh ich is a fixed-wing aircraft weighing approximately 1.5 pounds: senseFly eBee Ag (eBee Ag). Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting operations for the purpose of aerial photog raphy and inspection.

3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 54 knots (28m/s).

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All altitudes reported to AT C must be in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate.

6. The use of first person view (FPV) by the PIC or VO is not permitted.

7. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. Th e PIC must be designated before the flight16

and cannot transfer his or he r designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functi ons prescribed in the operating documents.

8. 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.

9. The operating documents and this grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon reques t. 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 ex tension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that a ny update or revision w ould affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exempti on, 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 regard ing updates or revisions to the operating

documents.

10. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveal s a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until th e 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.

11. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or a lterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight cri tical component, must undergo a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functi onal test flight must make an entry

in the aircraft records.

12. The pre-flight inspection must account for a ll potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents.

13. The operator must follow the UAS manufact urer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspecti on, and life limit requirements.

14. The operator must carry out its maintena nce, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of re placement/overhaul component pa rts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in se rvice, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.17

15. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety

Bulletins.

16. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancies di scovered between inspections.

17. The PIC must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate and at least a current

second-class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet th e flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot

certificate.

18. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria and demonstrates the abili ty to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be opera ted under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining a ppropriate distances from persons, vessels,

vehicles and structures. PI C qualification flight hours mu st be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The VO is al so required to complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of traini ng must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. Flights fo r the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building), are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, traini ng operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During traini ng, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are consider ed nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropr iate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

19. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

20. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s 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. Th e 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 ope rating 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.18

24. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is e nough power to fly at normal crui sing speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 30% battery power remaining.

25. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Or ganization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to c onducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airmen (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 airspa ce, altitude level a nd potential transponder requirements.

26. All aircraft operated in accord ance 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.

27. Before conducting operations, the radio fr equency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government ove rsight agency requirements.

28. 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 Administ rator or any law enforcement official upon

request.

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

and activities at all times.

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

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

32. Flight operations must be conducted at leas t 500 feet from all nonpa rticipating persons (persons other than the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons), vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently pr otect 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 and19

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, operat or trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

33. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representa tive. Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be

conducted.

34. 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 Trans portation 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 al l 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 supers eded or rescinded.

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

/s/
John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, F light Standards Service