AFS-15-100-E 

March 20, 2015 

 Exemption No. 11215 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0888 

Mr. Mike Johnson 

dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections 

248 Columbine Drive 

Carlisle, KY 40311 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

By letter posted to the docket October 24, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of B.E.V. Roof Inspections for an exemption from part 21 

subpart H, and §§ 45.23(b), 45.27, 61.113(a) and (b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 

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

Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate the Phantom 2 

Vision + unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct roof inspections. 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014, 

(79 FR 68500). The Small UAV Coalition, Air Line Pilots Association, International 

(ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) all commented on the 

petition. 

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger 

safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition 

stated that it does not believe that heightened safety measures should be required for the 

petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. 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 
2 

circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles 

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. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose 

minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations. 

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

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

specified in section 333, such as location and altitude of its UAS operations. 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. 

The Coalition also commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold 

an airman’s certificate, but stated that at a minimum the FAA should provide an exception 

from part 61 and approve training and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial 

operations pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserted that 

Congress intended the section 333 national security criterion to focus on the operation rather 

than on the pilot and that shifting that focus imposes an unnecessary burden. 

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 

11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found 

in 49 USC § 44701(f), authorizes the FAA to provide exemption to the statutory 

requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA 

notes that under this exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding private 

certificates and it will be able to use the training program it proposed. Finally, the FAA 

does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security finding poses an 

unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted 

previously to section 333 requests, are already required to hold a pilot certificate to 

satisfy 29 USC § 44711. 

The Coalition commented that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small 

UAS operation. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may 

allow the UAS to be operated beyond VLOS of the PIC. The FAA notes that one of the 

determinations for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As 

the PIC is determined to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while 

operating the UA. The FAA also notes that a visual observer complements the PICs 

 

1

Section 333(b) of P.L. 112-95 states, in part: “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; . . . .”
3 

capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily 

attending to other flying tasks (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to persons and other 

objects). The VO provides an additional level of operational safety. 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated “there must 

be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that 

the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” The FAA believes the 

limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 75 feet AGL) 

are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety. 

Regarding the petitioner’s statement that the PIC and observer will be able to communicate 

by voice, ALPA stated that the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual 

observation of the aircraft and area of operation when using voice communication. NAAA 

stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the 

most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual 

observer communications. 

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and 

explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of 

Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage 

(January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for 

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to 

determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given 

the size of the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the 

use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed 

operations. 

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 flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and examined the proposed operation to ensure 

that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents 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. The FAA also finds that the operating 

documents have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participants 

should a C2 failure occur. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding lost link or C2 

failure. 

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from §§ 91.7 or 91.203, ALPA stated 

the UAS should be certified to the same level of safety under part 21 and § 91.203 as other 

commercially operated aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). ALPA also argued 

that under § 91.7, UAS operators must demonstrate their airworthiness to the same extent as 

operators of other aircraft. 
4 

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” 

and argued 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 make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

asserts a current second-class airman medical certificate should be required. NAAA also 

commented on pilot qualification, stating— 

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous 

training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a 

commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. Holding a 

commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards 

as commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their 

responsibilities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medical 

requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity 

to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a sustained period of 

time. 

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training required by holders of both private and 

commercial certificates. See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeus) for further analysis 

regarding 14 CFR § 61.113. 

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA noted the 

petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the 

absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA has inserted conditions regarding VLOS and the 

use of a VO in all operations to address these concerns. 

ALPA mentioned the aircraft may not have a barometric altimeter as required by 

14 CFR § 91.121, stating the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed, and 

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

specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place. The FAA 

agrees with ALPA and addresses this concern in its analysis of the exemption from 

14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance proposed by the petitioner 

does not adversely affect safety. 

Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only 

source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and 

requires further research to determine best safety practices. The FAA has included a 

condition concerning minimum battery power to address this concern. 

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposed 

the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and 

recordkeeping requirements. ALPA stated the UAS should comply with the same level of 

safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. The FAA has included several 

conditions addressing maintenance and recordkeeping compliance. 
5 

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s waiver request is not for a single specific 

operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated this, 

would result in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes 

ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires 

each operator secure a Certificate of Authorization or COA, which covers specific details of 

the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS 

access demand and will review and adjust accordingly. 

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

commercial applicators. NAAA explained that 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 avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the 

backbone for agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to 

perform their see-and-avoid functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UA 

operations at low altitudes will increase the potential of collision hazards with agricultural 

aircraft. NAAA argued that until adequate see-and-avoid technology is developed, the FAA 

should require UAS operators to post a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 48 to 72 hours before 

operations. NAAA proposed UAS aircraft be painted a highly visible color, be equipped 

with strobe lights, and use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) or other 

similar location reporting technology. To address these concerns the FAA has incorporated 

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

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

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

NAAA also proposed a number of operating limitations and requirements for UAS 

operators. NAAA states UAS operators should have procedures to immediately ground the 

UAS if another low-flying aircraft is within 2 miles; be attentive and free from distractions; 

comply with all applicable regulations, policies, and procedures; be equipped with aviation 

radios set to a locally defined frequency; have a separate VO with a second-class medical 

certificate and perform duties for only one UAS at a time; maintain line-of-sight operations; 

and be well-versed in the UAS operator document. NAAA further states UAS should be 

properly maintained, have a registered N-Number on an indestructible and unmovable plate, 

and be required to have an airworthiness certificate and liability insurance. These comments 

are addressed in the conditions and limitations below. 

Airworthiness Certification 

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a DJI Phantom 2 Vision +. 

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

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration 

of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its 
6 

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 

parts 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not 

necessary. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial photography and inspection. The FAA has issued 

grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in 

your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 11175 (see Docket No. FAA-2014-0846), the FAA 

found that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s proposed operation was in 

the public interest because of the safety enhancements resulting from using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, in place of a manned aircraft of significantly larger size that carried crew and 

flammable fuel. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption No. 11175; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption No. 11175 also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our 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, Mike Johnson dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections is granted 

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

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

petitioner to operate a UAS for the purpose of roof inspections. This exemption is subject to 

the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

Relative to this grant of exemption, Mike Johnson dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections is hereafter 

referred to as the operator. 

 

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

operating documents: 

1. Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual 

2. Phantom Pilots Training Guide, Earning Your Stripes V1.1 
7 

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

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

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

described in the operating documents, which is a quad rotor aircraft weighing less than 

6 pounds maximum takeoff weight: DJI Phantom 2 Vision +. 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 aerial photography for roof 

inspections. 

3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 30 knots (15.4m/s). 

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

(AGL). All altitudes reported to ATC 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. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prescribed in the operating documents. 

7. The VO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and 

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not 

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments. 

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

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

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

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

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures 
8 

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. 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 their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be 

contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents. 

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

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

the 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. 

10. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation 

or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo 

a functional test flight in accordance with the operating documents. The PIC who 

conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of 

the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft 

record entry must be added to the operating documents. 

11. The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection 

sections of the operating documents. 

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

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements, with particular attention 

to flight critical components that may not be addressed in the manufacturer’s manuals. 

13. The operator must carry out their maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

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

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

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

the UAS to service. 
9 

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

Bulletins. 

15. The authorized person must make a record entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

16. The PIC must hold at least a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical 

certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated. 

17. Prior to operations, the PIC must have completed the operator’s training as prescribed 

in the operating documents. During that training, the PIC must have accumulated and 

logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), the minimum hours prescribe 

in the operating documents as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to 

be utilized for operations under the exemption. Training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to qualify the 

operator’s PIC(s), VO(s) and other essential personnel as defined in the operating 

documents. However, said training operations may only be conducted during 

dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building 

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

with 14 CFR § 91.119. 

18. Prior to operations, the PIC, VO, and other essential personnel as defined in the 

operating documents, must have met all qualification, training, and currency 

requirements, as outlined in the operating documents. A record of completion of these 

requirements must be documented and made available to the Administrator upon 

request. 

19. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC has demonstrated 

through the operator’s training and currency requirements and logged in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b) 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 people, 

vessels, vehicles and structures. 

20. 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. 
10 

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

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

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

accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of 

agreement with the airport must be made available to the Administrator upon request. 

22. 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. 

23. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property and land or be 

recovered in accordance with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

25. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions and assuming normal cruising speed) there is enough 

power to fly to the intended landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power 

remaining. 

26. 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. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements 

in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential 

transponder requirements. 

27. The operator will comply with all national, state, and local laws and regulations which 

may require the operator to provide notice to, and coordinate with, first responders, 

appropriate law enforcement personnel, local municipalities, and other suitable 

agencies prior to conducting operations involving property damage assessments 

associated with natural disasters, or other emergencies. 

28. 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 (N-
11 

Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be 

as large as practicable. 

29. 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. 

30. 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. 

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

and activities at all times. 

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

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

34. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons 

(persons other than the PIC or VO), vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating 

persons from UA and potential 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 property 

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

assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and; 

c. Operations near the PIC or VO do not present an undue hazard to the PIC or 

VO, per § 91.119(a). 

35. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from the authority will be obtained for each flight to be conducted 
12 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91. 

 

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

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service