1 Exemption No. 11172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

BLUE-CHIP UNMANNED AERIAL SOLUTIONS, INC. dba BLUE-CHIP

UAS

for an exemption from part 21, Subpart H; §§ 45.23(b), 91.7(a), 91.103, 91.119(c), 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0787

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated September 30, 2014, and an amended letter dated November 20, 2014, 1 Mr. Clint P. Stevens, Executive Director and Co-Founder, Blue-Chip Unmanned Ae rial Solutions, Inc. (Blue-Chip UAS) petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from part 21 Subpart H; §§ 45.23(b),91.7(a), 91.103, 91.119(c), 91.151(a), 91.40 5(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, C ode of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow operation of the Sensur ion Magpie MP-1 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of supporting the agriculture , oil and gas, aerial photography and wildlife preservation industries.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, a nd airworthiness approvals. Section 45.23(b) prescribes that when marks in clude only the Roman capita l letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, re stricted, or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally cert ificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, co ckpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more

1 The petitioner withdrew its initial requested relief from §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133 (a)(1)(ii), 91.109(a), and

91.121.

AFS-15-015-E2 than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restr icted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition.

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with al l available information concerning that flight, to include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in th e vicinity of an airpor t, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the plan ned flight cannot be completed, and any known tra ffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway leng ths at airports of intended us e, and the foll owing takeoff and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance da ta is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specifi ed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of air port elevation and runw ay slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

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 cit y, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altit ude 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 ab ove the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any pe rson, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, an d 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 eac h person operating th e helicopter complies3 with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA;

and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-cont rol aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions unless (consid ering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, (1) during the day, to fly after th at for at least 30 minutes [emphasis added].

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft inspected as pr escribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescrib ed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any pers on from operating an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive ma intenance, 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 that no person may operate any aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an

airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescrib e, in pertinent part, that—

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the follo wing 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 (inc luding the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data ac ceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

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

(iii)The signature and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for

return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:4 (i) The total time in service of the airfra me, each engine, each propeller, and each

rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited part s of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii)The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft that are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the airc raft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection progr am under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airw orthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the met hod of compliance, the AD or safety

directive number and revi sion date. If the AD or sa fety directive involves recurring action, the time and date wh en the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9( d) for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engine s, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the fo llowing records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shal l be retained and

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a regist ered owner or operator under § 43.11 shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to

service.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner proposes to operate the Sensuri on Magpie MP-1 for the purpose of supporting the agriculture, oil and gas, aerial photography and wildlife preser vation industries. See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations.

The petition and the following supporting documen tation are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents: 1) Blue-Chip Flight Planning Document, 2) Blue-Chip Summary of Changes and Revised Exemption Request 3) Sensurion Aerospace Operator Manual Magp ie MP-1 Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Version A-1,5 4) Sensurion Aerospace Maintenance Manual Magpie MP-1 Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Version A-2.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2014 (79 FR 62510). The FAA received comments from 3 organizations regarding the notice of petition for exemption. The Small UAV Coalition (hereafter the Coalition) supporte d Blue-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, Inc.’s petition. The Air Line Pilots Associati on, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.

In support of the petition, the Small UAV Coaliti on (Coalition) states th e petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler groups operating similar aircraft.

The Coalition states 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 fo r 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 adop ting artificial distin ctions among unmanned aerial vehicles based on commercial and noncommercial operations. The Coalition suggested FAA safety regulations be proportionate to the risks posed by the par ticular proposed UAS operations by distinguishing between UAS. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS used for defense and aerospace purposes. The Coalition as serted 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 factors 2 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, altitude of its UAS, and pilot training and experience. The Coalition maintained that the pe titioner’s proposed operations satisf y the seven factors in section 333 and include several additional mitigating factor s to ensure the safety and security of the proposed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized th e FAA must evaluate each factor within

the context of th e petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA should grant relief from the requirement to hold an airman’s certificate, but stated that at a minimu m the FAA should provide an exception from part 61 and approve training and tes ting regiments that pertain to UAS commercial operations pertinent to the aircraft and operation propose d. The Coalition also asserted that Congress

intended the section 333 national se curity criterion to focus on the operation rather than on the pilot and that shifting that focu s imposes an unnecessary burden.

In response, as discussed in the grant of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 11110), neither section 333 nor the FAA’s authority to exempt from its regulations found in

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 popu lated areas, and operation with in 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; ...”6 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. Th e FAA notes that under this exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots hold ing private certificates and it will be able to use the training program it proposed . Finally, the FAA does not ag ree that relying on the pilot certificate for a national security finding poses an unnecessary burden becau se 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 VLOS of the PIC and that the petitioner’s pr oposal to operate the

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 ope ration 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 visual observe r complements the PICs capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks (e.g., maneuvering the aircraft clos e to actors and actresses and othe r objects on a film set). The VO provides an additional le vel of operational safety.

The Coalition also asserts that th e petitioner’s pledge to avoid c ongested areas, as well as its procedures for notifying airport ope rators of any planned operations within 5 miles of an airport, are adequate to ensure safe UAS operations. Ther efore, the Coalition argues, additional and more stringent requirements imposed by the FAA, such as obtaining a prior agreement with airport management, are unwarranted.

ALPA expresses concern regardi ng several aspects of the petiti on. ALPA notes the petitioner’s reference to operations conducted within “limited or predetermined” sterile areas is not defined, nor does the petitioner detail procedures for c ontrolling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically, ALPA states “there must be means bot h to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazar d 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 AGL) are sufficient m itigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety.

Regarding the petitioner’s statement that the PI C and observer will be able to communicate by voice or text, ALPA notes that text messagi ng could have an unknown latency extending to

several minutes. ALPA also states that the pilot and observer should be able to maintain a visual observation of the aircraft and area of operati on when using voice comm unication. NAAA states UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the most minimal distance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual observer

communications.

ALPA asserts the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “F lammability Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Airc raft Power Usage (January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for known risks should be7 addressed. The referenced study was primarily co nducted to determine how certain battery cells

react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Given the si ze 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 comments 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-aways or other scenarios. The FAA agrees and caref ully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s ope rating 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 F AA also finds that the operating documents have incorporated safety procedures to be followed by all operational participan ts should a C2 failure

occur. Further detail is contained in the analysis of the UAS below.

ALPA also notes that the petiti oner’s proposed operations are fo r “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 aircra ft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA asserts a current

second-class airman medical certificate shoul d 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 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 trai ning required by holders of both private and

commercial certificates. Additional details are availa ble in the ensuing analysis of this issue with regards to 14 CFR § 61.113.

ALPA opposes an exemption from the pre-fli ght action requirements of § 91.103. In addition, although the petitioner did not request an exem ption from § 91.113, ALPA notes the petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid re quirements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. This comment is addresse d in detail in the FAA analysis below.

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 c ontrol capability, fail-safe systems, backups and specific, validated procedures for system and equi pment failures must be in place. As stated in the petitioner’s response to this comment the Sens urion Magpie MP-1 vehicle is equipped with a

barometric altimeter and withdrew its request for exemption to this section.8 Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argues that using batter ies as the only source of an aircraft’s power is a s ubstantial shift from traditional methods of propulsion, and requires further research to determine best safety practic es. This comment is addressed in detail below.

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposes the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with esta blished aircraft maintenance and recordkeeping requirements. ALPA states the UAS should comp ly with the same leve l of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. Th is comment is addressed in detail below.

ALPA also expresses concern that the petitioner’s waiver request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of the sa me general type. ALPA states this results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires each operator secure a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) wh ich covers specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS in tegration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

ALPA also expressed concern th at the petition makes no refere nce to compliance with, or a request for waiver from, 14 CFR 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and qualifications , which defines the requirements for flight instructors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instruction require d for the certificates or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to ope rate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated flight instructor because the instruction is not being provided for a certificate or rating listed in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require su ch flight instruction because § 61.31( l ) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a categ ory and class rating. Instruction provided toward obtaini ng the pilot certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certifi cated flight instructor

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-le vel airspace, and ther efore clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of their operati ons. NAAA stated that seei ng and avoiding other

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone of agricultural safety, and 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 Airman (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 alwa ys yield right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certifica tion 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, st robe 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 visual obs erver and well clear of any lowflying manned aircraft. As di scussed in greater detail be low, Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine,9 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 certific ated by the FAA.

Concerns raised in this comment section are a ddressed in the FAA’s analysis below and where necessary appropriate risk mitig ations are implemented through the conditions and limitations on the operations.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has organized its analysis into four sections: (1) UAS, (2) UAS pilot in command (PIC), (3) UAS operating parameters, and (4) public interest.

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

The petitioner requested relief fr om 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criter ia provided in Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC § 44704, and in consideration of the si ze, weight, speed, and limited operating area

associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secret ary of Transportation has determined that

this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Because the Secretary of Transportation has

determined that no airworthine ss is required the requested reli ef from 14 CFR part 21, and any

associated noise certification and tes ting of part 36, is not necessary.

Manned aircraft conducting aerial surveying ope rations can weigh 5,000 to 7,000 lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard pi lot, in addition to other onboar d crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UA has a maximum weight of 10.5 lbs. The pilot and cr ew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight a nd construction with impact absorbent materials significantly reduces the potential fo r harm to persons or damage to property in the event of an

incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew duri ng an incident or accident is

eliminated with the use of a UAS fo r the aerial surveying operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. The Sensurion Magpie UA carries no fuel and therefore the risk of fi re following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operat e safely after experien cing certain in-flight contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot sy stem to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GP S or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. These sa fety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft holding a re stricted airworthiness certificate performing a similar operation.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b), Display of marks, because the petitioner’s UAS will not be certificated under 14 CFR § 21.191, a grant of exemption for 14 CFR § 45.23(b) is not necessary. The petitio ner’s UA must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, a nd have identification (N-Number) markings in10 accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. The pe titioner indicates it will comply with the requirement in § 45.29(f) that markings mu st be as large as practicable.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from §§ 91.401-417, the FAA has determined that relief from the following secti ons is required: 14 CFR §§ 91.405 (a ) Maintenance required, 91.407(a) (1) Operation after maintenance, preve ntive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 91.409(a) (1) and (2) Inspections, and 91.417( a) and (b) Maintenance records. The FAA has carefully evaluated the petitioner’s request and determined that cause for granting the exemption is warranted. The FAA notes that the petitioner’s operating documents cont ain preflight checks

for the UAS. The FAA finds that adherence to the operating documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to en sure that safety is not adversely affected. In accordance with the petiti oner’s UAS maintenance, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 9 1.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) is warranted subject to the conditions and limitations below.

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC)

Although the petitioner amended its petition withdrawing the orig inal request for relief under § 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations , the need for an exemption under § 61.113(a) and (b) is necessary as the petitioner proposed it s PIC hold a private versus

commercial airman certificate.

Under current regulations, civi l operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certific ate per 14 CFR part § 61. Based on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 § CFR 61.113( a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot

certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only

incidental to a business or em ployment. However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

The FAA has analyzed the petitioner’s proposed operation, considered the comments to the petition on this subject, and determined it doe s not differ significantly from the situation described in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Astraeu s). The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over property over which they have secu red written permission from the property owner/controller. Given: 1) the similar nature of the petitioner’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus, 2) the para llel nature of private pilot aerona utical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements [ref: Exemp tion No. 11062], and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated p ilot would not correlate to the ai rmanship skills necessary for the petitioner’s proposed operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot

certificate and a third-class airman medical certi ficate is appropriate fo r the proposed operations.

The petitioner indicates in addition to its private pilot certificate and its requirements, the petitioner will require the PIC to complete all the training and qualifications in the operating documents including: 1) the manuf acturer’s initial certif ication training, 2) the petitioner’s UAS11 qualification program, which includes 50 operationa l hours in petitioner’s UAS, and 3) a written test and “check ride” before receiving a PIC rati ng. The manufacturer’s training includes a variety of tasks which could relate to the spec ific conditions and limitations below such as the ability to maneuver near but maintain specific distances from persons and property, respond to unexpected emergencies, or avoid objects as well as the ability to avoid potential conflicts with

manned aircraft. The FAA has determined that th is training and qualifica tions are adequate to practice and build proficiency in these skills. 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 ma y include the ability to maintain altitude, maintain VLOS, and navigational skills. Abnor mal condition skills may in clude the ability to avoid obstacles, avoid air traffi c, and respond to loss of link.

The FAA finds that a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third-class airman medical certificate, and who has completed petitioner’s training and qualific ations and logged their flight hours in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), can conduct the proposed operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NA S. Upon consideration of the overall safety case presented by the petitioner and the concerns of the commenters, the FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR§ 61.113(a) and (b), provided the conditions and limitations outlined below, is warranted. Furthermore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.133(a) is not necessary for petitioner to conduct its operations. The FAA finds that at a minimum, the flight-hour requirements propos ed by petitioner are appr opriate to practice and build proficiency in the skills necessary to safe ly conduct the petitioner’s proposed operations.

The FAA also finds that prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations would satisfy th is requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducte d under the grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time. Duri ng training, proficiency, and experi ence-building fli ghts the PIC is required to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

The petitioner may determine through its safety a ssessment that additional hours are necessary to address all potential flight hazards and requisite airmanship skills. Consequently, the FAA has

included in the conditions and limitations below that the petitioner may not permit any PIC to operate unless that PIC is able to safely opera te the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, in cluding evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate dist ances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures.

The petitioner has also indicated it will supplement its proposed operation(s) with a VO. The VO must complete all training contained in the pe titioner’s operating documents. The conditions and limitations below stipulate that the PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating documents. Addition ally, as discussed in Exemption No. 11109 to Clayco, Inc., there are no regul atory requirements for visual observer medical certificates.

Although a medical certificate is not required for a VO, the UA must never be operated beyond the actual visual capabilities of the VO, and th e VO and PIC must have the ability to maintain VLOS with the UA at all times. It is the responsib ility of the PIC to be aware of the VO’s visual12 limitations and limit operations of th e UA to distances within the vi sual capabilities of both the PIC and VO. Moreover, the VO will not be operating the aircraft. Therefore, as in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus, the FAA does not consider a medical certificate necessary for

the VO.

UAS Operating Parameters

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.7(a) is nece ssary. 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 it s operating documents to be a sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. Therefore, relief from § 91.7(a) is granted. Th e petitioner is still required

to ensure that its aircraft is in an airworthy condition – ba sed on compliance with the operating documents prior to every flight, and as stat ed in the conditions and limitations below.

Additionally, in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.7(b) , the PIC of the UAS is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight . The FAA finds that the PIC can comply with this requirement.

Regarding the petitioner’s request ed relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 , Preflight Action , the petitioner requires each PIC to take certain actions before flight to ensure the safety of the flight. The exemption is needed because the pilot will take se parate preflight actions as referenced in the operating documents. Although there will be no appr oved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual available, the FAA believes that the petitioner ca n comply with the other applicable requirements in 14 CFR § 91.103(b)(2). The procedures outlin ed in the operating documents address the FAA’s concerns regarding compliance with § 91.103( b). The PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight batte ry requirements, landings, and ta keoff distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. The FAA has imposed stricter requirements with regard to visibility and distance from clouds; this is to keep the UA from departing the VLOS.

The FAA also notes the risks associated with sun glare; the FAA believes that the PIC’s and VO’s ability to still see other air traffic, combined with the PIC’s ability to initiate a return-tohome sequence, are sufficient mitigations in th is respect. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions in his or her preflight procedures . Therefore, the FAA finds that exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103 is not necessary.

Regarding petitioner’s request ed relief from § 91.119(c), Over other than congested areas , relief is necessary because the aircra ft will be operated at altit udes below 250 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an alt itude of 500 feet above the su rface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the airc raft may not be operated cl oser than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The peti tioner states that it will operate pursuant to the following:

 the UA will not operate within 250 ft. to a ny improved roads, vehicles, persons or structures (other than those being inspect ed as part of the flight operation).13  All objects/hazards will be identified and geo-loca ted prior to flight to be utilized within the flight planning stages.

 All operations will be conducted in rural en vironments and outside of city limits.

 All operations will be conducted over pr ivate or controlled access property.

 Permission from property owner/controller wi ll be obtained prior to the beginning of every flight.

 Petitioner will file a NOTAM for each flight.

The petitioner proposes to operate within 250 f eet from non-participating persons, vessels,

vehicles and structures. Howe ver, § 91.119(c) requires that airc raft operate no closer than 500 feet to these persons or objects. As disc ussed 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 re quires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essent ial 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 pers ons) must remain at appropriate distances.

The FAA has also considered that the UA will weigh about 11 pounds. If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonpartic ipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate clos er than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must also ensure th at 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 mu st cease immediately. When considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concer n is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operatio ns may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the prope rty owner/controller gran ts 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 pe rsons (i.e. PIC, VO, trainees, etc.), are permitted when operationally necessary. However at no ti me can operations be conducted so close to present an undue hazard to the essential persons per § 91.119(a).

The petitioner proposed notifying the appropriate agency if the operatio n of the UAS will be within the boundaries of Class E and G airspace . The FAA Air Traffic Organization reviews all proposed UAS operations and evaluates the safety of these operations relative to the requested airspace through the existing Cer tificate of Waiver or Author ization (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 CO A. 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 al erting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being conducted. The conditions and limitations below pr escribe the requirement for the petitioner to

obtain an ATO-issued COA.14 Thus, the FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is warranted provided adherence to the procedures in the operating documents and th e FAA’s additional conditions and limitations

outlined below.

Regarding the petitioner’s reque sted relief from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR

conditions , prior relief has been grante d for manned aircraft to operate at less than prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, a nd 10650. In addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The petitioner’s only reference to this secti on is its commitment to land the UAS with 10% battery energy remaining. The manufacturer’s recommendations in the operating documents indicate that the UA should normally return to home with 20-30% battery remaining. The operating documents include mission planning instruc tions that require all flights be planned to reach the intended landing point and land with at least twenty minutes of battery power in reserve. Therefore, the FAA finds cause to prohibit the PIC from be ginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditio ns) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with twenty minutes of battery power remaining.

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, prior relief has been gr anted for manned aircraft to opera te at less than the prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS-specific relief has been granted in Exemption No s. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The UAS provides battery power remaining in per cent and battery time remaining in minutes and seconds to the PIC. The petitioner plans to meet the intent by maintain ing no less than10 percent of remaining battery power which is adequate to return the UAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere in its operating area. In the event that the Magpie UAS should run out of power, it would simply land within the access controlled operating area . Given the limitations on its proposed operations and the location of those proposed operations, a reduced minimum power reserve for flight in daylight VFR conditions is reasonable. Thes e factors provide the FAA with sufficient reason to grant the relief from 14 CF R 91.151(a) as requested in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, that prohibit the PIC from beginning a Magpie flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) th ere is enough power to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruisi ng speed, to fly after that until reaching10% (percent) of remaining battery power.

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The en hanced safety achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significan tly greater proportions, car rying 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 FAA also finds that UAS provide an additional tool for the agricultural, oil and gas, aerial photogra phy, and wildlife preservation industries, adding a greater degree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned

aircraft.15 The table below summarizes the FAA’s determinations regarding regulatory relief:

Relief considered (14 CFR) FAA determination (14 CFR)
21 Subpart H Relief not necessary
45.23(b) Relief not necessary
61.113(a) and (b) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.7(a) Relief granted from 91.7(a), with conditions

and limitations
91.103 Relief not necessary

91.119 Relief granted from paragraph (c) with

conditions and limitations
91.151(a) Relief granted from 91.151(a)(1), day, with

conditions and limitations
91.405(a) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.407(a)(1) Relief granted with conditions and limitations
91.409(a)(2) Relief granted with conditions and limitations;
relief from 91.409(a)(1 ) also granted with

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

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 c ontained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Blue-Chi p Unmanned Aerial Soluti ons Inc. dba as BlueChip UAS, is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to opera te an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for the purpose of conducting operations for the agriculture , oil and gas, aerial p hotography and wildlife preservation industries. This exemption is subjec t to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Relative to this grant of exemption, Blue-Chi p Unmanned Aerial Soluti ons Inc. (Blue-Chip UAS), is hereafter referred to as the operator.

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

1) Blue-Chip Flight Planning Document, 2) Blue-Chip Summary of Changes and Revised Exemption Request 3) Sensurion Aerospace Operator Manual Magp ie MP-1 Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Version A-1,16 4) Sensurion Aerospace Maintenance Manual Magpie MP-1 Small Unmanned Aircraft System, Version A-2.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions an d limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1) Operations authorized by this grant of ex emption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents which is a fixed-wing aircraft weighing less than 10.5 pounds: Sensurion Aerospace Magpie MP-1 Sm all UAS. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2) UAS operations under this exemption are limited to conducting operations for the purpose of supporting the agri culture, oil and gas, aer ial photography and wildlife preservation industries.

3) The UA may not be flown at an indi cated airspeed exceeding 68 knots.

4) The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate.

5) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC a nd 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 verba lly 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 dura tion of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform th e functions prescribed in the operating

documents.

6) 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.

7) The operating documents and this grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon reques t. If a discrepancy exists

between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and lim itations 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 ex tension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that a ny update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an17 amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions ar ise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8) Prior to each flight, the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection rev eals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed

and the UAS is found to be in a condition fo r 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.

9) Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or a lterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight cri tical component, must undergo a functional test flight. The PI C who conducts the func tional test flight must make an entry

in the aircraft records.

10) The pre-flight inspection section in the operating documents must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already

covered in the relevant sectio ns of the operating documents.

11) The operator must follow the UAS manufact urer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspecti on, and life limit requirements.

12) The operator must carry out its maintena nce, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of re placement/overhaul component pa rts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in se rvice, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.

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

Bulletins.

14) The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancies di scovered between inspections.

15) The PIC must possess at least a private airman certificate and at leas t a current third class

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 he r pilot certificate.

16) The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria and demonstrates the abili ty to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be opera ted under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining a ppropriate distances from persons, vessels,

vehicles and structures. PI C qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). The VO is also required to complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of training must be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the purposes of training the18 operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficie ncy, and experience-bui lding), are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessi ons. During training, proficie ncy, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are consider ed nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropr iate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

17) UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. Flight s under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

18) The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s 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 NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. Th e letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator upon request.

19) 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.

20) If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined location within the planned ope rating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the operating documents.

21) The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operating documents.

22) The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is e nough power to fly at normal crui sing speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 20 minutes of battery power remaining.

23) The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organi zation (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conduc ting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspa ce, altitude level a nd potential transponder requirements.

24) The UA may not be operated from an elevated platform.

25) All aircraft operated in accord ance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.19 26) Before conducting operations, the radio fr equency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government ove rsight agency requirements.

27) 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 Ad ministrator or any law enforcement official

upon request.

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

and activities at all times.

29) The UAS may not be operated by the PI C from any moving device or vehicle.

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

31) Flight operations must be conducted at leas t 500 feet from all nonpa rticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently pr otect 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, operat or trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

32) All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authori zed representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

33) Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) with in 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Boar d (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the unmanned aircraft system (UAS), pilot in command (PIC), and operator must comply w ith all applicable part s of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.20 This exemption terminates on February 28, 2017, unless sooner supers eded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 10, 2015.

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service