Exemption No. 16839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

PRECISION HAWK INC

. Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 201 6

- 0 363

for an exemption from § § 61.113(a) and (b); 91.119(c); 91. 121 ; and 91.151(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Feder al Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated January 7, 2016 , Mr. Thomas Haun

, Vice President of Strategy and
Globalization

, PrecisonHawk

, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator), 9001 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27617

- 8779 , peti tioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § § 61.113(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, and 91.151, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The exemption would allow the petitioner the use of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS ) as part of PrecisionHawk ’s Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the FAA , also known as the Pathfinder 2 program. This exemption request addresses Extended Visual Line of Sight (EVLOS) research and development flights using the Lanc aster MkIII aircraft. PrecisionHawk is seeking to operate these aircraft under a special a irworthiness certification in accordance with FAA
Order 8130.34 , at or below 1

, 0 00 feet Above Ground Level (AGL).

The petitioner requests relie f from the following regulation s :

Section 61.113(a) prescribes that

—

(a) N o person who holds a private pilot certificate m ay 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.2

(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 91.119 (c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below a n altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except

o ver open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Section 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by ref erence to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) and (b) prescribes that : (a) N o p e rson m a y b e g in a f l i g ht i n a n

a irpl a ne und e r visual flight r ules ( VF R ) c ondi t ions unless ( c onsid e ring wind a nd
f o r e ca st w ea ther c ondi t ions) the r e is enou g h fu e l t o fly to t he fi r st po i nt of in t e nd e d landing a nd, a ssu m ing norm a l c r uis i ng spe e d, (1) during the da y , to f ly after that for

at l e ast 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes ; and (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming nor mal cruising speed, to fly after that
for at least 20 minutes.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

PrecisionHawk states that t he Pathfinder initiative is a public

- private partnership with
the FAA

, with the obj ective of expanding the current regulatory framework for the benefit of the Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle industry at large. Under EVLOS operations

, a UAS operator
will be able to conduct an agriculture analysis over an area that is five

- times larger than that currently permitted

. EVLOS would thereby enhanc e the effectiveness of this air commerce and provid e better service to the farmers and property owners.3

PrecisionHawk Inc. states that t he pilot in command (PIC) of its aircraft has a responsibility to

s ee any intruder aircraft at all times and must avoid any intruding aircraft. PrecisionHawk
believes the EVLOS operation will be a “See and Avoid” operation at all times. During the research flights a Safety Observer (SO) will be stationed next to the pilot in command as an extra set of eyes to supplement the pilot’s observation of the sky. A remote visual observer will be part of the flight crew to enhance situational awareness of the pilot in command and to maintain visual surveillance of the airspace in w hich the UAV is flying at all times. Prior to conducting a UAS operation a notification will be sent out to the impacted aviation community to ensure awareness and enhance safety, and a Notice to Airmen ( NOTAM ) will be filed for every day that flight activ ities will be conducted. The petitioner believes these requirements for the flight crew to see traffic and the pilot’s responsibility to maneuver to
avoid the traffic

, combined with the notification and NOTAM provisions of its operations
manual will provid e an equivalent level of safety to that of the underlying regulations

.

The petitioner intends to operate the MkIII unman ned aircraft (UA) addressed in this re quest under a special airworthiness certificate for the purposes of research and development in

a ccordance with § 21.191. In general, these classes of small UA do not operate from established airports or airfields and do not require large prepared areas for launch and

recovery.

PrecisionHawk is seeking relief from 14 CFR § 61.113 (a). The petitioner states the EVLOS flights that PrecisionHawk will be conducting are in support of the FAA’s Pathfinder Focus
Area Two research , and therefore will not involve an aircraft carrying passengers or property for hire. PrecisionHawk will not be charging for the flight operations as would be done in a commercial operation . The petitioner notes PrecisionHawk would use private pilots as the Pilot in Command (PIC) to conduct research and development activity under the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement signed by the FAA on June 12, 2015

. These PICs are employees of PrecisionHawk and will be compensated for their time according to their employm ent contracts

. The petitioner acknowledges that the PIC of the UAS for this EVLOS research may be compensated as an employ ee or affiliate of the company

, however

, the petitioner believe s that this does not equate to a compensation for hire operation. Accordingly, the petitioner state s that it believe s these activities will generally be in line with § 61.113 and wil l provide an equivalent level of safety

, therefore no exemption from § 61.113(a) should be required. Despite this position, PrecisionHawk is requesting exemption
to 14 CFR § 61.113 (a).4

PrecisionHawk submits that because a small, unmanned aerial vehicle

- the Lancaster Mk

- III

- will be used in lieu of comparatively hazardous operations now conducted with fixed

- wing and rotary conventional aircraft, the FAA can have confidence that the operations will achieve at least an equivalent level of safety, if not a greater level of safety. The petitioner points out
the FAA has recognized this reduced risk by granting over 3

, 000 exemptions from

14 CFR § 61.113(a) under section 333 of Public Law 112

- 95. In these cases the FAA determined that an airman with a priva te pilot certificate would provide an equivalent level of safety as an airman with a commercial pilot certificate. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and fulfill the Se cretary of Transportation's (and FAA Administrator's) responsibilit ies to "establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system (NAS) ." PrecisionHawk states that i n addition, approval of this exemption will benefit the public by enabling the FAA's Pathfinder program to eve ntually
extend the commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the NAS to include extended and beyond visual line of sight operations, thereby opening up countless new commercial opportunities for American businesses.

In its rationale for relief from § 91.119(c), PrecisionHawk states it will fly the Lancaster
Mk III, Rev 4 UAV at or below 1000 feet over uncongested and unpopulated areas

. However, the PIC and all observers will be within 500 feet of the aircraft during the experimental operations. Precisio nHawk will mitigate risk through vigilant ground operations, with all participants notified and on alert throughout the duration of the experiments. As such, PrecisionHawk is requesting exemption to § 91.119 (c). The petitioner acknowledges that t he

FAA re cently revised its policy with respect to operations within 500 feet laterally from the UAS operation. PrecisionHawk intends that only the PIC , visual observers , and other pe rsons involved in the Precision Hawk operations who have been briefed and provided consent , will
be within the 500 feet perimeter. PrecisionHawk will not operate within 500 feet of nonparticipants unless there is a barrier or structure protecting such nonparticipants from the risk of an errant UAS, in accordance with the requirement in the Precisi onHawk Flight Operations Manual

.

T he petitioner states that the Lancaster MkIII weighs 5.5 pounds with its payload camera or sensor equipment. They further state that should t he light weight, along with the slow speed of the gliding aircraft, c ause the UAS to land due to loss of power, it would result in very little kinetic energy. This low kinetic energy state, the aircraft ’s foam wing construction, and the fact that the aircraft propeller would not be turning creates a situation that limits r isk to persons and property on the ground. In addition, PrecisionHawk states that the proposed operations would be over rural farm fields in sparsely populated areas where there are no people or vehicles at risk.5

PrecisionHawk submits that these operatio ns will achieve at least an equivalent level of safety, if not a greater level of safety

, and granting of this exemption will also serve the public interest by enabling the FAA's Pathfinder program to eventually extend the commercial use of
unmanned aerial vehicles in the NAS to include extended and beyond visual line of sight operations

.

In support of its request for an exemption from § 91.121, PrecisionHawk notes that for the
MkIII there is no concept of setting an altimeter other than zeroing (similar t o taring ) the pressure altimeter prior to launch. T he PrecisionHawk Lancaster MkIII UAV is not equipped
with a barometric altimeter. The petitioner would use an alternate means for measuring and

re porting UA altitude, such as GPS. PrecisionHawk will opera te with altitude reported in feet
AGL. PrecisionHawk would set the altitude indicator in the Aircraft to zero feet AGL prior to take off instead of setting a local barometric pressure in the altimeter before flight. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, the use of the GPS reported altitude AGL will provide an equ ivalent level of safety. As such, PrecisionHawk requests exemption to § 91.121

. The petitioner notes that the FAA has granted exemption relief under
section 333 from the alti meter requirement under similar circumstances

.

Regarding the request for relief from § 91.151 , t he petitioner refers to the condition and
limitation in FAA exemptions under section 333, that require s 5 minutes of reserve power
instead of 30 minutes of fue l beyond the first point of intended landing . The petitioner
believes this is in recognition of the low altitude of sUAS operations and the ability of sUAS to be brought down to the ground safely in less than one minute. PrecisionHawk also submits
that t he loca l nature of the operations will provide an equ ivalent level of safety fo r all EVLOS research operations Prec isionHawk will be conducting for these experimental trials.

The PrecisionHawk Lancaster M k III has a total flight endurance of up to 45 min utes. The UAV uses a battery charge estimation algorithm that automatically lands the UAV with approximately 2 minutes of flight time left over. The petitioner stipulates that the PIC will not begin a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weath er conditions) there is enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended operational time and to operate thereafter for at least five minutes. As such, PrecisionHawk is requesting an exemption to § 91.151 (a) to be consistent with the previous ex emption s under section 333.

PrecisionHawk believes that granting these exempt ion s is in the public interest, that it
supports the FAA/ PrecisionHawk CRDA, and supports the FAA Pathfinder 2 program in
conduct ing agriculture analysis over a much larger area

. A n exemption would thereby6

enhanc e the effectiveness of air commerce and provid e a better service to the farmers and property owners. In addition to this improved service, the cost of these services can be reduced through economies of scale.

The petitio ner has provided the following information to support its request for an exemption, which includes proprietary supporting documents:

1. Safety checklist in accordance with FAA Order 8130.34C

. 2. Responses to the FAA’s request for information (RFI) dated Februar y 19, 2016

.

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

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summ ary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016 ( 81 FR
23801 ). Two comments we re received. One commenter , the Small UAV Coalition (SUAVC), supported the petition, while the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) opposed
it.

The supporting comments from the SUAVC cited that this operation supports the FAA Pathfinder progr am to advance regulatory and policy changes within and beyond visual line of sight. It point s out that the operation is largely over remote and rural areas which are well

suited for this type of research and present a much lower risk profile. It also high light s that PrecisionHawk is currently operating in this environment under section 333 Exemption No.
11345 (FAA

- 2015

- 0048).

ALPA represents the safety interests of over 51,000 professional airline pilots flying for 30
airlines. The Association expressed several concern s regarding the reliability and the ability of the petitioner to ensure that the UAS remains within the defined airspace. ALPA comments that Command and Control (C2) link and unsecure spectrum issues are one of the
most common failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly

- away and other scenarios. The FAA agrees and carefully examined the proposed operation to ensure that the vehicle design and the petitioner’s Experimental Aircraft Program
letter and Safety Checklist addressed potential hazards related to C2 failure. The
PrecisionHawk system employs two fully independent control links capable of commanding
the aircraft. The FAA finds that the PrecisionHawk MkIII has sufficient design features to

a ddress these hazards. The FAA also finds that the petitioner has incorporated safety7

p rocedures into its operation manual to be followed by the pilot that would mitigate risk
should a C2 failure occur

.

Additionally, ALPA submitted comments regarding the ability of the pilot and observer to
communicate with each other and noted latency associated with some means of
communications other than direct voice communication . The FAA agrees that the need for clear and uninterrupted communication between the PIC a n d a remot e visual observer is essential for safe operations. The FAA has reviewed the Concept of Operations submitted by the petitioner and is satisfied that the two

- way radio system and backup communications
systems used for this purpose will mitigate an y safety concerns associated with this issue.

With regard to ALPA’s concerns about the sa fe carriage of the Lithium

- polymer batteries , t he
FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s inspection and maintenance program and it believe s that PrecisionHawk has appropri ate safety procedures, including a life cycle replacement
schedule . The FAA find s these items sufficient to ensure an acceptable level of safety.

In its comments, ALPA notes that the proposed operations will be for “compensation or hire,”
and ALPA beli eves that the pilot must hold at least a current FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate. Similarly, a current 2nd Class FAA Medical certificate should be required for a UAS pilot operating an a ircraft for commercial operations as is required in the NAS today in
the United States and Canada. The FAA has carefully reviewed the knowledge and training required by holders of both private and commercial certificates. The results of this analysis were published in Exemption No. 11062 (FAA

- 2014

- 0352). In its analysi s, the FAA
determined that t he additional experience and airmanship skills obtained by commercially certificated airmen contribute to their ability to overcome adverse situations that could be encountered in flights conducted for compensation or hire. Howe ver, the experience obtained beyond a private pilot certificate in pursuit of a commercial pilot certificate in manned flight does not necessarily aid a pilot in the operational environment proposed by the petitioner . T he FAA considers the overriding safet y factor for the extended visual line of sight operations proposed by the petitioner to be the airmanship skills acquired through UAS

- specific flight cycles, flight t ime, and experience

.

The petitioner plans to conduct research, including crew training a nd market research, under an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with 14 CFR § 21.129. These operations will be conducted in a remote and rural environment

. 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), subject to the conditions and limitations outlined below, would be in the public interest and would provide an equivalent level of safety.8

Regard ing ALPA’s comment concerning the issue of 14 CFR § 91.113, Right of Way , the FAA point s out that the petitioner must obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) prior to conducting any operations.

Th is is an existing process that not only makes local Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities aware of UAS operations, but also provides ATO the ability to consider airspace issues that are unique to UAS operations. The COA will require the petitioner to reques t a Notice to Airman (NOTAM), which is the mechanism for alerting other users of the NAS to the UAS activities being conducted. Therefore, the FAA believes that adherence to this process is the safest and most expeditious way to permit PrecisionHawk to con duct their proposed UAS operations. The operating limitations associated with the Special Airworthiness Certificate prescribe the requirement for the petitioner to obtain an ATO

- issued COA.

ALPA comments on the petitioners request to 14 CFR § 91.119 stati ng it believe s that all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level of safety, including maintaining safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters. The FAA concurs and in its review of the petitioner’s request for relief confirmed that that only the PIC , visual observers, and other persons i nvolved in the Precision Hawk operations who have been briefed and provided consent, will be within 500 feet of the aircraft. PrecisionHawk will not operate within 500 feet of nonparticipants unless there is a barrier or structure protecting such nonparticipants from the risk of an errant UAS, in accordance the requirement in the PrecisionHawk Flight Operations Manual. Therefore, the FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(c), prov ided the conditions and limitations outlined below, would provide an equivalent level of safety

.

In addressing the issue of relief to 14 CFR § 91.121, ALPA commented that the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed and suggest that mitig ations should be in place and validated, including software configuration management and quality control. The FAA believes that an altitude reading is a critical safety component of the petitioner’s proposed operation. Although the petitioner will not ha ve a typical barometric altimeter onboard the aircraft, the FAA finds the petitioner’s proposed operation of the UA within extended visual line of sight and at or below 1,000 feet AGL, combined with the petitioner’s ability to provide altitude information to the UAS pilot via a downlink from the aircraft to a ground

- based on

- screen display, to provide an equivalent safety. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS PIC. Additionally, the FAA has verified the petitioners software development follows a process
similar to the tradit ional waterfall approach and is subject to a published configuration management program. The FAA has determined that granting the requested relief to 14 CFR § 91.1 21 is in the public interest and provides an equivalent level of safety

.9

ALPA further notes , while commenting on the petitioners request for relief from

14 CFR § 91.151, that the use of batteries as the only source of power is a substantial shift
from tra ditional propulsion methods on which safety margins are based. It further propose s that the FAA should determine a baseline for electric powered aircraft that provides an equivalent level of safety. As noted previously, PrecisionHawk is proposing to oper ate the
Lancaster MkIII aircraft under a CRDA and as part of the FAA Focus Area Pathfinder

program. This program is designed to help research items like the baseline ALPA is suggesting. The FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s proposed conditions and limita tions provides no adverse impact to safety and finds that a n exemption from 14 CFR § 91.151 is in the public interest.

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

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

s afe and rel iable EVLOS operations are a critical element of integrating UAS into the NAS

. Research is needed to determine how best to control the unmanned aircraft EVLOS in such a way that the current level of safety to the NAS is maintained or enhanced and these

exe mptions are critical to conducting that research . The research efforts under the Pathfinder program are integral to the use of sUAS in the NAS well beyond those operations that will be conducted by PrecisionHawk in these experiments.

The FAA has issued gr ants of exemption in circumstances similar to those presented in the petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352), the FAA found that granting the requested relief from § 61.113(a), does not adversely
affect the safety of the NAS when operations are conducted in compliance with the conditions and limitations in the Exemption. Similarly, in Grant of Exemption No. 11213, Aeryon Labs (see Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642), the FAA found that granting the requested relie f from §§ 91.119(c), 91.121, and 91.151(a), does not adversely affect the safety of the NAS when operations are conducted in compliance with the conditions and limitations in the Exemption.

The petitioner requested relief from § 61.113(a), Private pilot p rivileges and limitations, to the extent necessary to operate their UAS for compensation or hire with a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and second class medical certificate. In assessing this petition, the FAA reviewed its analysis of pilot certifi cate requirements for visual line of sight operations in Exemption No. 11062 relative to the EVLOS operations proposed by the petitioner.

In Exemption No. 11062, the FAA analyzed the areas of knowledge specified in 14 CFR
part 61 for that of a commercia l pilot versus a private pilot. The results show ed that the10

required areas of knowledge for a commercial versus private pilot certificate cover the same fundamental principles and ensure no adverse impact on safety for the EVLOS operations proposed.

Exemp tion No. 11062 also considered airmanship. Private pilot airmanship skills are improved through manned flights in the NAS. Commercially certificated pilots build additional experience through manned flights as well. The additional experience and airmanship skills obtained by commercially certificated airmen contribute to their ability to overcome adverse situations that could be encountered in flights conducted for compensation or hire. However, the experience obtained beyond a private pilot certificate in pursuit of a commercial pilot certificate in manned flight does not necessarily aid a pilot in the limited operational environment proposed by the petitioner. As in Exemption No. 11062, the FAA finds that the additional manned airmanship experience of a co mmercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for the proposed EVLOS operations.

The FAA finds that granting the requested relief from 14 CFR § 61.113(a) permitting the petitioner to use a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and at least a third class medical certificate to conduct UAS operations for compensation or hire, in accordance with the conditions and limitations outlined below, is in the public interest and provides an equivalent level of safety.

The pet itioner proposes to operate their UAS at various altitudes below 1000 feet AGL

. During flight operations in support of the pathfinder program it will be necessary for the aircraft to be within 500 feet of the observers, members of the research team

, or pr operty on the ground. PrecisionHawk is therefore seeking relief from 14 CFR § 91.119(c), Minimum safety altitudes over other than congested areas. The FAA finds that relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft may be operated at altitudes bel ow 500 feet AGL. The FAA notes the petition is consistent with waivers typically requested for manned operations in FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 7, Section 1, Issue a Certificate of Wai ver or Authorization: § 91.119(b) and/or (c ) (Minimum Safe Altit udes). This Order recognizes that certain operations justify waiving the 500

- foot minimum separation distance from persons or property on the surface when such operations are determined to be in the public interest and contributing to the public health, we lfare, and safety. As discussed in the Public Interest section below, the FAA finds these operations to be in the public interest.

The petitioner ’s proposed flight operations area is limited to uncongested and unpopulated agricultural areas with permission of property owner(s)

, in accordance with the Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA) issued by the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Additionally

, PrecisionHawk ’s UAS subject to this exemption will hold a special11

airworthiness certificate issued under the experimental category and will operate at speeds not
to exceed 87 knots. The FAA also considered that PrecisionHawk may plan to experiment with other UAS operating at speeds not exceeding 87 knots. Given these safety mitigations,
the FAA finds th at the special conditions provided to manned aircraft in the Order discussed above are sufficient to ensure the proposed UAS operations do not adversely affect safety

. In addition, operations are permitted over other than congested areas and limited to are as with

p ermission of property owners, in accordance with the COA issued by the FAA’ s ATO

. Therefore, consistent with the Order, the FAA finds that the UA may be operated within 500 feet of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures, but under no condition will the UA be operated closer than 200 feet to persons on the surface or less than 100 feet from any

structure. Under no circumstances should the PIC intentionally fly the UA directly over

per sons on the surface. Operations must never pose an undue hazard to human beings that may be present

.

In consideration of the above, t he FAA finds that granting the requested relief from

14 CFR § 91.119(c) , in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, is in the public interest and provides an equivalent lev el of safety.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter settings. A n alternate means for measuring and reporting UA altitude is necessary b ecause the PrecisionHawk MkIII UA is not equipped with a barometric altimeter

. The petitioner p roposes to use GPS reported
altitude . As stated in the conditions and limitations below, the FAA requires altitude be reported in feet AGL. The petitioner may choose to set the altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or fi eld altitude before flight. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations and the confined nature of the operations

, an exemption
from the requirements of § 91.121 , in accordance with the conditions and limitations below, is in the public int erest and provides an equivalent level of safety.

The petitioner has requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.151, Fuel requirements for flight in Visual Flight Rules ( VFR ) conditions. Prior UAS specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The conditions and limitations below prohibit the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless ( considering wind and
forecast weather conditions ) there is enough available power for the UAS to operate for the intended operatio nal time . In addition, the UAS must have a sufficient power reserve for the PIC to land the aircraft in a known area clear of human beings, vessels, vehicles, and structures, and in such a way as to minimize potential injury or damage to property. The FAA
finds that an exemption from the requirements of § 91.151(a)(1)

, in accordance with the
conditions and limitations below , is in the public interest and provides an equivalent level of safety.12

Public Interest

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in t he public interest. The petitioner has joined with the FAA under a CRDA to research UAS capabilities beyond current and proposed UAS operating regulations. Exten ded Visual Line of Sight is a UAS operation in
which the PIC and /or the observer maintains an u ninterrupted visual situational awareness of the airspace in which the UAS is operating. The UAS may be operated out of sight of the PIC and observer, but must be kept in a defined area of operation, with control authority being maintained by the PIC at al l times. The result of the research into developing the concept and procedures for EVLOS operations will serve the public interest by extending the safe use of
UAS in the NAS . These EVLOS processes will provide benefits to the public by , for example, impro ving agriculture surveying and improved yield

, monitoring pipelines, power lines

, and conducting wildlife census counts.

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that grant ing an exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuan t to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113

, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, PrecisionHawk is granted an exemption
from §§ 61.113(a) ; 91.119(c); 91.121; and 91.151(a) and (b) to the extent n ecessary to operate
its UAS up to 1

, 000 f

eet AGL , subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this e xemption.

2. Operations must be conducted with aircraft that have been issued a s pecial airworthiness certificate and in accordance with the operating limitations of the
certificate and the type certificate data sheet as applicable

.

3. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operations must be conducted in accordance with an ATO

- issued COA including
altitude requirements . The operator must apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the issued

COA.13

4. Under this exemption, a Pilot in command ( PIC ) must hold either an airline transport, commercial, private pilot certificate

. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman
medical certificate. The PIC must meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

5. Operations near persons and property:

a. All f light operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

i. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons
remain u nder such protection. If nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating

persons ; and

ii. Operations near the PIC, visual observers

, operator trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons

.

b. The aircraft may only be operated within 500 feet of vessels, vehicles or

structures if the owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permi ssion 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 ; however, under no condition will the UA be operated closer than 200 feet to persons on the surface or l ess t han 100 feet from any structure;

or

c. Flight operations may only be conducted as near as 200 feet from nonparticipating persons if it would not adversely affect safety provided that :

i. P rocedures are developed by the operator to use colored vests or oth er

means to readily identify individuals who are designated as part of the flight operations crew ; and

ii. In the event visitors or other non

- participating persons are present,
PrecisionHawk will establish a no

- fly area for non

- participating persons or visit ors to remain at least 200 feet away from the primary flight area

.14

6. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless

, considering wind and forecast
weather conditions

, there is enough available power for UAS to conduct the intended operation with suffi cient reserve such that in the event of an unplanned emergency, the
PIC can land the aircraft in a known area

, without posing an undue risk to aircraft or people and property on the ground.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, th e UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 48, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on June 30 , 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, D.C., o n June 17, 2016

.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service