NEEDMORE TOWERS, INC. PETITION FOR EXEPMTION JUNE

8, 2015 Exhibit

DExemption No. 11062 UN11ED STAlES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON,

DC 20591 In the matter of the petition
of ASTRAEUS AERIAL for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) and (b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103; 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(l); 91.409(a)(2);
and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014M0352 GRANT OF EXEMPTION By letter dated May 27, 2014, Jonathan

B. Hill, Cooley LLC, Counsel for Astraeus Aerial, and John McGraw, Aerospace Consulting, LLC, Agent for Astraeus Aerial, 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC 20004 petitioned
the Federal Aviation Administl'ation (FAA) on behalf of Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus)
for an exemption from pal't 21, §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.15l(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 9l.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(2),

and 91.417(a) and (b) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption,

if granted, would allow operation

of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose
of scdpted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television industry. The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: Pati 21 prescribes,

in pertinent part, the procedural requirements

for issuing and changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates,
and airworthiness approvals. Section
45 .23(b) prescribes,

in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman capital letter ''N" and the registration number

is displayed

on limited, restticted

or lightsport categmy aircraft
or experimental

or provisionally cettificated aircraft, the operator2 must also display
on that aircraft near each entrance

to the cabin, cockpit,

or pilot station,

in letters not less than

2 inches nor more than

6 inches high, the words "limited

, " "restricted," "light-sport," "experimental,"

or "provisional,"

as applicable. Section 61.1 13(a) and (b) prescribes that- (a) no person who holds

a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command

of an aircraft that
is carrying passengers

or property
for compensation

or hire; nor may that person, for compensation

or hire, act as pilot in command

of an aircraft. (b)
a private pilot may, for compensation

or hire, act as pilot in command

of an aircraft

in connection with any business

or employment

if: (1) The flight

is only incidental

to that business

or employment;
and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers

or property for compensation or hire. Section 91.7(a) prescribes,

in pertinent part, that no person may operate

a civil aircraft unless

it is in an airworthy condition. Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation ofU.S.-registered

civil aircraft unless there
is available

in the aircraft

a current approved Airplane

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

or any combination thereof. Section 91.103 prescribes,

in pettinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning

a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight,
to include- (a) For
a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity
of an ail

· port, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available

if the planned flight cannot
be completed,
and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command
has been advised
by ATC; (b) For any flight, runway lengths

at airports
of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information: (1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane

or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required,
the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and3 (2) For civil aircraft other than those specified

in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate

to the aircraft, relating

to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature. Section 91.109 prescribes,

in pertinent part, that no person may operate

a civil aircraft (except

a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary
for takeoff
or landing,
no person may operate
an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere.
An altitude allowing,

if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard
to persons

or property
on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement,

or over any open air assembly

of persons,

an altitude
of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within

a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude
of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft
m

, ay not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,

or structure. (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes,
and weight-shift-control aircraft.

If the operation

is conducted without hazard

to persons

or property
on the surface- (1) A helicopter may be operated

at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph

(b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating
the helicopter complies with any routes
or altitudes specifically prescribed
for helicopters

by the FAA; and

· (2) A powered parachute

or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated

at less than the minimums prescribed

in paragraph

(c) of this section. Section 91.121 requires,

in pertinent part, each person operating

an aircraft

to maintain cmising altitude
by reference

to an altimeter that
is set "to the elevation

of the departure airport
or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure."4 Section 91.151(a) prescribes that 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) dming the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes;

or (2) At night,
to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. [emphasis added] Section 91.203(a) prohibits,

in pertinent part, any person from operating

a civil aircraft unless

it has within

it (1) an appropriate
and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration certificate issued
to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application

as provided
for in§ 47.31(c). Section 91.203(b) prescribes,

in pertinent part, that no person may operate

a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate

or a special flight authorization issued under§ 91.715

is displayed

at the cabin or cockpit entrance

so that it is legible

to passengers

or crew. Section 91.405(a) requires,

in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator

or owner shall have that aircraft inspected

as prescribed

in subpaL1

E of the same paL1 and shall, between required inspections, except
as provided

in paragraph

(c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired

as prescribed

in part 43 of the chapter. Section 91.407(a)(l) prohibits,

in pertinent part, any person from operating

an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,

or alteration unless

it has been approved
for return
to service by a person authorized under§ 43.7 of the same chapter. Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes,

in pertinent part, that no person may operate
an aircraft unless, within the preceding

12 calendar months,

it has had an inspection for

the issuance
of an airw01thiness certificate

in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes,

in pertinent part, that- (a) Each registered owner or opeL·ator shall keep the following records for the periods specified

in paragraph

(b) of this section: (1) Records
of the maintenance, preventive maintenance,

and alteration and records
of the 100-hour, annual, progressive,
and other required or approved inspections,

as appropriate,

for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance

of an aircraft. The records must include- (i) A description

(or reference

to data acceptable

to the Administrator)

of the work performed;
and (ii) The date of completion

of the work performed;
and5 (iii) The signature, and certificate number
of the person approving the aircraft for return
to service. (2) Records containing
the following information: (i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor. (ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last overhaul
of all items installed
on the aircraft which are required

to be overhauled

on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including
the time since the last inspection required
by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances
are maintained. (v) The current statllS of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including,
for each, the method
of compliance,

the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action

is required. (vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by§ 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration

to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers,
and appliances. (b) The owner or operatm· shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (1) The records specified

in paragraph (a)(l) of this section shall be retained until the work
is repeated

or superseded

by other work or for

I year after the work

is performed. (2) The records specified

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft

at the time the aircraft

is sold. (3) A list of defects furnished

to a registered owner
or operator under § 43. I 1 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft

is approved
for return
to service.6 The petitioner supports

its request ·with the following information: The petitioner has provided the following information- contained

in its petition and supplemental proprietary Flight Operations
and Procedures Manual (hereafter FOPM) and Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (hereafter MPTOM)-

in support
of its exemption request. The petitioner submitted additional information

in response

to the FAA's August

7, 2014 request which

is posted
to the docket. The FAA has organized
the petitioner's information
into three sections:

1) the unmanned aircraft system,

2) the UAS Pilot In Command (PIC), and 3) the UAS operating parameters. Unmanned Aircraft System The UAS proposed

by the petitioner

is a proprietary design, conceived and constructed

by AstraetJS Aerial, and referred

to as the Astraeus Aerial Cinema System V.3CS UAS aircraft variant, serial #001 onward (hereafter referred

to as V

. 3). This aircraft has eight rotors and eight motors

in a quadcopter configuration (XS). The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft

to be utilized
by the applicant,

an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart

H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations,

is warranted
and meets the requirements

for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 (PL 112-95). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate

in the restricted environment
and under the conditions and limitations proposed

by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than

a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under
14 CFR part 21, Subpart Hand not subject

to the proposed conditions
and limitations. The petitioner states that the unmanned aircraft (UA) to be operated under this request

is less than 55lbs. fully loaded, flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither

a pilot nor passenger, carries no explosive materials

or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively within

a secured area as set out in the MPTOM.

In addition, the petitioner
has integrated safety features into the design of the UAS, as described

in the petitioner's FOPM,

to ensure the safety of persons and property within and surrounding

the limited operating area

. The petitioner further describes that, in the event the UAS loses communications

or its GPS signal, the UA will have the capability

to return

to a pre-determined location within the Security Perimeter and land.
It will also have the capability

to abort

a flight
in the event of unpredicted obstacles

or emergencies. The petitioner states that even though
its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate,

an exemption may be needed from 14 CFR

§ 45.23
as the UA will have no entrance

to the cabin, cockpit,

or pilot station on which the word "experimental"

can be placed. Given the size of the UA, the petitioner notes that the two-inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided

by having the UA marked with the word "experimental''

on the fuselage

in compliance with 14 CFR

§ 45 .29(f),
in a location where the pilot, observer, and others working with the UA will see the identification.7 The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements

in the pertinent sections
of 14 CFR part 91 are only applicable

to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate

in accordance with part 43. The petitioner states that its V.3 UAS does not have specific maintenance instnrctions; therefore

th

. e petitioner has developed and documented

in its MPTOM and FOPM
an "oncondition" maintenance process for the V.3 UAS affected
by this exemption. The petitioner has also stated that
it intends

to follow any manufacturers' recommended instructions
and procedures when those procedures exist for certain components

of its V.3 UAS. UAS Pilot In Command (PIC) The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry

a pilot or passengers

on board, the proposed operations will not adversely affect safety by requiring the PIC operating
the aircraft to have

a private pilot's license rathet· than

a commercial pilot's license.
In support
of its position, the petitioner argues that, since there are no standards
for either private
or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge

of airspace regulations
and dexterity

in the control and operation

of the UAS acquired from actual operation

of the aircraft will be the most important factors

in establishing

an equivalent level of safety. Furthermore,

the

. petitioner explains that, given the restricted and controlled airspace within which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge ofthe airspace within which the "closed-set filming" operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the National Airspace System (NAS). The petitioner also states that it cannot be assumed that

a commercial pilot, approved

to operate

a helicopter

or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or ability

to safely operate
an unmanned aerial vehicle, operating

at 400 feet AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre-approved airspace. The petitioner asserts that there are relatively few cettificated pilots who are also qualified

to fly the type ofUAS utilized

in motion picture industry image-capture operations. Astraeus further asserts that there are even fewer commercially certificated pilots that can fly these UAS,
to the point that to do both
is considered rare. Additionally,

the petitioner states that the aircraft will be operated within

a secure environment, which no one will be allowed

to enter unless they are part of the production, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to operation

of the UAS, and have consented

to the lisks associated with being
in the operating area. Should there be a mishap, the UA being flown pose significantly
less of a threat than the helicopters
and fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are
a fraction
of the size, can-y no flammable fuel, and do not carry crew or passengers. This
is in stark contrast

to conventional aircraft that are flown
to the site, carry flammable **fu~l,** carry passengers
and crew, and operate

in a much larger area. UAS Operating Parameters The petitioner states that all flights will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS)
of a pilot and/or observer, and that the UA flights will be limited

to a maximum altitude
of 400 feet AGL. The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only consenting production personnel will be allowed within 100 feet of the UA operation,
but this radius may be reduced

to 30 feet based upon an equivalent level of safety determination,

as stated
in their MPTOM, with the advance permission

of the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved given the size. weight,8 and speed of the UAS,
as well as the location where

it is operated. The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within

a safe operating perimeter,
the boundaries

of which will be determined

by production personnel and the UAS PIC based on the site-specific filming activities and speed of the UAS required
for the operation, and coordinated with the jurisdictional FAA FSDO and local government officials

as applicable,

as outlined

in the MPTOM and FOPM. The petitioner states that only participating
and consenting production personnel will be allowed within this perimeter;
the petitioner also states their intention

to comply with the guidelines outlined

in Order 8900.1 V3, C8, Sl with regard
to nonparticipating personnel outside the safety perimeter. The petitioner argues that, compared to flight operations with aircraft
or rotorcraft weighing
far more than its maximum

55 lb. UA, and tl1e lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with its UAS operations

is far less than those with conventional aircraft operating

at or below 500 feet AGL in the movie industry. With respect

to preflight actions, the petitioner notes

it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103, becm.1se

it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will

be achieved

by the PIC taking all preflight actions

as set forth in their MPTOM and FOPM, including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance
data before initiation

of flight. Additionally,

the petitioner states that

a briefing will be conducted prior to each day's filming regarding planned UAS operations,
and all personnel who will be petforming duties within the boundaries

of the safety perimeter will be required

to attend. With respect

to the fuel requirements,

the petitioner notes that, in order to meet the 30 minute t·eserve requirements

in 14 CFR

§ 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited

to approximately

10 minutes. The petitioner argues that, given the limitations

on the UA's proposed flight area and the location
of its proposed operations within

a predetermined
area,

a longer time frame for flight
in daylight

or night VFR conditions

is reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved

by limiting flights
to 30 minutes

or 25% of battery power, whichever occurs first. The petitioner notes that
it may need an exemption from 14 CFR

§ 91.121,

as its UAS may have

a GPS altitude read out instead
of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved,

as outlined

in its MPTOM. Specifically,

the altitude information
will be provided

to the UAS PIC via
a digitally encoded telemetric data feed. Prior
to each flight,

a zero altitude initiation point will be established
and confirmed
for accuracy

by the PIC. Public Interest The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted sterile environment within which

it will operate,
its proposed operation "falls squarely within that zone of snfety (an equivalent level of safety)

in which Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations ofUAS

to commence immediately." Also due to **th~** size of the UA and the restricted areas in which the UAS will operate, approval

of the application presents
no national security issue. The petitioner states that, given the clear direction

in Section 333, tlte strong equivalent level of safety surrounding

the proposed operations,
and the significant public benefit, including enhanced safety, reduction

in9environmentalimpacts,andincludingreducedemissionsassociatedwithaUowingUASformovieandtelevisionoperations,grantingtherequestedexemptionsisinthepublicinterest.DiscussionofPublicComments:AsummaryofthepetitionwaspublishedintheFederalRegisteronJune26,2014(79FR36378).Eighty-sixcommentswerereceived.Ofthe86commentsreceived,includingeightfromassociations,50commentssupportedthe·exemptionrequest,22opposed,and14wereneutral.Thepetitionreceivedcommentsonthefollowingtopics:economicimpact,UAS,PIC,operationalcapabilities,airspace,privacy,senseandavoid,anddatalink.Commentssupportingtheexemptionrequestcamefromindividualsandindustrygroups,includingtheAssociationofUnmannedVehicleSystemsInternational(AUVSI),AerospaceIndustriesAssociation(AlA),theNationalAssociationofRealtors,theNewsMediaCoalition,andtheNationalPressPhotographersAssociation.Supportingcommentscitedthepetitioner'sintenttousecontrolledaccessairspace,licensedairmen,andpreflightsafetybriefings,asweltastheeconomic benefitsofUAS.Severaltradeorganizationssubmittedletterstothedocket,expressingvariousissuesandconcernswiththeAstraeuspetitionforexemption,includingtheAirLinePilotsAssociationInternational(ALPA),theNationalAgriculturalAviationAssociation(NAAA),andtheUnitedStatestrangGlidingandParaglidingAssociation(USHPA).ALPAexpressedconcernregardingcertainconditionsoutlinedinAstraeus'petition.ALPAnotesthattheproposedoperationswillbefor"compensationorhire,"andALPAbelievesthatthepilotmustholdatleastacurrentFAACommercialPilotCertificatewithanappropriatecategoryandclassratingforthetypeofaircraftbeingflownaswellasspecificandadequatetrainingontheUASmakeandmodelintendedtobeused.Similarly,acurrent2ndClassFAAMedicalceLtificateshouldberequiredforaUASpilotoperatinganaircraftforcompensationorhirecommercialoperationsasisrequiredintheNAStoday.NAAAandUSHPAalsocommentedonpilotqualification.Specifically,NAAAbelievesthatthePart61regulationscurrentlyineffectdonotaddressthelicensingofpilotsofanunmannedaircraftusedforcommercialpurposes.WebelieveitisnecessaryfortheFAAtoevaluatepilotsoftheseaircraftontheirknowledgeandskillsinUAVoperations.RequirementsforthislicensingshouldbedevelopedalongwithotherrigorousrulesandqualificationstoensuresafeintegrationoftheunmannedaircraftintotheNAS.TheFAAhascarefullyreviewedtheknowledgeandtrainingrequiredbyholdersofbothprivateandcommercialcertificates,asweJIastheseparationofAstraeus'proposedoperationsfromothermannedoperations.Additionaldetailsareavailableintheensuinganalysisofthisissuewithregardsto14CFR§61.113.ALPAcommentedthatalthoughtheanticipatedoperationisexpectedtooccurbelow400feetabovethesurface,thepetitionalsomakesreferencetooperations200feetabovestructuresofunspecifiedandthereforeunlimitedheight.Thiswouldputtheaircraftatthesamealtitude10 strata
as other aircraft

in the NAS, with only geographic separation

to mitigate the risk of collision

. However,

in subsequent materials posted
to the docket, Astraeus has removed operation from elevated platforms.
All operations will be limited

to 400 feet AGL, which

is specified

in the conditions and limitations below. ALPA further notes that the aircraft "may not have

a barometric altimeter"

so the ability
to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed. NAAA noted the same in its comments. The FAA agrees with ALP A and NAAA and addresses this concern

in its analysis
of the exemption from 14 CFR

§ 91.121, finding that the alternative means of compliance proposed by Astraeus does not adversely affect safety. ALPA and an individual comment that Command and Control (C2) link failures are one of the most common failures
on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes

to prevent fly-a ways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined
the proposed operation

to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner's MPTOM and FOPM addressed potential hazards related

to C2 failure. The FAA finds that the UAS to be operated
by Astraeus has sufficient design features

to address these hazards. The FAA also fmds that the MPTOM and FOPM have incorporated safety procedures

to be followed

by all operational participants should

a C2 failure occur. Further detail

is contained

in the analysis
of the UAS below. NAAA stated that
it represents
the interests
of small business owners and pilots licensed

as commercial applicators. NAAA 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 agdcultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend
on pilots of other aircraft

to perform their see and avoid functions needed

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes that UA operations

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

In its comments,
the USHP
A submitted similar concerns relative

to activities
of other low altitude user groups including ballooning, skydiving, powered ultralights,
etc. NAAA acknowledged Astraeus' plan to submit

a written Plan of Activities

to the FSDO three days before the proposed operations,

as required
by the petitioner's MPTOM. However, NAAA maintains,

as does the USHP A, that in addition

to this, issuance
of a NOT AM advising nonparticipating pilots of the planned activity

is vital to disseminating

this safety information.
The FAA agrees and has incorporated
this into the conditions and limitations

of this exemption. Further detail

is contained

in the analysis
of the operating parameters below. NAAA commented
that UA should have assigned numbers that can be read from

a suitable distance

to aid in identification when enforcement

of flight regulations

is required. The USHP
A commented similarly, noting that while the current identification standards
are not feasible
on small UA given their reduced size, identification appropriate

for these design parameters could be defined and created without undue bmden
or negative impacts
on UAS operations. The FAA pattially agrees with NAAA and USHPA. UA operated under this exemption will be marked

in accordance with 14 CFR part 45 or as otherwise authorized

by the FAA. Fmther detail

is contained

in the analysis
of the UAS below.11USHPAstatesthatitisanonprofitmemberorganizationwiththespecificandprimaryputposetoengageexclusivelyforscientificandeducationalpurposesinthedevelopment,study,anduseoffuel-lessflightsystemsandairc.raftcapableofbeinglaunchedbyhumanpoweralone.USHPAcommentedthatitbelieveswithpropernotificationoftimeandplace,alongwithotherconsiderations,safetycanbemaintained.USHPA'snotificationconcernswiHbeaddressedbytheconditionsandlimitationsthatwillrequireanAirTrafficOrganizationissuedCertificateofWaiverorAuthorization(COA)toaddressairspacerequirementsandnotification.FurtherdetailiscontainedintheanalysisoftheUASoperatingparametersbelow.RelatedtotheoperationoftheUAwithinvisuallineofsight(VLOS)ofthepilotand/orobserver,USHPAbelievesoperationofanyUAinthree-dimensionalspacepresentsuniquechallengesinaccuratelydeterminingpositioninrelationtostationaryormobileobjects.USHPAcommentsthatutilizationofanobserverforoperationalredundancyisprudentandencouraged,butshouldnotbeconsideredaviablereplacementforthepilotincommand.USHPAbelievesthattheidentificationofnavigationalrequirementsandaccuratelyconveyingthemtothepilotincommandwouldnotbeprovidedwithadequateprecisionorsufficientresponsetimeinacrisissituationandrecommendsthatdualcontrolsystemsbeutilizedasaredundantsafetymeasurecommonincommercialaviationenvironments.TheFAAnotesUSHPA'sconcerns;additionaldetailisprovidedintheanalysisoftheUASbelow.USHPAalsoassertsthatmannedflightshouldalwaysmaintainrightofwayoverallUAoperations.TheFAAagreesandhasincorporatedthisintotheconditionsandlimitationsofthisexemption.SeveralcommentsnotedthatsmallUAScanbehardtoseeduringtheday,duetotheirsmallsizeandfactorssuchassunglare.Commentersalsonotedconcernswithregardtoweatherandwindconditionsaffectingoperations.TheFAAaddressedtheseconcernsbyaddingoperatingrestrictionsintheconditionsandlimitationsregardingstand-offdistancefromclouds,altituderestrictions,andoperatingdistancefromnon-participatingpersonnel.FurtherdetailiscontainedintheanalysisoftheUASoperatingparametersbelow.ThepetitionreceivedseveralcommentssuggestingthatUASoperatedunderthisexemptionshouldhavetheabilitytomonitorandcommunicatewithotheraircraftorinstalltransponders,orthattheUASshouldnotoperateuntiltheycansenseandavoidotheraircraft.OnecommentersuggestedthattheFAAshouldimplementabufferbetweentheseUASoperationsandmannedoperations,whileanotherraisedconcernwithnearmisseswithotheraircraft.TwocommentsnotedthatUASaresusceptibletoaccidentsandGPSjamming.TheFAAbelievesthelimitationstmderwhichthepetitionerwilloperate(i.e.VLOSandatorbelow400feetAGL)andtheUASemergencyproceduresasoutlinedinthepetitioner'sFOPMandMPTOMaresufficientmitigationstothisrisksothattheoperationswillnotadverselyaffectsafety.FurtherinformationiscontainedintheanalysisoftheUASbelow.OnecommentersuggestedthattheFAAshouldrequiretestingofsoftwareandsystemspriortooperation,includingtestingtoRTCAstandards.TheFAAbelievesthepreflightchecksdiscussedintheanalysisoftheUASoperatingparametersaresufficienttomitigatethisrisk,andaddressesthisintheconditionsandlimitationsbelow.12TheFAAalsoreceivedcommentsnotrelatedtotheUAanditsoperationasproposedbythepetitioner,butratheraddressingmoregeneralUASissues,whicharediscussedbelow.TheFAAreceivedcommentsaskinghowtheFAAplanstomonitororconductsurveillanceofthepetitioner'sUASoperations.TheFAAexpectsoperatorstocomplywithitsregulationsandthetermsoftheexemption.ThejurisdictionalFSDOwillbetheprimaryofficeresponsibleforoversightoftheoperations.TheFAAreceivedseveralcommentsthatintegratingUASoperationsviaabroadlyapplicablerulewasamoresuitablemethodthantheexemptionprocess,andthatindustriesotherthanthemotionpictureindustryshouldbeallowedtoparticipate.Section333providesinterimauthoritytotheS.ecretaryofTransportation,whichfacilitateslimited,controlledUASoperationspl'iortothecompletionofaUASregulatorystructure.TheFAAisusingitsexemptionprocesstofacilitateimplementationofSection333andtoaddressFAAndesthatwouldbeapplicabletotheproposedoperations.Wehavereceivedandareconsideringexemptionpetitionsfromabroadarrayofindustriesandapplicationsforthistechnology.Additionally,theFAAisengagedinarulemakingprocessthatwillallowbroaderapplicationsofUASoperations.Twocommenterssuggestedthisexemptionprocessshouldbeavailabletoanybody,regardlessoforganizationalsizeorresources.TheFAAwillconsideranyrequestforexemptionsubmittedtoit,nomatterthesource.OnecommenterstatedthatmeaningfulpublicreviewofthepetitionwasnotpossiblebecausesomeofthedocumentssubmittedbythepetitionerareconfidentiaLTheFAAroutinelyconsidersconfidentialmaterialsinitsexemptionprocess.TheFAAreviewedandconsideredthepetitioner'sinformationinitsanalysisofthepetition.Thepetitionreceivedseveralcommentsonprivacy.AcommenterexpressedconcernthattheUAScouldbeusedforspying.Othercommentersstatedthattherearestrongpdvacyregulationsinplace.Specifically,acommenterstatesthatthe petitioneraddressedprivacyissuesinitsrequestbymandatingthatallfilmingbewithinacontainedenvironmentwithallparticipantsfullyawarethattheyarebeingfilmed.ThepetitionerstatesthatallUASflightswilloccuroverprivateorcontrolledaccesspropertywiththepropertyowner'spriorconsentandknowledge,andthatonlypeoplewhohaveconsentedorotherwisehaveagreedtobeintheareawherefilmingwilltakeplacewillbefilmed.TheFAAnotesthatthetermsofthisgrantofexemptionareconsistentwiththepetitioner'sproposalinthisarea.TheFAA'sanalysisisasfollows:UnmannedaircraftsystemCUAS)Regardingthepetitioner'srequestedrelieffrom14CFRpart21Certificationproceduresforproductsandparts,theFAAfindsthat,basedonthelimitedsize,weight,operatingconditions,designsafetyfeatures,andtheimposedconditionsandlimitations,thepetitionerhasdemonstratedthatitsoperationswouldnotadverselyaffectsafetycomparedtosimilar13 operations conducted with aircraft that have been issued an airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart
H. Conunercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with manned aircraft are typically conducted with aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates issued under part 21, subpart

H

. These aircraft are normally modified via the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process

to install cameras and other equipment
not included

in the original aircraft design. Manned helicopters conducting motion picture and television aerial filming can weigh 6,000 Jbs. or more and are operated
by an onboard pilot,
in addition

to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner's
UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential
for harm to participating
and nonparticipating individuals

or property

in the event of an incident

or accident. The risk to an on board pilot and crew dudng
an incident or accident

is eliminated with the use of a UA for the aerial filming operation. Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident

or accident. The VA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following

an incident

or accident due to fuel spillage

is eliminated. During motion picture and television aerial filming with manned aircraft under the conditions of an FAA issued Certificate

of Waiver, aircraft can be operated

in very close proximity

to participating persons. The safety of these individuals

is maintained through use of an aircraft with standard airworthiness certification under
14 CFR part 21, Subpl!rt
H, operation
of the aircraft
by a qualified and competent pilot, and operating according

to limitations necessary

to ensure safety.
In these situations,
the filming subject and production personnel
are exposed

to risk by virtue of their close proximity

to an aircraft

in flight. Compared

to manned aircraft, the UA being operated
by the petitioner reduces the risk to participating persons

in close proximity

to the aircraft due to the limited size, weight, operating conditions,
and design safety features
of the UAS. This exemption does not require
an electronic means
to monitor and communicate
with other aircraft, such as transponders

or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA

is mitigating
the risk of these operations

by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand-off distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within visual line of sight and yield right of way to all other manned operations

. Additionally,

the exemption provides that the operator will request

a NOT AM prior to operations

to alert other users of the NAS.

. The petitioner's UAS has the capability

to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight failures. The UA is also able to respond

to a lost-link event with

a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. Witlt regard
to USHP A's concerns about dual control systems, current FAA regulations penn
it motion picture and television filming operations

by manned aircraft that do not require

a copilot. Additionally, under this exemption,

the FAA requires that the UAS PIC hold

a current third class medical certificate. Historically, instances of complete PIC incapacitation

are rare. In all other cases other than complete incapacitation,14 the PIC has the ability
to tenninate the flight operation

or initiate the automated retum
to home procedure outlined within the FOPM. The P AA also believes that the multiple control redundancies described

in the petitioner's POPM are sufficient

to mitigate risks associated with the loss of GPS signal.
In consideration

of these factors and the UA size, weight, speed and other operating limitations associated with this aerial filmmaking operation,
the FAA finds that there

is no adverse safety affect relative

to similar operations conducted

by manned aircraft with

a flight crew complement

of one. These safety features also provide for no adverse safety affect
to participating
and nonparticipating individuals compared

to a manned aircraft that holds

a standard airworthiness certificate performing

a similar operation. In accordance with the statutory criteria provided

in Section 333 ofPL 112"95
in reference

to 49 USC 44704, and in consideration

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

of Transportation

has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions

of Section 333. Therefore,
the P AA finds that the requested relief from 14 CPR part 21, and any associated noise certification
and testing requ"irements

of part 36, is not necessary. Regarding
the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CPR§ 45.23(b) Display
of marks, the petitioner's request

is made under the assumption that marking with the word "experimental" will be required

as a condition

of an exemption request. This marking

is reserved for aircraft that are issued experimental certificates under

§ 21.191. Since the petitioner's UAS will not be certificated under 14 CPR§ 21.191,

a grant of exemption
for 14 CPR§ 45.23(b)

is not necessary. The petitioner's
UA must be identified

by serial number, registered

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

in accordance with 14 CPR part 45, Subpart

C. Markings must be as large as practicable. Regarding
the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CPR§§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required, 91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,

or alteration, 91.409(a)(2) Inspections,
and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records, the FAA has determined that relieffrom 91.409(a)(l)

is also necessary, because

it is
· an alternate inspection requirement

of 91.409(a)(2). The petitioner's POPM contains the maintenance requirements

for the V.3 UAS,
to include "on"condition" maintenance
and modifications.
The petitioner's MPTOM and POPM were reviewed and do not sufficiently support the regulatory relief sought under 14 CPR pat191, Subpart

E. The FAA has carefully considered
the petitioner's supplemental information
and determined that its operations will not adversely affect safety with regard
to the regulatory maintenance
and alteration requirements

of 14 CPR§§ 91.405(a)(l), 91.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(l)
and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), provided changes are made to the MPTOM and POPM

as required
by the conditions and limitations included

in this exemption. These changes include: requirements

to develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements

in the absence
of manufacturer's requirements; procedures

to document and maintain maintenance records with regard
to the petitioner's UAS; and UAS15 technician qualification criteria

. They also require the petitioner's FOPM

to include preflight inspection procedures that account for any discrepancies

not already covered

in the manual. The FAA finds these additional requirements

are necessary

to ensure the petitioner's proposed UAS operations

do not adversely affect safety
in the NAS and of people and property
on the ground. Therefore,
the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a}(l), 91.409(a)(l)
and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted subject

to the conditions and limitations below. Pilot In Command

of the UAS Regarding
the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CFR

§ 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations, comments were received that voiced concerns about pilot certification

. One such comment came from ALP A, which states that one of the "areas that must be addressed

to ensure safe operations"

is Astraeus' proposal

to use
a private pilot with

a third class medical

as its UAS PIC. ALPA believes that the UAS pilot should possess

a commercial pilot certificate with appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown and the corresponding second class medical certificate,

as well as specific and . adequate training
on the UAS make and model intended

to be used

. Similal' concerns were also raised by other associations such as USHP
A and NAAA. Given these grounds, the FAA must determine
the appropriate level of pilot certification

for Astraeus' proposed operation. Title 14 CFR part 61 requires that operations conducted
for compensation

or hire necessitate

a commercial pilot certificate and at least

a second class medical cettificate.

In considering
the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CFR-§ 61.113(a) and (b), the FAA must consider the following factors

as they relate specifically

to Astraeus' proposed operations: Separation from manned aircraft operations: Astraeus proposes operations

in a "sterile environment"

of closed-set motion-picture filming.

In this controlled environment, their operations will remain within visual line of site (VLOS) and below 400 feet AGL. Additionally,

the FAA has added further conditions
and limitations that will require

a Certificate

of Waiver
or Authorization (COA) from the FAA Air Traffic Organization

to address airspace requirements
and notification requiring Astraeus

to request

a Notice
to Airman (NOT AM) not more than 72 hours
in advance, but not less than 48 hours pri!>r to the operation. Astraeus

will also be required

to avoid and yield right-of-way

to all manned operations. The current aeronautical knowledge requirements

for
a private pilot compared

to a commercial pilot: The FAA analyzed the areas of knowledge specified

in 14 CFR part 61 for that of a commercial pilot versus

a private pilot. The results show that the required areas of knowledge

for
a commercial versus private pilot cover the same fundamental principles,

as shown
in the following table.