Exhibit D 
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 operator 
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; 

and 
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." 
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; and 
(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. 
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. 
p

p

condition" 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, 
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 in 
Discussion of Public Comments: 

A summary ofthe petition was published in the Federal Register on June 26,2014 (79 FR 

36378). Eighty-six comments were received. 

Of the 86 comments received, including eight from associations, 50 comments supported the · 

exemption request, 22 opposed, and 14 were neutral. The petition received comments on the 

following topics: economic impact, UAS, PIC, operational capabilities, airspace, privacy, 

sense and avoid, and data link. 

Comments supporting the exemption request came from individuals and industry groups, 

including the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Aerospace 

Industries Association (AlA), the National Association ofRealtors, the News Media 

Coalition, and the National Press Photographers Association. Supporting comments cited the 

petitioner's intent to use controlled access airspace, licensed airmen, and preflight safety 

briefings, as welt as the economic benefits ofUAS. 

Several trade organizations submitted letters to the docket, expressing various issues and 

concerns with the Astraeus petition for exemption, including the Air Line Pilots Association 

International (ALPA), the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), and the 

United States trang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA). 

ALPA expressed concern regarding certain conditions outlined in Astraeus' petition. ALPA 

notes that the proposed operations will be for "compensation or hire," and ALPA believes that 

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, a current 2nd Class FAA 

Medical ceLtificate should be required for a UAS pilot operating an aircraft for compensation 

or hire commercial operations as is required in the NAS today. NAAA and USHPA also 

commented on pilot qualification. Specifically, 

NAAA believes that the Part 61 regulations currently in effect do not address the licensing of 

pilots of an unmanned aircraft used for commercial purposes. We believe it is necessary for 

the FAA to evaluate pilots of these aircraft on their knowledge and skills in UA V operations. 

Requirements for this licensing should be developed along with other rigorous rules and 

qualifications to ensure safe integration of the unmanned aircraft into the NAS. 

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

private and commercial certificates, as weJI as the separation of Astraeus' proposed operations 

from other manned operations. Additional details are available in the ensuing analysis of this 

issue with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113. 

ALPA commented that although the anticipated operation is expected to occur below 400 feet 

above the surface, the petition also makes reference to operations 200 feet above structures of 

unspecified and therefore unlimited height. This would put the aircraft at the same altitude 
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. 
power alone. USHPA commented that it believes with proper notification of time and place, 

along with other considerations, safety can be maintained. USHPA's notification concerns 

wiH be addressed by the conditions and limitations that will require an Air Traffic 

Organization issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to address airspace 

requirements and notification. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating 

parameters below. 

Related to the operation ofthe UA within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot and/or 

observer, USHP A believes operation of any UA in three-dimensional space presents unique 

challenges in accurately determining position in relation to stationary or mobile objects. 

USHP A comments that utilization of an observer for operational redundancy is prudent and 

encouraged, but should not be considered a viable replacement for the pilot in command. 

USHP A believes that the identification of navigational requirements and accurately conveying 

them to the pilot in command would not be provided with adequate precision or sufficient 

response time in a crisis situation and recommends that dual control systems be utilized as a 

redundant safety measure common in commercial aviation environments. The FAA notes 

USHPA's concerns; additional detail is provided in the analysis ofthe UAS below. 

USHPA also asserts that manned flight should always maintain right ofway over all UA 

operations. The FAA agrees and has incorporated this into the conditions and limitations of 

this exemption. 

Several comments noted that small UAS can be hard to see during the day, due to their small 

size and factors such as sun glare. Commenters also noted concerns with regard to weather 

and wind conditions affecting operations. The FAA addressed these concerns by adding 

operating restrictions in the conditions and limitations regarding stand-off distance from clouds, altitude restrictions, and operating distance from non-participating personnel. Further 

detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters below. 

The petition received several comments suggesting that UAS operated under this exemption 

should have the ability to monitor and communicate with other aircraft or install transponders, 

or that the UAS should not operate until they can sense and avoid other aircraft. One 

commenter suggested that the FAA should implement a buffer between these UAS operations and manned operations, while another raised concern with near misses with other aircraft. 

Two comments noted that UAS are susceptible to accidents and GPS jamming. The FAA 

believes the limitations tmder which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 

400 feetAGL) and the UAS emergency procedures as outlined in the petitioner's FOPM and MPTOM are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect 

safety. Further information is contained in the analysis ofthe UAS below. 

One commenter suggested that the FAA should require testing of software and systems prior 

to operation, including testing to RTCA standards. The FAA believes the preflight checks 

discussed in the analysis of the UAS operating parameters are sufficient to mitigate this risk, and addresses this in the conditions and limitations below. 
surveillance of the petitioner's UAS operations. The FAA expects operators to comply with 

its regulations and the terms of the exemption. The jurisdictional FSDO will be the primary 

office responsible for oversight of the operations. 

The FAA received several comments that integrating UAS operations via a broadly applicable 

rule was a more suitable method than the exemption process, and that industries other than the 

motion picture industry should be allowed to participate. Section 333 provides interim 

authority to the S.ecretary of Transportation, which facilitates limited, controlled UAS operations pl'ior to the completion of a UAS regulatory structure. The FAA is using its 

exemption process to facilitate implementation of Section 333 and to address FAA ndes that 

would be applicable to the proposed operations. We have received and are considering 

exemption petitions from a broad array of industries and applications for this technology. 

Additionally, the FAA is engaged in a rulemaking process that will allow broader applications 

ofUAS operations. 

Two commenters suggested this exemption process should be available to anybody, regardless 

of organizational size or resources. The FAA will consider any request for exemption 

submitted to it, no matter the source. 

One commenter stated that meaningful public review of the petition was not possible because 

some of the documents submitted by the petitioner are confidentiaL The FAA routinely 

considers confidential materials in its exemption process. The FAA reviewed and considered 

the petitioner's information in its analysis of the petition. 

The petition received several comments on privacy. A commenter expressed concern that the 

UAS could be used for spying. Other commenters stated that there are strong pdvacy 

regulations in place. Specifically, a commenter states that the petitioner addressed privacy 

issues in its request by mandating that all filming be within a contained environment with all 

participants fully aware that they are being filmed. The petitioner states that all UAS flights 

will occur over private or controlled access property with the property owner's prior consent 

and knowledge, and that only people who have consented or otherwise have agreed to be in 

the area where filming will take place will be filmed. The FAA notes that the terms of this 

grant of exemption are consistent with the petitioner's proposal in this area. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

Unmanned aircraft system CUAS) 

Regarding the petitioner's requested relief from 14 CFR part 21 Certification procedures for 

products and parts, the FAA finds that, based on the limited size, weight, operating 

conditions, design safety features, and the imposed conditions and limitations, the petitioner 

has demonstrated that its operations would not adversely affect safety compared to similar 
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, 
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 UAS 
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.