AFS-14-386-E

Exemption No. 11136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

ADVANCED AVIATION 

SOLUTIONS LLC

for an exemption from part 21 and 

§§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.113, 61.133, 91.9, 

91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), and 91.401–91.417 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0508

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 23, 2014, which referenced supplemental proprietary information 

submitted to the FAA under separate cover, Mr. Bradley J. Ward, Vice President, Advanced 

Aviation Solutions LLC, 8111 North Five Mile Road, Spokane, Washington 99208, 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21 and 

§§ `45.23, 45.29, 61.113, 61.133, 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 

and 91.401–91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Advanced Aviation 

Solutions LLC also petitioned for an exemption from FAA Notice 8900.227, Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operational Approval, paragraphs 16c(4) and 16e(1). The proposed 

exemption would allow Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC to operate the eBee Ag UAS 

(hereinafter referred to as the eBee Ag) manufactured by senseFly Ltd of Switzerland, to 

conduct photogrammetry and crop scouting in order to perform precision agriculture.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21, Certification Procedures for Products and Parts, prescribes, in pertinent part, the 

procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, production approvals, 

airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.

Section 45.23 prescribes in paragraph (a) that each operator of an aircraft must display on 

that aircraft marks consisting of the Roman capital letter “N” (denoting United States 

registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. It then prescribes in 

paragraph (b) that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration 
2

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

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

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

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

aircraft does not exceed 180 knots calibrated airspeed.

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command 

(PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or 

hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft.

(b) a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as 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 61.133(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person who holds a commercial pilot 

certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft: (i) Carrying persons or property for 

compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with 

the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation; and (ii) For compensation or 

hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable 

parts of this chapter that apply to the operation.

Section 91.9(b)(2) 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 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

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

has fully functioning dual controls.

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

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing 

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
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 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 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person operating an aircraft shall 

maintain the cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set when operating below 

18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate 

altimeter setting available before departure.

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

flight rules (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) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate 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.

(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
5

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.

FAA Notice 8900.227, paragraph 16.c.(4), PIC Medical, states, in pertinent part, that the 

PIC must maintain, at a minimum, a valid FAA second-class medical certificate issued 

under 14 CFR part 67, Medical Standards and Certification, or the FAA-recognized 

equivalent. 

Paragraph 16.e.(1), Medical, states, in pertinent part, that all observers must have a valid 

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

an acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 

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

8900.1, vol. 16, ch. 4., sec. 1.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

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

proprietary supporting documentation: 1) Justification of airworthiness and safety 

assessment, 2) Inspection and maintenance requirements, 3) eBee senseFly User Manual, 

4) eBee Training documentation, and 5) Aviation Experience – in support of its exemption 

request. Documents 1-4 above are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 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) the public interest.
6

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner states it plans to operate a UAS, the eBee Ag system carrying a georeferenced still camera to conduct photogrammetry and crop scouting in order to perform 

precision agriculture. The petitioner explains the eBee Ag system consists of a lightweight 

(1.5 pound) battery powered aircraft, a personal computer-based ground control station, and 

associated communications equipment. The eBee Ag is a fixed-wing aircraft with a 

wingspan of about 3 feet and 2 feet in overall length which can operate at a maximum speed 

of about 50 knots. 

The petitioner states the eBee Ag normally operates in an autonomous mode. Also, the PIC 

can modify the flight plan of the eBee at any time, using the flight management interface or 

by manual take-over via a regular RC remote controller. In autonomous mode, the operator 

can instruct the eBee Ag to hold (loiter) at its current position, return to the Home waypoint, 

initiate the planned landing procedure and immediately land in a spiral approach at the 

current location. 

Regarding airworthiness certification, the petitioner requests an experimental airworthiness 

certificate be issued for the eBee Ag under the provisions of § 21.191(a) and (b). The 

petitioner states because an experimental certificate can be used for commercial purposes 

such as market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training; it believes an 

experimental certificate would permit this commercial purpose. The petitioner further states 

if an experimental airworthiness certificate is not appropriate, it requests an exemption from 

part 21, subpart H because the eBee Ag will be at least as safe, if not safer, than a 

conventionally certificated aircraft performing the same mission. The petitioner notes the 

eBee Ag: (1) will not carry persons, property, or fuel, (2) will only fly under strict 

operational requirements, (3) will weigh only 1.5 pounds, and (4) is constructed primarily 

out of foam.

Regarding civil aircraft certification required under § 91.203(a) and (b), the petitioner 

asserts the eBee Ag at 1.5 pounds is too small to carry documentation, does not have an 

entrance, and is not capable of carrying passengers or crew. The petitioner proposes to 

achieve an equivalent level of safety and meet the intent of § 91.203 by co-locating 

documents deemed appropriate for this aircraft by the FAA with the crew at the ground 

control station and available for inspection upon request. To identify the aircraft, the 

petitioner proposes that the information found on airworthiness and registration certificates 

be permanently affixed to the aircraft via placard.

The petitioner requests an exemption from §§ 45.23 and 45.29 because the 1.5 pound eBee 

Ag does not have an entrance in which the word “EXPERIMENTAL” can be placed and 

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” on the top 

of the aircraft, where people in the vicinity of the aircraft will be able to see the designation. 

Additionally, the petitioner notes the previously proposed permanent placard regarding 

§ 91.203 will provide the aircraft’s registration information should it be found on the 

ground. The petitioner adds it will display at the ground station a high contrast flag or 
7

banner that contains the words “Unmanned Aircraft Ground Station” in letters 3 inches high 

or greater.

Regarding keeping an approved civil aircraft flight manual aboard the UAS, the petitioner 

states it may need an exemption from § 91.9 because the aircraft is too small to carry 

documentation and that documentation would not be available to the crew. The petitioner 

proposes to obtain an equivalent level of safety by mandating that a current, approved 

Airplane Flight Manual be available to the crew at the ground station anytime the aircraft is 

in flight or preparing for flight.

Regarding the requirements for fully functioning dual flight controls aboard the aircraft, the 

petitioner notes the eBee Ag ground control station is based on a small hand-held computer; 

while it does not offer a second set of “controls,” both the student and instructor can and will 

operate the single set of controls simultaneously, which the petitioner asserts will meet the 

intent of § 91.109 and provide an equivalent level of safety.

The petitioner requests an exemption from the maintenance, preventative maintenance, and 

alterations requirements in part 91, Subpart E (§§ 91.401 through 91.417). The petitioner 

proposes that the PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the aircraft and be authorized 

to approve the aircraft for return to service. The petitioner explains as provided in the 

supplemental, proprietary maintenance procedures submitted to the FAA under separate 

cover to its petition, the PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to 

flight and conduct detailed inspections after every 10 hours. The petitioner states 

maintenance performed by the PIC is limited to repairing small cracks, replacing a propeller, 

and updating software and firmware; all other maintenance will be performed by the 

manufacturer. The PIC will document work performed in accordance with § 91.417. The 

petitioner asserts that because of the size, construction, and simplicity of the aircraft, the PIC 

can ensure an equivalent level of safety.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) 

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated in the field with both a PIC and a groundbased Visual Observer (VO) in accordance with FAA Policy N 8900.227.

Regarding PIC private pilot privileges and limitations and commercial pilot privileges and 

limitations, the petitioner states its proposed operations meet the requirements of 

N 8900.227 paragraph 16.c.(2)(c), operations without a pilot certificate, in which the PIC is 

required to complete FAA private pilot ground instruction and pass the FAA private pilot 

written examination. According to the petitioner, because there are currently no means 

available for the pilot of a UAS to gain the experience in an equivalent category and class in 

order to apply for a commercial pilot certificate, it would generate an equivalent level of 

safety by requiring its pilots to complete, at a minimum, the FAA commercial pilot ground 

instruction and pass the FAA commercial pilot written examination in addition to 

completing the private pilot requirements. The petitioner asserts because the eBee Ag 

cannot carry passengers or property, its UAS pilots would meet the intent of § 61.113(b) 

even though its request for exemption is to conduct a business.
8

Regarding medical requirements for the PIC and observer, the petitioner seeks an exemption 

from N 8900.227 paragraphs 16.c.(4) and 16.e.(1). The petitioner asserts the policy 

requiring the crew to meet the same medical requirements as a commercial pilot, carrying 

passengers in a large aircraft, is an unnecessary burden. The petitioner proposes the 

minimum medical requirements be vision corrected to 20/20 and a valid, State-issued

driver’s license. The petitioner notes because of the aircraft’s size and weight, the greatest 

hazard of its proposed operation will be driving to the launch site. The petitioner adds that 

should the PIC and VO become medically incapacitated, the eBee Ag will recover 

autonomously to the landing location designated before launch without crew intervention. 

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states the aircraft will be operated with both a PIC and a ground-based VO in 

accordance with FAA Policy N 8900.227 Section 14, Operational Requirements for UAS. 

The petitioner adds some restrictions to N 8900.227 to include that all operations will occur 

in class G airspace at no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL); operations will be 

conducted over private property with the permission of the land owner; and all required 

permits will be obtained from state and local government before operation. The petitioner 

notes the PIC will file a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) providing radial/distance measuring 

equipment, radius, and a date/time group for each operation.

The petitioner also states the aircraft will not be operated (1) over urban or populated areas; 

(2) at air shows or over an open-air assembly of people; (3) over heavily trafficked roads; or 

(4) within 5 nautical miles of an airport or heliport. The petitioner notes operations will be 

limited to day, visual meteorological conditions and the aircraft will remain within visual 

line of sight at no greater than 1/2 nautical mile of the PIC at all times. In addition, while 

the aircraft is airborne, the VO will be positioned within voice distance to the PIC.

With respect to operating altitudes, the petitioner requests an exemption from the minimum 

safe altitude requirements in § 91.119. The petitioner notes the regulation provides that over 

sparsely populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, 

vessel, vehicle, or structure. The petitioner maintains because the aircraft will be operating 

at a maximum of 400 feet AGL, it cannot comply with this requirement. The petitioner 

proposes to provide an equivalent level of safety by only flying over private property with 

the permission of the landowner. The petitioner states the landowner will be briefed on the 

expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. The 

petitioner asserts that because of the small size of the eBee Ag, the hazard to persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to manned aircraft and should be 

considered in granting the exemption. The petitioner further states the aircraft will not be 

operated over congested areas nor over any open air assembly of persons. In addition, the 

petitioner explains the aircraft will be operated at an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, 

an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Regarding the fuel requirements in § 91.151, the petitioner states the eBee Ag is 

battery-operated and the maximum duration of flight from a single battery charge is 

50 minutes. The petitioner explains the aircraft will never fly more than 1/2 nautical mile 
9

from the point of intended landing and that a full battery charge at launch will ensure it 

meets the reserve energy requirements. The petitioner requests an exemption to the word 

“fuel” and asks for an equivalent interpretation with the word “energy.”

The petitioner requests an exemption regarding the altimeter settings in § 91.121 because the 

eBee Ag will fly below 400 feet AGL and will not need to maintain hemispherical cruising 

altitudes to de-conflict with other aircraft. The petitioner states AGL should be an 

appropriate altimeter measurement presented to the pilot, and it should be based on the 

barometric pressure at the point of launch. To provide an equivalent level of safety, the 

petitioner explains the UAS’ AGL altimeter will be set to zero on the ground before every 

flight. The petitioner asserts that because the aircraft will fly no more than 50 minutes, even 

rapid changes in barometric pressure will have limited effect on the safety of the flight.

Public Interest 

The petitioner states the eBee Ag carries an onboard geo-referenced still camera that 

provides high-resolution data to direct variable seeding rates as well as the precise 

application of fertilizer and chemicals, reducing their use. According to the petitioner, this 

data helps farmers maximize yields while reducing costs and impacts to the environment. 

The petitioner concludes that by granting an exemption, the FAA will create benefits to both 

agriculture and the environment, which are ultimately in the public interest. 

In addition, the petitioner explains its intent to hire and train military veterans with 

experience operating small UAS, some of whom have disabilities. The petitioner notes 

despite any disabilities the veterans may have, they will provide invaluable operational 

experience that will enhance the safety of its operations. The petitioner states this 

exemption request is in the public interest by providing aviation-related jobs to those that 

would not otherwise be medically qualified without introducing additional risk.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2014 

(79 FR 49145). The FAA received three comments regarding the notice of petition for 

exemption. One commenter supported Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC’s petition and 

two opposed it.

In support of Advanced Aviation Solution LLC’s petition, the Small UAV Coalition 

(hereafter the Coalition) urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS 

operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and 

risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial 

distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles (hereinafter referred to as UAS) based on 

commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety 

regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the particular proposed UAS operations by 

distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than 

larger UAS used for defense and aerospace purposes. The Coalition asserted that because 

UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to 
10

minimal and appropriate regulations. The FAA’s evaluation of the potential risk posed by 

the proposed operations is contained in the analysis below.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors1 in section 333 as a minimum. 

The Coalition states the petition shows the FAA should consider factors other than those 

specified in section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, and pilot training and 

experience. The Coalition maintained that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the 

seven factors in section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the 

safety and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the FAA 

must evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations. 

Based on the petitioner’s plan to use a small unmanned aircraft (UA) weighing less than 2 

pounds and the altitude and area in which its small UAs will be operated (on private 

property with the consent of property owners), the Coalition concluded petitioner’s UAS 

operations will pose no safety risk to other aircraft, national security, or persons on the 

ground. The FAA’s assessment of these factors is addressed in the analysis below.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural 

Aviation Association (NAAA) submitted comments opposed to a grant of exemption. 

ALPA reviewed the anticipated operations expected to occur below 400 feet above the 

surface in class G airspace and stated the petitioner’s operations would put its UAS at the 

same altitude as other aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) with only geographic 

separation to mitigate the risk of collision. ALPA further noted the aircraft “may not have a 

barometric altimeter” as required by § 91.121, so the ability to accurately maintain altitude 

must be addressed.

ALPA 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. As discussed in the 

analysis of the petition below, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that an 

airworthiness certificate is not required and the FAA has established conditions and 

limitations for the operator to mitigate the risk associated with operating aircraft that do not 

hold an airworthiness certification.

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 

fly-aways or other scenarios. The Coalition noted the eBee Ag has an override capability 

that allows the operator to operate the UAS manually at any time during the flight, should it 

 1 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 

determine, at a minimum--

(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational 

capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a 

hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”
11

be necessary to respond to emergent circumstances, with Go to Home, Go Land, and Hold 

and Resume the Mission commands.

The FAA agrees with ALPA and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that 

the vehicle design and the petitioner’s supporting documentation addressed potential hazards 

related to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated by the petitioner has 

sufficient design features to address these hazards. Further detail is contained in the analysis 

of the UAS below.

ALPA noted the petitioner is requesting an exemption from FAA Policy N 8900.227, 

paragraph 16.c.(4) and paragraph 16.e.(1). ALPA noted that although the petitioner claims 

the operators of the aircraft and observers will be required to have 20/20 vision, there is no 

assurance that this standard will be consistently met without an FAA medical certificate. 

ALPA asserted a current second-class FAA medical certificate should be required for a UAS 

pilot operating an aircraft for compensation or hire commercial operations as is required in 

the NAS. 

ALPA noted the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,” and ALPA 

believed the 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 as well as specific 

and adequate training on the UAS intended to be used. NAAA also favored UAS operators 

holding a commercial pilot certificate and second-class medical certificate to conduct 

commercial operations. 

ALPA expressed concern that the petitioner did not specify requirements for 

flight instructors. Therefore, there is no indication what the qualifications will be of the 

persons providing flight instruction.

ALPA expressed concern that because the waiver request is not for a single specific

operation but rather for all operations of the same general type, the FAA’s oversight task is 

considerably increased. According to ALPA, specific details of every operation must be 

communicated to the FAA for approval to ensure that operation- and location-specific 

mitigations result in the same current level of safety being maintained.

ALPA noted the petitioner lists appendices A through G, as attached to the petition; 

however, only appendix A is available to review.

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. The FAA notes these concerns; 

additional detail is provided in the analysis of the UAS below.

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

commercial applicators. NAAA noted its members operate in low-level airspace, and clear 

low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA stated that seeing and 
12

avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone of agricultural safety, and 

agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions 

to prevent collisions. NAAA believed UA operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential of collision hazards with agricultural aircraft.

NAAA believed it is vital that commercial aircraft, manned and unmanned, have received 

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

posing a hazard to persons or property. NAAA believed UAS should have equipage such as 

Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast Out, strobe lighting, and marking to ensure 

the aircraft is visible to law enforcement, and the public, and manned and unmanned aircraft. 

NAAA proposed sUAS 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.

Concerns raised in this comment section are addressed in the FAA’s analysis below and 

where necessary appropriate risk mitigations are implemented through the conditions and 

limitations on the operations.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

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 surveying operations can weigh 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. or 

more, are operated by an onboard pilot and may carry 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 remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and 

construction reduces the potential for harm to persons or damage to property in the event of 

an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident 

is eliminated with the use of a UAS for the proposed operation.

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

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

fuel spillage is eliminated. 

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to 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 precoordinated automated flight maneuvers. These safety features ensure that these operations 
13

will not adversely impact safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar 

operation and address ALPA’s comments on mitigating risk of command and control link 

failures.

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

petitioner can comply with § 45.23(a). Regarding § 45.23(b), 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.

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

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

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

exemption for § 45.29 is not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 91 subpart H, the relevant parts of 

subpart H include: 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) Operation 

after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 91.409(a)(1) and (2) 

Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records.

The FAA has carefully evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for 

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

documents contain 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 adversely affected. In 

accordance with the petitioner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping 

requirements, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

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

limitations below.

Pilot In Command of the UAS

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR 61.113, Private pilot privileges and 

limitations, and 14 CFR 61.133 Commercial pilot privileges and limitations, the petitioner 

requested regulatory relief to operate its UAS without an FAA-certificated pilot. In support 

of its request, the petitioner states that its “proposed operations meet the requirements of 

8900.227 para 16(c)(2)(c) Operations without a pilot certificate in which the PIC is required 

to complete FAA private pilot ground instruction and pass the FAA Private Pilot written 

examination." The FAA notes that the notice referenced above is now incorporated into 

FAA Order 8900.1, vol. 16, ch. 4, sec. 1.. The petitioner would also require pilots to 

complete FAA commercial pilot ground instruction and pass the FAA Commercial Pilot 

written examination. 
14

Regarding the proposal to operate without a pilot certificate, 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 flexibility relative to other sections of Title 49. 

Unlike operations pursuant to a public Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), the 

FAA is 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 a 

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

Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary, the 

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

operations conducted in accordance with Section 333.

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

the petitioner’s proposed operation. 

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

commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in 

accordance with the 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) (see Docket FAA-2014-0352), 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, Advanced Aviation Solution’s petition received two 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 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.

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and has determined that it does 

not differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 

(Astraeus). The petitioner plans to operate over private property with controlled access in 

the NAS. 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, and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the 

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

 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 . . . .”. 
15

certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for the petitioner’s 

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 (item #3 stated above), 

the petitioner has proposed a training program. The conditions and limitations below 

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

demonstrated through the petitioner’s training program that the PIC is able to safely operate 

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

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from 

persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class 

airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s UAS training, can 

conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and 

persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the overall safety case presented 

by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting the 

requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), is warranted.

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a visual 

observer (VO). The FAA also received a comment regarding the appropriate level of 

medical certification for the VO. In Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the FAA agreed with 

the petitioner’s proposed use of a VO and required a VO to be used in all UAS operations; 

however, the FAA considers the PIC’s ability to maintain visual line of sight (VLOS) with 

the UAS to be of primary significance and thus the medical certification requirement falls on 

the PIC. In accordance with regulations, a third-class airman medical certificate is the 

appropriate level of certificate to exercise the privileges of a private pilot certificate. 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 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, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the 

VO.

Operating parameters of the UAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

airworthy condition – based on compliance with the operating documents prior to every 

flight, and as stated in the conditions and limitations below.
16

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

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

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

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

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

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined that relief from these sections is 

not necessary. Relevant materials may be kept in a location accessible to the PIC in 

compliance with the regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

intends to accomplish training through the procedures referenced in the operating 

documents. Furthermore, the FAA is requiring that the petitioner’s PICs possess at least a 

private pilot’s certificate. Also, this exemption will require that training operations only be 

conducted during dedicated training sessions. The FAA finds safety will not be adversely 

impacted if the petitioner follows the training outlined in the operating documents. As such, 

the FAA finds that the petitioner can conduct its operations without the requested relief from 

§ 91.109.

Regarding 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 unprecedented and unwarranted. . 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 

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

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

surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may 

not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The 

petitioner states that it will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions 

related to § 91.119: 

• Flights will only occur over private property with the permission of the landowner.

• The landowner will be briefed of the expected route of flight and the associated risks 

to persons and property on the ground.

• The UA will not be operated over congested areas or over any open air assembly of 

persons. 

• The UA will be operated at an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency 

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 
17

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

persons. Accordingly 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 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that 

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

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

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

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

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

essential persons). The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 1.5 pounds. 

If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 

feet to persons 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 land 

owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk 

of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not present an undue hazard

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

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

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

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

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

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

petitioner has a barometric altimeter, and they propose to set that altimeter to zero rather 

than local barometric pressure or field altitude. Considering the limited altitude of the 

proposed operations, the FAA has determined that good cause exists for granting the 

requested relief to 14 CFR § 91.121.

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

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

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

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

daytime, VFR conditions. The UAS provides battery power remaining in percent to the PIC. 

The UA batteries provide approximately 50 minutes of powered flight. Information 

provided in the operating documents discusses procedures regarding remaining battery 

power. Those documents contain a condition in which the PIC will initiate a landing 

procedure when battery remaining reaches 30%. Given the limitations on its proposed 
18

operations and the location of those proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve 

for flight in daytime VFR conditions is reasonable. These factors provide the FAA with 

sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with 

the conditions and limitations below, 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 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 

operator to obtain an ATO-issued COA.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The UA carries an 

onboard geo-referenced still camera that provides high-resolution data to direct variable 

seeding rates as well as the precise application of fertilizer and chemicals, reducing their 

use. According to the petitioner, this data helps farmers maximize yields while reducing 

costs and impacts to the environment, which is in the public interest. The enhanced safety 

achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the operator 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 table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief:

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

Part 21 Relief not necessary

45.23 Relief not necessary

45.29 Relief not necessary (not experimental 

certificated)

61.113 Paragraphs (a) and (b) granted with 

conditions and limitations

61.133 Relief not necessary

91.7 Paragraph (a) granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.9 Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119 Paragraph (c) granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.121 Granted with conditions and limitations
19

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

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

conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.405 Paragraph (a) granted with conditions and 

limitations

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

limitations

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Paragraph (a)(1) and (2) granted with 

conditions and limitations

91.417(a) and (b) Paragraph (a) and (b) 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, Advanced Aviation 

Solutions LLC 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 Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC to operate UAS for the 

purpose of aerial imagery to support agriculture. This exemption is subject to the conditions 

and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Advanced Aviation Solutions LLC is hereafter referred 

to as the operator.

The following documents provided by the operator in its petition, 1) Justification of 

airworthiness and safety assessment, 2) Inspection and maintenance requirements, 3) eBee 

senseFly User Manual and 4) eBee Training documentation, are hereafter referred to as the 

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 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. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 70 knots.
20

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

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

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4. 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.

5. 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. 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 maintained and made 

available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the 

conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating 

documents, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. 

Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the 

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated 

and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of 

exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis 

upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for 

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 aircraft 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.
21

10. The operator must follow the UAS 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 PIC returning the UAS to 

service.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer System 

and Safety Bulletins.

13. The PIC must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against 

discrepancies discovered between inspections.

14. The Pilot in Command (PIC) must possess 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. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated 

through the operator’s training that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner 

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

and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, 

vehicles and structures. A record of training must be documented and made available 

upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s 

PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building), are permitted under the 

terms of this exemption. However, said training operations may only be conducted 

during dedicated training sessions.

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

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

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

17. All operations shall be conducted in Class G airspace.

18. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the airport reference point as denoted 

on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart. 

19. 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.

20. 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

21. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in 

accordance with the operating documents.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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. 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.

26. 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 aircraft is operating. These 

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

upon request. 

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

operations and activities at all times.

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

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

30. 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 land 

owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety 

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that 

it does not present an undue hazard, and
23

c. operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do 

not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

31. 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.

32. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

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

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

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

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

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2015.

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service