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 gran ted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you th e 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) a nd (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 al low 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 wa s published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2014, (79 FR 68500). The Small UAV Coalition, Air Line Pilots A ssociation, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Avia tion Association (NAAA) all commented on the petition.

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the pe titioner 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 natu re of its operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under se ction 333 of Pub. L. 112–95 that weighs the re lative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational2

circumstances, rather than a dopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles based on commercial and noncomme rcial operations. The Coalit ion suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the particul ar proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that be cause UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subj ect to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors 1 in section 333 as a minimum. The Coalition stated the petiti on 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 th e seven factors in section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Co alition emphasized the FAA mu st evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s pr oposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA s hould 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 traini ng and testing regiments that pertain to UAS commercial operations pertinent to the aircraft and operati on proposed. The Coalitio n also asserted that Congress intended the section 333 na tional security criterion to focus on the operation rather than on the pilot and that shifting th at focus imposes an unnecessary burden.

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimbl e Navigation Ltd. (No. 11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s aut hority 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 certificat e as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. The FAA notes that under this exemption the petitione r proposed to use p ilots holding private certificates and it will be able to use the training program it propose d. Finally, the FAA does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a nationa l security finding poses an unnecessary burden because p ilots under this exemption, and the exemptions granted previously to section 333 re quests, 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 furt her asserted that the presen ce 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 opera tions 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 al so notes that a visual obs erver 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 ai rspace 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 task s (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft close to persons and other objects). The VO provides an additio nal level of ope rational safety.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspect s 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 th e 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 PI C and observer will be able to communicate by voice, ALPA stated that th e pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual observation of the aircraft and area of ope ration when using voice communication. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicat e with the operator from the most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a cond ition regarding PIC and visual observer communications.

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batte ries 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 refe renced study was primarily conducted to determine how certain battery cell s react in a fire situation ab oard 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 batte ry will not pose an undue safe ty 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. Th e FAA agrees and examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and th e 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 ha zards. 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 petiti oner did not request an exemption from §§ 91.7 or 91.203, ALPA stated the UAS should be certified to the same level of safety und er part 21 and § 91.203 as other commercially operated aircraft in the National Ai rspace System (NAS). ALPA also argued that under § 91.7, UAS operators must demonstrate their airworthin ess to the same extent as operators of other aircraft.4

ALPA also noted that the petit ioner’s proposed operations ar e for “compensation or hire,” and argued the pilot must hold at least a curre nt FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rati ng for the type of aircraft be ing flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UA S 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 th at they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too mu st UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators an d ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial ope rators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft re peatedly over a sustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and traini ng required by holders of both private and commercial certificates. See Gr ant 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 se e 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 ba rometric 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 fo r system and equipment failures must be in place. The FAA agrees with ALPA and addre sses this concern in its anal ysis of the exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, finding that the alternative mean s of compliance propos ed 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 shif t from traditional methods of propulsion, and requires further research to determine best safety practic es. 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 airc raft maintenance and recordkeeping requirements. ALPA stated th e UAS should comply with the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commerciall y 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 no t for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of the same genera l type. ALPA stated this, would result in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight ta sks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential imp act to the NAS, the FAA requires each operator secure a Certificate of Authoriza tion 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 it s 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 pote ntial 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 (N OTAM) 48 to 72 hours before operations. NAAA proposed UAS ai rcraft be painted a highly visible color, be equipped with strobe lights, and use Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) or other similar location reporting technol ogy. To address these concer ns the FAA has incorporated associated conditions and limita tions into this exemption, including: a) NOTAMs issued for all operations, b) operations c onducted within VLOS of the PI C and the VO, and c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA also proposed a number of operati ng limitations and requirements for UAS operators. NAAA states UAS operators should ha ve 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, policie s, and procedures; be equipped with aviation radios set to a locally defined frequency; ha ve a separate VO with a second-class medical certificate and perform duties for only one UAS at a time; main tain line-of-sight operations; and be well-versed in the UAS operator docum ent. 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 cer tificate 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, C ertification 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 refe rence to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its6

operation, the Secretary of Tran sportation 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 re quirements of part 36, is not

necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial pho tography 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 In surance Company’s proposed operation was in the public interest because of the safety e nhancements resulting from using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no passengers or crew, in place of a manned aircraft of signi ficantly larger size that carried crew and flammable fuel.

Having reviewed your reasons for re questing 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 granti ng 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 gr ant 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 J ohnson 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 th e purpose of roof inspections. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limit ations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Mike Johns on dba B.E.V. Roof Inspections is hereafter referred to as the operator.

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

1. Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual

2. Phantom Pilots Training Guide, Earning Your Stripes V1.17

Failure to comply with any of the conditions an d 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 ex emption 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 Phan tom 2 Vision +. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will requi re a new petition or a peti tion to amend this grant.

2. UAS operations under this exemption ar e limited to aerial photography for roof inspections.

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

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more th an 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 obser ver (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PI C 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 pe rmitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and ca nnot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensu re that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents.

7. The VO must not perform any other dutie s 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 reques t. If a discrepancy

exists between the conditions and limitati ons in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the c onditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures8

as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s re sponsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and revise d documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. If the operator determines th at any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemp tion, 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 update s or revisions to the operating documents.

9. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect th e UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection rev eals a condition that affects th e 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 docum ented in the aircraft records.

10. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical component, must undergo a functional test flight in accordance w ith 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 fo r all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not cove red in the relevant preflight inspection sections of the operating documents.

12. The operator must follow the manufacturer ’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspecti on, 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 mainte nance, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection,

and alterations must be noted in the airc raft logbook, including total flight hours, description of work accomplished, and the sign ature 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 entr y in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancie s 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 require ments specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated.

17. Prior to operations, the PIC must have comp leted the operator’s training as prescribed in the operating documents. During that trai ning, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CF R § 61.51(b), the minimum hours prescribe in the operating documents as UAS pilot oper ating the make and model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemp tion. Training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights can be conduc ted under this grant of exemption to qualify the operator’s PIC(s), VO(s) and other essentia l personnel as defined in the operating documents. However, said training op erations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During trai ning, proficiency, and experience-building flights the PIC is required to operate th e UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

18. Prior to operations, the PIC, VO, and ot her essential personnel as defined in the operating documents, must have met a ll qualification, traini ng, and currency requirements, as outlined in the operating doc uments. A record of completion of these requirements must be documented and ma de available to the Administrator upon
request.

19. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless that PI C has demonstrated through the operator’s traini ng 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 mainta ining appropriate dist ances 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 conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (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 aeronautic al chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obt ained, 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 it s 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 Or ganization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to c onducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to 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, st ate, and local laws and regulations which may require the operator to provide notice to, and coordinate w ith, first responders, appropriate law enforcement personnel, lo cal municipalities, and other suitable agencies prior to conducting operations involving property damage assessments

associated with natural disast ers, or other emergencies.

28. All aircraft operated in accord ance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N-11

Number) markings in accordance with 14 CF R part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

29. Before conducting operations, the radio fr equency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must comply with th e 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 th e 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 PI C from any moving device or vehicle.

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

34. Flight operations must be conducted at leas t 500 feet from all nonpa rticipating persons (persons other than the PIC or VO), ve ssels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures ar e present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from UA and potential debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating pers ons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight ope rations must cease immediately and/or;

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or stru ctures where the property owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operati ng closer to those objects and;

c. Operations near the PIC or VO do not pr esent an undue hazard to the PIC or VO, per § 91.119(a).

35. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/contro ller or authorized representative. Permission from the authority will be obt ained for each flight to be conducted12

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 Sa fety Board (NTSB) per instructions

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

.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with al l applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

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

Sincerely, /s/ John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service