Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.8714

Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com

June 10, 2015

To Whom It May Concern: 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act) 

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, University of Oregon (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "UO" or "the 

University") hereby applies for a Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FARs) identified below, to operate small unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., small 

unmanned aircraft systems or UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection, including 

aerial imaging and remote sensing and surveying, in support of its education and research operations. 

UO respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval, as the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances 

similar in all material respects to those presented herein. 

In addition to this Petition for Exemption, UO will also submit The University UAS 

Operations Manual under separate cover. UO submits this Operations Manual as a confidential 

document under separate cover pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the material contain confidential 

commercial and proprietary information that UO has not and will not share with others. The 

information contained in the Operations Manual is not generally available to the public and is 

protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of University of Oregon for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 2

For your convenience, this Petition is organized as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER................................................................3

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPERATION...........................................................................4

III. RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY .................................................................................5

IV. UO'S PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 333

OF THE REFORM ACT ..........................................................................................................5

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and 

Operational Capability.............................................................................................5

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in UO's 

Operating Documents ..............................................................................................6

V. REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT......................................................6

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification 

Requirements ...........................................................................................................8

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): 

Maintenance Inspections..........................................................................................8

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113, 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315: Private, 

Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and 

Limitations...............................................................................................................9

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness....................................................................10

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and 

(b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration ...................................10

F. 91.103: Preflight Action........................................................................................11

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction .................................................................................12

H. 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas..............12

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings....................................................................................13

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions................................13

VI. DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROGRAM ......................................................................................14

VII. PUBLIC INTEREST..............................................................................................................14

VIII. PRIVACY ............................................................................................................................15

IX. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY........................................................................................15

X. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................15
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 3

I. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER

In 1859, Congress required Oregon’s founders to establish a public university. In the early 

1870s, Judge Joshua Walton convinced residents of Eugene City to become home to what would 

become the state’s flagship university. Since its founding in 1876, UO has produced seven Oregon 

governors, eight U.S. Senators, two Nobel Prize winners, thirteen Pulitzer Prize winners, nineteen 

Rhodes Scholars, thirteen Olympic medalists, and six NFL Hall of Famers. Today, more than 

24,000 UO students, from all 50 states and more than 95 countries, can choose from 272 academic 

programs in 10 schools and colleges at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels. 

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to 

exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. In 1969, the University of Oregon was admitted into 

the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU), an organization of leading research 

institutions devoted to maintaining a strong system of academic research and education. UO is one 

of just thirty-six public universities in the AAU, and one of only two in the Pacific Northwest. 

Research, both basic and applied, is fundamental to the identity and mission of the 

University. UO has a long history of interdisciplinary research that continues today in the 

University’s nineteen research centers and institutes. Accounting for more than half of all sponsored 

research dollars at the University, the UO’s centers and institutes employ some of the most 

productive researchers in the country. In addition to the centers and institutes, UO also has strong 

and expanding research programs in the College of Education, the College of Business, the College 

of Arts and Sciences, the Museum of Cultural and Natural History, the Office of International 

Affairs, the School of Allied Arts and the Division of Equity and Inclusion. Supporting all research 

on campus are nine Research Core Facilities that provide cutting edge physical science tools and 

expertise to internal faculty/staff/students and external entity users to enable outstanding research 

and innovation. 

The University is always seeking innovative ways to bolster its research programs. New 

UAS technologies have enormous potential for numerous applications at UO, including, for 

example, aerial imaging, remote sensing, geological/geographic surveying and mapping, field 

archeology work, and habitat analysis. For example, the ability to deploy a UAS relatively quickly 

and repeatedly and at low altitudes, allows for acquiring very high resolution remotely sensed 

research data that would otherwise be too costly, unsafe, or impossible using manned aircraft and 

other traditional methods. The ability to operate UAS would benefit UO’s research programs 

tremendously. For these reasons, the University of Oregon seeks an exemption for commercial 

operations of small UAS for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection. 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a), UO provides the following information in support 

of its Petition for Exemption. 

The contact information for Petitioner is as follows:

Bryan Dearinger

Assistant General Counsel
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 4

University of Oregon

Office of General Counsel

219 Johnson Hall 

Eugene, Oregon 97403-1226

Phone: (541) 346-3082

Email: bdearing@uoregon.edu

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPERATION

The University of Oregon seeks an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act to 

use a number of different UAS platforms for aerial data collection in support of its education and 

research operations. By way of example, education and research programs supported by the 

proposed UAS operations, includes, but is not limited to: archeological studies, architecture, marine 

biology, geological studies, geographic mapping, 3D photogrammetry, aerial photography/

videography, habitat analysis, wildlife and forestry surveys/monitoring, engineering and aeronautical 

research, journalism and digital arts. Aerial data collected by UO's UAS would also be used to 

promote and market UO, as well as support student recreational and collegiate sport activities. 

All of the UAS platforms UO intends to use have been approved for commercial use in other 

grants of exemption, including the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and Blade 350QX. As 

set forth below, the FAA has previously determined that these vehicles meet the criteria established 

in Section 333 of the Reform Act and are suitable platforms for performing aerial data collection. 

The University is committed to maintaining the highest standards of flight safety. All UAS 

operations will be performed in accordance with the accompanying UO operating documents, and in 

accordance with the requirements of an applicable COA. Among other things, and as detailed in the 

operating documents, all UAS operations will occur in uncontrolled airspace, within visual line-ofsight (VLOS) of the pilot and visual observer, and will be limited to daytime VFR conditions. 

Moreover, UO's operating documents incorporate redundant safeguards to enhance safety.

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption are not new or novel to the FAA. 

The FAA has previously issued grants of exemption to use small UAS for aerial data collection in 

support of similar educational and research activities, including:

 Exemption No. 11552 to Sinclair Community College to conduct educational research 

and training (Docket No. FAA-2015-0374);

 Exemption No. 11304 to Auburn University Aviation Center to conduct training courses 

to instruct students in the operation of unmanned aircraft and their associated systems. 

(Docket No. FAA-2014-1014); and

 Exemption No. 11265 to the City of Roswell Coalition to perform research, development 

and validation of a formal UAS training curriculum (Docket No. FAA-2014-0732).
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 5

The low-risk UAS operations proposed by UO in this Petition for Exemption fall squarely 

within the category of aerial data collection that has been subject to previous approval. 

III. RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

This Petition for Exemption is submitted pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) of the 

Reform Act. Congress has directed the FAA "to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned 

aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act, the 

FAA Administrator is to permit unmanned aircraft systems to operate in the NAS where it is safe to 

do so based on the following considerations:

 The UAS's size, weight, speed and operational capability;

 Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

 Operation of the UAS within the visual line of sight of the operator.

Additionally, the FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the 

agency's safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested 

exemption is in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the 

Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (permitting exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702 –

44716, et seq.). A party requesting an exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1) 

would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how it would 

provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules). See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 (petitions for 

exemption).

IV. UO'S PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 333 OF 

THE REFORM ACT

UO's proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption qualify for expedited approval via 

the summary grant process pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act, as each of the statutory 

criteria and relevant factors are satisfied and the FAA has previously issued grants of exemption in 

circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this Petition for Exemption. 

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and 

Operational Capability

The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that all five of the vehicles chosen by 

UO meet the requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act due to their weight, speed and 

operational capabilities: the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and Blade 350QX. See, e.g.,

 DJI Phantom 2: Exemption No. 11315 to The Climate Corporation and Precision Planting, 

LLC; Exemption No. 11445 to Unmanned Aerial Solutions; and Exemption No. 11289 to

Bird's Eye Solutions, LLC. 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 6

 DJI Phantom 2 Vision+: Exemption No. 11224 to NextEra Energy, Inc.; Exemption No. 

11230 to Montico, Inc.; Exemption No. 11228 to Steven Zeets ; Exemption No. 11218 to 

Saratoga Aerial Vehicle; and Exemption No. 11215 to Mike Johnson 

 Blade 350QX: Exemption No. 11358 to New Heights Aerial Media, LLC.

The FAA has found the following shared characteristics of the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 

Vision+, and Blade 350QX to warrant approval for a grant of exemption:

 They all weight less than 55 pounds including payload;

 They all have 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 a pre-coordinated, 

predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of 

safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and mitigate the risk of 

command and control link failures; 

 The radio frequencies used for operations and control of the UAS comply with the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and other appropriate government oversight agency 

requirements; and

 The UAS all operate at a speed of 87 knots or less. 

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in UO's 

Operating Documents 

The University UAS Operations Manual and the manufacturer's manuals for the selected 

UAS platforms (hereinafter collectively referred to as "operating documents") contain all the 

procedures and limitations necessary to safely and successfully perform the proposed operations. To 

expedite the FAA's safety assessment of UO's proposed UAS operations, UO has tailored its 

operating documents to comply with the conditions and limitations imposed on similarly situated 

petitioners seeking to use small UAS for aerial data collection. See, e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 

11552 issued to Sinclair Community College, Docket No. FAA-2015-0374. In particular, the 

operating documents contain systems and procedures to permit UO to comply with the conditions 

and limitations in the FAA's Grant of Exemption. Id. 

V. REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This 

statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 7

§ 40101 of the Act, including UAS, from its safety regulations and minimum standards when the 

Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest.1

UO seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 45, 61 and 91 

for purposes of conducting the requested operations using small UAS, including:

FAR Description

91.9(c); 45.23(b) and 

45.27(a)

Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 

91.409(a)(1) and (2); 

91.417(a) and (b) 

Maintenance and Inspection Requirements

61.23(a) and (c); 61.113; 

61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315

Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate

Privileges and Limitations

91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

91.9(b)(2); 91.203(a) and 

(b)

Carrying Aircraft Flight Manual, Certification and Registration in 

the Aircraft 

91.103 Preflight Action

91.109(a) Flight Instruction

91.119(c) Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other than Congested Areas

91.121 Altimeter Settings

91.151(a) Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions 

Listed below are the specific sections of 14 C.F.R. for which an exemption is sought, and the 

operating procedures and safeguards that Petitioner has established which will ensure a level of 

safety better than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought.2

 

1

See 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (authorizing the grant of exemptions from requirements of regulations 

prescribed pursuant to Sections 44701(a) and (b) and Sections 44702 - 44716).

2

See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e), which requires a petition for exemption to include:

{footnote continued}
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 8

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification 

Requirements

UO seeks an exemption from the aircraft marking and identification requirements contained 

in 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a).

● 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(c), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard Requirements, 

provides that:

No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified 

in accordance with Part 45 of this chapter.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b), Markings of the Aircraft, states:

When marks include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number is 

displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or 

provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near 

each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches 

nor more than 6 inches high, the words "limited," "restricted," "light-sport, 

"experimental," or "provisional," as applicable.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a), Rotorcraft, states:

Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both 

surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by § 45.23.

In prior grants of exemption under Section 333 of the Reform Act, the FAA determined that 

exemption from these requirements was warranted provided that the aircraft "have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R Part 45, Subpart C if the markings are as large as 

practicable."3 All UAS flown by UO will bear N-number markings that are as large as practicable in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C.4 

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance 

Inspections

The University seeks an exemption from the maintenance inspection requirements contained 

in 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b). These regulations 

 

{continued from previous page}

The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how 

the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the 

rule from which you seek exemption.

3

FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0352.

4

See, e.g., FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0352, at 14. 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 9

specify maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 43.5 An exemption from 

these regulations is needed because Part 43 and these sections only apply to aircraft with an 

airworthiness certificate, which the UAS to be operated under this grant of exemption will not have.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections will be 

performed in accordance with the operating documents and any required manufacturer Safety or 

Service Bulletins. Further, as required by the operating documents, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight 

inspection of the UAS and all associated equipment to account for all discrepancies and/or 

inoperable components. Maintenance will be performed and verified to address any conditions 

potentially affecting safe operation of the UAS and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight 

critical components of the UAS have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for 

operation. A functional test flight will be conducted following the replacement of any flight-critical 

components. As required by the operating documents, the PIC who conducts the functional test 

flight will make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. 

The operating documents also include requirements to follow the UAS manufacturer’s

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and 

aircraft components. Moreover, the operating documents also include procedures to document and 

maintain a record of the UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of 

replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of Petitioner's UAS. As a 

whole, the maintenance and inspection procedures required by Petitioner's operating documents 

ensure that an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113, 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315: Private, Recreational

and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and Limitations

UO seeks exemption from these sections, which restricts private, recreational or sport pilot 

certificate holders from flying aircraft for compensation or hire, and would also require a second 

class medical certificate. The purpose of Part 61 is to ensure that the skill and competency of any 

PIC matches the airspace in which the PIC will be operating, as well as requiring certifications if the 

private pilot is carrying passengers or cargo for hire. In this case, while the UAS will be operated as 

part of a commercial operation, it carries neither passengers nor cargo. 

In the Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial6, the FAA determined that the 

unique characteristics of UAS operation outside of controlled airspace did not warrant the additional

cost and restrictions attendant with requiring the PIC to have a Commercial Pilot Certificate and 

Class II Medical Certificate. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a private pilot to 

become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS 

operations are involved. 

 

5

See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) (stating that each owner or operator of an aircraft "[s]hall have the 

aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections ...

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter.").

6

FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0352.
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 10

More recently, the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates 

would also have adequate aeronautical knowledge to pilot a UAS. Accordingly, because these 

individuals would also be subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would be 

qualified to serve as the PIC for UAS operations.7 

The restrictions Petitioner has placed on its UAS operations meet or exceed the restrictions 

similarly imposed on Astraeus Aerial and other operators in more recently granted exemptions under 

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act. UO will operate away from persons and property that is not 

the subject matter of the flight. UO will also require all PICs to be thoroughly trained in the unique 

aspects of UAS flight. As set forth in the operating documents, pilots will have experience not only 

in UAS operations generally but have logged flight time in the specific make and model used for the 

operations before they are permitted to participate in commercial flights on behalf of UO. The pilot 

qualification, training, and currency requirementsin the operating documents ensure that UO's pilots 

are competent and proficient in the UAS they are operating. The Petitioner's training and 

qualification requirements are consistent with those contained in prior FAA-issued grants of 

exemption, and will provide a higher level of competency and proficiency for its pilots and will 

ensure at least an equivalent level of safety.

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

Inasmuch as there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the UAS, UO seeks an 

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), which requires that a civil aircraft be in an airworthy condition 

to be operated. While the petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has 

determined that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine the aircraft is in an 

airworthy condition prior to flight. The operating documents contain procedures which allow the 

PIC to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition safe for flight, and an exemption from § 

91.7(a) is therefore warranted. 

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and 

(b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

Title 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) and § 91.203(a) and (b) require the operator to carry

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals onboard the aircraft.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2):

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft –

...

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this 

chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or 

 

7

See Grant of Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA-2014-0642 at pgs. 

8-9).
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 11

Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any 

combination thereof.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b):

(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it 

has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate...

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required

by paragraph (a) of this section 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.

Given the small size and configuration of the UAS, it would be impossible to keep 

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals on board the UAS because there is simply no 

room and the UAS has no cabin or cockpit. 

In an FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Opinion dated August 8, 2014, and prepared by Dean E. 

Griffith, Attorney, AGC-220, it was acknowledged that the intent of 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) 

and (b) is met if the pilot of the unmanned aircraft has access to the UAS flight manual, registration 

certificate, and other required documents from the ground control station from which he or she is 

operating the aircraft.8 As this FAA Office of Chief Counsel Opinion clarifies, the intent of the rule 

is to ensure the pilot has access to these key documents during flight. Therefore, an equivalent level 

of safety will be achieved by ensuring that the pilot has access to the documents at the ground 

control station from which he or she is piloting the UAS.9 

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103, which requires a PIC to become 

familiar with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the FAAapproved Flight Manual on board the aircraft. While the PIC will be familiar with all information 

 

8 Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation 

and Regulation, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8, 2014); see also Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0352 at 16-18. 

9

See also Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. at pg. 11:

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2): Civil aircraft flight 

manual, marking, and placard requirements and § 91.203(a) and (b): Civil aircraft: 

Certifications required. The FAA has previously determined that relief from these 

sections is not necessary. See Exemption No. 11062. Relevant materials may be kept 

in a location accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulations.
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 12

necessary to safely conduct the flight, an exemption is requested to the extent that an FAA-approved 

Flight Manual is required.

Adherence to the requirements in the operating documents will ensure that the UAS is in an 

airworthy condition prior to flight. The PIC will perform a series of checklists designed to identify 

any defects or inoperable components, which cover pre-flight, take-off, landing and post-flight 

procedures. The PIC will also be required to review weather, flight requirements, battery charge, 

landing and takeoff distance, UA performance data, and contingency landing areas—before initiation 

of flight. Petitioner's operating documents will be kept at the ground control station and will be 

accessible to the PIC at all times while operating the UAS.

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides in pertinent part 

that "[n]o 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." UAS and remotely piloted 

aircraft, by their design, do not have functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is accomplished 

through the use of a device that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. 

Accordingly, an exemption will be required for the flight instruction requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 

91.109(a). 

Given the size and speed of the UAS that Petitioner intends to use, an equivalent level of safe 

training can still be achieved without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the 

UAS, and as required by the operating documents, all persons will be a safe distance away in the 

event that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction. Moreover, all flight 

training will be conducted in controlled and sterile environment. As a whole, the procedures 

provided for in the operating documents ensure that UAS flight instruction can be performed safely.

H. 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

UO requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 

91.119(c).

10

 Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes under which aircraft may not 

operate, including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure 

in non-congested areas. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c). 

An exemption is required because the proposed UAS operations will normally need to occur 

below 400 feet AGL. Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed operations, the PIC and/or 

Observers may need to be less than 500 feet away from the UAS. Compared to flight operations 

 

10 Relief from § 91.119(a) will not be necessary because Petitioner will be able to perform an 

emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground in the event of a 

failure. Petitioner's proposed UAS operations will not occur over congested areas, and therefore an 

exemption from § 91.119(b) will not be necessary. See, e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11157 to 

Slugwear, Inc., dba Likeonatree Aerial at pg. 15 (Docket No. FAA-2014-0534 ). 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 13

with rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum weights proposed herein, and given the lack of 

flammable fuel with the UAS, any risk associated with these operations is far less than those that 

presently exist with conventional aircraft. 

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS, 

as well the controlled location where the operations will occur. In order to avoid any risk to manned 

aircraft, flight operations will be restricted to below 400 feet AGL. As set forth in the operating 

documents, the UAS will be operated in a controlled environment, and all flights will occur at a 

lateral distance of at least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a position 

where he or she is shielded from the UAS and any possible debris resulting from UAS failure. 

Procedures will be in place to ensure flight operations can be safely terminated if a nonparticipating 

person within 500 feet of the UAS leaves a shielded position. Further, UAS operations will occur at 

least 500 feet away from vehicles or structures unless 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 operations near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a). 

Adherence to these restrictions in UO's operating documents will ensure the proposed operations can 

be conducted without compromising safety to persons or property on the ground. 

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

To the extent necessary for UO to conduct the proposed operations, Petitioner requests an 

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which requires a person operating an aircraft to maintain 

cruising altitude or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure 

airport or barometric pressure.

The FAA has stated that an equivalent level of safety to the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 

91.121 can be achieved in circumstances where: (1) the UAS will be operated 400 feet AGL or 

below, (2) within VLOS, (3) where GPS based altitude information is relayed in real time to the 

operator at a ground-based on-screen display and, (4) where prior to each flight, a zero altitude 

initiation point is established for the PIC to confirm accuracy of the onboard GPS.11

The UAS that Petitioner intends to use for performing the proposed operations meet all these 

operational characteristics. Moreover, the operating documents require the PIC to calibrate the 

aircraft's GPS compass prior to each flight operation. As the FAA has determined in circumstances 

similar to this Petition for Exemption, Petitioner's UAS and the safety mitigation procedures 

contained in the operating documents, ensure that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, and 

a grant of exemption to the requirements of § 191.121 is therefore appropriate. 

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions 

UO requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR 

conditions. Section 91.151 states:

 

11 See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (FAA-2014-0352 at 21). 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 14

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless 

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the 

first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed –

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

Here, the technological limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight 

operations can be conducted while still maintaining a 30-minute battery reserve. An exemption from 

the fuel requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) is therefore required. 

The FAA has previously granted relief from the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a) for flight in 

daytime VFR conditions in circumstances similar to those presented in this Petition for Exemption.

12

 

In Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc.,

13 the FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting 

the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) 

there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended operational time and to 

operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the 

manufacturer if greater, would ensure an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirements of § 

91.151(a).

14

 Petitioner's operating documents impose this same requirement and an exemption from 

§ 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate. 

VI. DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROGRAM

The University of Oregon will have policies in place to ensure that no person may participate 

in UAS flight operations if they are under the influence of alcohol or any drug. 

VII. PUBLIC INTEREST

The public interest will be served by granting UO's Petition for Exemption. Congress has 

established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the NAS in controlled, safe 

working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Granting this Petition for Exemption 

helps fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform Act—the FAA 

Administrator's assessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before 

completion of the statutorily required rulemaking. 

Beyond increased levels of safety, the public stands to benefit enormously from the education 

and research programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption. 

Whether it is studying historic archeological sites or monitoring marine biology on the Pacific coast, 

the public as a whole will benefit from the information gathered and studied as part of UO's

 

12 See, e.g., Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673.

13 Docket No. FAA-2014-0642.

14 Exemption No. 11213 at pg. 12.
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 15

education and research programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for 

Exemption. 

VIII. PRIVACY

The proposed operations will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, or 

local laws regarding privacy. UO will not conduct flight operations over property that it does not 

own or control without the prior consent and knowledge of the property owner. 

IX. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the

FEDERAL REGISTER, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations:

45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.23(a) and (c); 61.113; 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.315; 91.7(a); 

91.9(b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.103; 91.109(a); 91.119(b); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203 (a) & (b); 91.405(a); 

91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417 (a) & (b). 

The exemption will enhance safety by reducing risk to the general public and property 

owners from the substantial hazards associated with using conventional fixed-wing aircraft or

rotorcraft for aerial data collection in support of university education and research programs.

X. CONCLUSION

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption satisfy the criteria articulated in 

Section 333 of the Reform Act and the FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar 

in all respects to those presented by the University of Oregon in this Petition for Exemption. In 

consideration of the foregoing, UO respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for 

expedited approval via the FAA's summary grant process.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of our requested exemptions. Should you have 

any questions, or if you need additional information to support the requested exemptions, please do 

not hesitate to contact us. 

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Matthew J. Clark
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 16

Counsel for University of Oregon

Attachments 
 

U.S. Department of Transportation

June 10, 2015

Page 17

(The following attached item will be submitted under separate cover as it contains proprietary and 

commercial information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 

522 et seq., and should be held in a separate file pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b)). 

Attachment: 

 The University UAS Operations Manual