Exemption No. 11208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

SKY-FUTURES USA, INC.

for an exemption from parts 21; 43; 61; 67;

§§ 45.11; 45.21; 45.22(d); 47.16; 91.9(b) and 

(c); 91.109; 91.119; 91.151; 91.203(a) and 

(b); 91.215, 91.319; 91.405; 91.407; 91.409; 

91.413; and 91.417 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014-0641

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 25, 2014,

1 Mr. Jonathan Evans, CEO of SkyWard IO, Inc., 

2333 Naito Parkway, Portland, Oregon 97204 and Mr. Chris Blackford, Global Operations 

Director of Sky-Futures USA, Inc. Inc., 100 Crescent Court, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75201 

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Sky-Futures USA, Inc.

(hereinafter petitioner or operator), for an exemption from parts 21, 43, 61, 67, §§ 45.11, 

45.21, 45.22(d), 47.16, 91.9(b) and (c), 91.109, 91.119, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.215, 

91.319, 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, 91.413, and 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate the AscTec Falcon 8 

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct oil and gas platform inspections on land and over 

water.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations, 

including the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

 

 1 By letter dated January 5, 2015, and posted to the public docket on January 6, the petitioner filed a supplement 

to its petition.
2

The petitioner has provided the following information to support its request for an exemption:

1. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual – Sky-Futures UK Operations v. 2.3.1

2. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Pilot Operators Manual 1 POM1/Part B

3. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Sky-Futures UK Operations Part C –

Authorised Operations

4. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Operator Training Manual Part D

5. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual – UAV Maintenance and Servicing Part E 

The petition and the documents above are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2014, (79 

FR 58853). Nine comments were received. Seven commenters, including the Small UAV 

Coalition (Coalition), supported the petition. The Air Line Pilots Association, International 

(ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.

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

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

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

petitioner simply because of the commercial nature of its operations. The Coalition urged the

FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under section 333 of Pub. L. 

112–95 that weighs the relative safety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational 

circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial vehicles 

based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety

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

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

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

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

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors2 in section 333 as a minimum. 

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

specified in section 333, such as: location, the altitude of its small UAV operations, pilot 

experience, and the 5,000 hours of experience in operating the UAV to conduct oil and gas 

platform inspection around the world. The Coalition maintained that the petitioner’s proposed

operations satisfy the seven factors in section 333 and include several additional mitigating

factors to ensure the safety and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition 

emphasized the FAA must evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed 

UAS operations.

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

shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, 

weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line 

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national 

security; ...”
3

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

(Exemption No. 11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its 

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

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

The FAA does not agree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security

finding poses an unnecessary burden because pilots under this exemption, and the

exemptions granted previously to section 333 requests, are already required to hold a 

pilot certificate to satisfy 49 USC § 44711.

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

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

allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command 

(PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) within VLOS

of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted. The FAA notes that one of the determinations for

operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. As the PIC is determined 

to be in command of the UA, he must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA also 

notes that a VO complements the PICs capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including

when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an

additional level of operational safety.

In support of the petition, individual commenters noted that the petitioner’s proposed UAS 

operations would enhance safety and offer a lower cost and more flexible process for 

conducting oil and gas inspections. 

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA noted that while the 

proposed operations would take place over private and public property, the petitioner did not 

provide detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA 

stated “there must be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace 

and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” The 

FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or 

below 400 feet above ground level (AGL)) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the 

operations will not adversely affect safety. 

ALPA noted that the petition does not state how the pilot and the observer will be able to 

communicate with each other. ALPA stated that text messaging, either by mobile phone or 

other means, could have an unknown latency that could extend to several minutes. NAAA 

stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the 
4

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

communications.

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

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

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

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

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

how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given the size of 

the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a 

lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

requires further research to determine best safety practices. This comment is addressed in 

detail below.

ALPA stated that the petition seeks an exemption from the aircraft airworthiness process, 

14 CFR 21 and 14 CFR § 91.203. The FAA discusses aspects of 14 CFR 21 with respect to 

the petitioner’s request, below.

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common 

failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to 

ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s operating documents addressed potential 

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

has sufficient design features to address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the operating 

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

should a C2 failure occur. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

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

argues the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an 

appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific 

and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA 

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

commented on pilot qualification, stating—

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training curriculum 

and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. 

Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as 
5

commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as 

commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the 

necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a 

sustained period of time.

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

commercial certificates. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this issue 

with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113.

ALPA stated that the petitioner did not specify requirements for flight instructors. As 

discussed below the FAA has found that the petitioner’s training program and the condition 

requiring that the pilot have the skills after completing the training program to operate safely 

under this exemption will provide an acceptable level of preparation.

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

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

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPA’s 

concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the National Airspace System (NAS), the 

FAA requires each operator secure a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (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 noted that its members operate in low-level airspace, and therefore 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 that 

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

to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential for collision with agricultural aircraft. The FAA recognizes these concerns and has 

incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: a) a Notice 

to Airmen (NOTAMs) issued for all operations, b) operations conducted within VLOS of the 

pilot in command (PIC) and the VO, and c) the UAS PIC must always yield right-of-way to 

manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned

aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or 

similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high-visibility markings and 

registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and well clear of any low-flying 

manned aircraft. As discussed in greater detail below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering 

a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for 

certain operations. The Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the 

aircraft operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.
6

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) UAS, (2) the UAS pilot in 

command (PIC), (3) the UAS operating parameters, and (4) the public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, Airworthiness certificates. In 

accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112-95 in reference to 

49 USC 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area 

associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined 

that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the 

requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, and any associated noise certification and 

testing requirements of part 36 is not necessary.

Manned aircraft conducting aerial inspections can weigh thousands of pounds and are 

operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The 

petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 5 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 onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is 

eliminated with the use of a UA for the intended operation. 

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

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

spillage is eliminated.

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 enhanced stand-off 

distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be 

operated within VLOS and yield right of way to all manned operations. Additionally, the 

operator will be required to request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the 

NAS.

The petitioner’s UA 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. The PIC has the ability to terminate the flight 

operation or initiate the automated return to home procedure outlined within the operating 

documents. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned 

aircraft performing a similar operation and address ALPAs comment on mitigating risk of

command and control link failures.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR. part 45, Identification and Registration Marking. 

Additionally, petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 47.16, Temporary registration 
7

numbers. However, consistent with prior grants of exemption for small UAS the FAA is 

requiring compliance with the registration and marking requirements of this part. See 

Exemption Nos. 11136, 11185. 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.405, 91.407, 91.409, and 

91.417, the FAA has determined relief from §§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required,

91.407(a)(1) Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration,

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records is necessary. 

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

these requirements is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating documents 

contain preflight and post flight checks, as well as scheduled maintenance in accordance with 

the manufacturer’s instructions. Therefore, the FAA finds that adherence to the petitioner’s 

operating documents and the conditions and limitations below, describing the requirements 

for maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping, are sufficient to ensure that safety is not 

adversely affected. Accordingly, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted.

Additionally, the petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 43 Maintenance, preventive 

maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration. Relief from part 43 is not necessary because the 

UAS does not have a U.S. airworthiness certificate and is not foreign registered.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR part 61 Certification: Pilots, Flight 

Instructors, and Ground Instructors, the FAA finds that relief from § 61.113(a) Private pilot 

privileges and limitations is necessary for the petitioner to operate its UAS. Although Section 

333 provides limited statutory flexibility relative to 49 USC § 44704 for the purposes of 

airworthiness certification, it does not provide flexibility relative to other sections of title 49. 

The FAA does not possess the authority to exempt from the statutory requirement to hold an 

airman certificate, as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711. For further information see Exemption 

No. 11110 (Trimble Navigation, Ltd). 

The FAA is also requiring a pilot certificate for UAS operations because pilots holding an 

FAA issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to security screening by the 

Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously 

determined by the Secretary, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates 

security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 333.

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

the petitioner’s proposed operation. Under current regulations, civil operations for 

compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate, per 14 CFR part 61. 

Based on the private pilot limitations, in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR 

§ 61.113(a), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for 

compensation or hire. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial 

(Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the 
8

Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to 

persons or property on the ground.

The petitioner proposes to operate with a pilot who does not possess any FAA issued pilot 

certificate. This is similar to other petitions for exemption previously filed with and 

considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11109 (Clayco, Inc.) and 11170 (Viafield), 

the FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation and determined it does not differ 

significantly from these grants of exemption. The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over 

controlled access property with the permission of the property owner/controller, while also 

limiting property access to consenting participants while operations are underway. Given: 1) 

the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Clayco and

Viafield, 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those 

of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062, Astraeus Aerial], and 3) the 

airmanship skills necessary to operate in the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not necessarily correlate to 

the airmanship skills required for the petitioner’s proposed operations. Therefore, the FAA 

finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate 

is appropriate for the proposed operations.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the petitioner has proposed 

pilot qualification criteria and a training program. The conditions and limitations below 

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

the petitioner’s training program, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner 

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

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

and structures. The petitioner is responsible for assessing its operations and identifying any 

additional skills required to operate safely under normal and abnormal conditions. Normal 

condition skills may include the ability to maintain altitude, maintain visual line of sight

(VLOS), and navigational skills. Abnormal condition skills may include the ability to avoid 

obstacles, avoid air traffic, and respond to loss of link.

In conclusion, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a current private pilot certificate and a thirdclass airman medical certificate, and who has completed the petitioner’s flight training

requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the 

safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground. Upon consideration of the overall 

safety case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds 

that granting the relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) is warranted. The FAA also finds that relief 

from 14 CFR § 61.113(b) is not necessary. Additionally, relief from 14 CFR § 61.133(a) is 

not necessary.

Regarding the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CFR part 67 Medical standards and 

certification, the FAA has determined that the petitioner must comply with the appropriate 

medical standards for a private airman certificate as described above. Therefore, relief from 

part 67 is not granted.
9

The petitioner has indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a UAV System 

Observer, but not a dedicated visual observer (VO). In Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the 

FAA agreed with the petitioner’s proposed use of a VO and required a VO to be used in all 

UAS operations. The UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the 

VO, and the VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It 

is the responsibility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual limitations and limit operations 

of the UA to distances within the visual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the 

VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062, the 

FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for the VO and the requirement for a 

VO is included in the conditions and limitations below. 

The FAA considers the PIC to be designated for the duration of the flight. Therefore, per the 

conditions and limitations below, the PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot 

transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight.

UAS Operating Parameters

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

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

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

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

sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is 

granted. The petitioner is still required to ensure that its aircraft is in an airworthy condition –

based on compliance with the operating documents prior to every flight, and as stated in the 

conditions and limitations below.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b) Civil aircraft airworthiness, the PIC of the UAS is 

responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. The FAA, as 

in grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, has determined that the operating documents 

include procedures to be used prior to each flight that can ensure compliance with § 91.7(b). 

The petitioner is required to ensure that its aircraft is in a condition for safe flight – based on

compliance with the operating documents– prior to every flight.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9 (b) and (c), Civil aircraft flight 

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

Certifications required, the FAA has previously determined in Grant of Exemption 11062, 

Astraeus Aerial, that relief from these sections is not necessary. Relevant materials may be 

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

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

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

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

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

require that individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Furthermore, the FAA is 

requiring that the petitioner’s PICs possess at least a private pilot’s certificate. Also, this 
10

exemption will require that training operations only be conducted during dedicated training 

sessions. The FAA finds that safety will not be adversely impacted if the petitioner follows 

the training outlined in the operating documents. As such, the FAA finds that the petitioner 

can conduct its operations without the requested relief from § 91.109.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes, the 

petitioner did not specify the paragraph(s) in 14 CFR § 91.119 from which it requires relief. 

Relief from § 91.119(a), which requires operating at an altitude that allows a safe emergency 

landing if a power unit fails, is not granted. The FAA expects the petitioner to be able to 

perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface if a 

power unit fails. Relief from § 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, 

because the petitioner states that operations will be conducted over sparsely populated areas. 

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes below 

400 feet above ground level (AGL). Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an 

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

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. Section 91.119(c) 

provides that in operations over water or sparsely populated areas, the aircraft may not be 

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The petitioner states 

that it will operate pursuant to the following, self-imposed restrictions related to § 91.119: 

• Petitioner will conduct operations over private or controlled access property with the 

permission of the landowner; 

• Petitioner will conduct operations in Class G airspace, typically over water;

• Petitioner will avoid operations over populated areas and stay within the “sterile area”; 

• Petitioner will limit operations to Visual Flight Rules Meteorological Conditions 

(VMC) and daylight hours; 

• Petitioner will ensure aircraft operations remain within VLOS of the PIC and VO and 

will be visually monitored at all times; 

• Petitioner will operate no closer than 5nautical miles from an airport

The petitioner proposes to operate within 1640 feet (500 meters) laterally from the pilot and 

approximately 16 feet (5 meters) from any structures. As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 

to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA-2014-0507), operations conducted closer than 500 feet 

to the ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or 

objects that would not be possible without additional relief. In open areas this requires the 

UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. PIC, VO, 

operator trainees or essential persons). Therefore, the FAA is requiring that prior to 

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

persons) must remain at appropriate distances. 

The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 5 pounds (2.2 kilograms). If 

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

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

persons afforded such protection. The operator must also ensure that nonparticipating persons 
11

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such 

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. When 

considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concern is the safety of those 

nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer 

than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the property owner/controller grants 

such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects and determines that it does not present an undue hazard. 

Operations closer than 500 feet to essential persons (i.e. PIC, VO, trainees, etc.) are permitted 

when operationally necessary. However at no time can operations be conducted so close to 

present an undue hazard to the essential persons per § 91.119(a).

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR 

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

minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UASspecific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR 

conditions. The petitioner’s reference to this section is its commitment to land the UAS with 

a minimum of 5 minutes of battery power remaining. The operating documents include a 

detailed description of two separate battery warning levels provide warning levels for battery 

voltage of the flight system. These procedures provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant 

the relief from§ 91.151(a) in accordance with the conditions and limitations below. 

The FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) reviews all proposed UAS operations and evaluates 

the safety of these operations relative to the requested airspace through the existing COA 

process. The majority of current UAS operations occurring in the NAS are being coordinated 

through Air Traffic Control (ATC) by the issuance of a COA. This process not only makes 

local ATC facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATC the ability to consider 

airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the operator to 

request a NOTAM, which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS 

activities being conducted. The conditions and limitations below prescribe the requirement 

for the petitioner to obtain an ATO-issued COA.

While the petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude 

reporting equipment and use, the FAA is not granting relief because the petitioner is required 

to abide by the ATC COA referenced in the paragraph above.. Section 91.215(b)(3) includes 

provisions for aircraft not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or 

which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed. For UAS not equipped 

with a transponder, sub-paragraph (d)(3) authorizes requests for ATC authorized deviations 

made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time 
12

periods specified. For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the 

request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation. The FAA finds 

adherence to the conditions and limitations below, as well as compliance with the ATC-issued 

COA, will ensure safety. Therefore, relief from § 91.215 is not granted relief. Consequently, 

relief from § 91.413 ATC transponder tests and inspections is also not granted.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and 

reduced emissions achieved using a UAS with the specifications described by the petitioner 

and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater 

proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find 

that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

The following table summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding the relief sought by the 

petitioner:

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

Part 21 Relief not necessary

Part 43 Relief not necessary

Part 45 Relief not granted

47.16 Relief not granted

61.113(a) and (b)

Relief granted from 61.113(a) with 

conditions and limitations; relief not 

necessary from 61.113(b)

61.133(a) Relief not necessary

Part 67 Relief not granted

91.7(a) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.9(b) and (c) Relief not necessary

91.109 Relief not necessary

91.119

Relief not granted for paragraph (a); 

paragraph (b) relief not applicable; 

paragraph (c) relief granted with 

conditions and limitations; paragraph (d) 

relief not applicable

91.121 Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.151 Relief granted for paragraph (a)(1), day, 

with conditions and limitations

91.203(a) and (b) Relief not necessary

91.215 Relief not granted

91.319 Relief not applicable

91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and 
13

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Sky-Futures USA, Inc. 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), 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to 

operate a UAS to conduct oil and gas platform inspections. This exemption is subject to the 

conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Sky-Futures USA, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the 

operator.

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

operating documents: 

1. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual – Sky-Futures UK Operations v. 2.3.1

2. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Pilot Operators Manual 1 POM1/Part B

3. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Sky-Futures UK Operations Part C –

Authorised Operations

4. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual - Operator Training Manual Part D

5. Sky-Futures UAV Operations Manual – UAV Maintenance and Servicing Part E 

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

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

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

described in the operating documents which has four rotors in a quadrotor 

configuration weighing less than 5 pounds: AscTec Falcon 8 UAS. Proposed 

operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this 

grant.

limitations

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

limitations

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations

91.413 Relief not granted

91.417(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and 

limitations
14

2) UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting aerial inspection of 

controlled-access oil and gas facilities over land and water.

3) The UA may not be flown at an airspeed exceeding 29 knots (15m/s).

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

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

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

5) The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command 

(PIC) at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any 

device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman 

medical certificate.

6) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prescribed in the operating documents. 

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

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

permitted to operate the camera or other instruments.

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

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

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

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

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

as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its 

operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and 

present updated and revised documents to the Administrator upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or 

revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the 

operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or 

revisions to the operating documents.

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

flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, 
15

the UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground 

Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and 

alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.

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

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

a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an 

entry in the aircraft records.

11) The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the 

operating documents.

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

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

13) The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

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

alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the 

aircraft records. This includes total time in service, description of work accomplished, 

and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.

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

Bulletins. 

15) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.

16) The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current thirdclass medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements 

specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot 

certificate.

17) The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s 

qualification criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a 

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

evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from 

persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency 

must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The PIC must ensure 

that the VO is trained appropriately in order to fulfill her or her duties. A record of 

training must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. 

Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, 

and experience-building) are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, 
16

proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight 

operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with 

appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

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

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

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

19) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as 

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

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

accordance with a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), as required by the operator’s 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The letter of agreement between the 

petitioner and the airport management must be made available to the Administrator 

upon request. 

20) 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.

21) If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents.

22) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in 

accordance with the operating documents.

23) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the 

intended landing point and land the UA with 5 minutes battery power remaining.

24) All operations shall be conducted in compliance with the Air Traffic Organizations 

(ATO) issued certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any 

operations under this grant of exemption. All operations conducted outside the U.S. 

12 nm limit, must be conducted within airspace managed by the U.S. and within the 

U.S. Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary.

25) The operator must obtain an ATO issued COA prior to conducting any operations 

under this grant of exemption. This COA will require the operator to request a 

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.
17

26) All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be 

as large as practicable.

27) Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and 

control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

28) 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 UAS is operating. These 

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

official upon request.

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

and activities at all times.

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

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

32) Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or;

b) The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles, or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles, or structures has granted permission 

and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those 

objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and;

c) Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do not 

present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

33) All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

34) 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 
18

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

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

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

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

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

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

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

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service