Exemption No. 16839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

PRECISIONHAWK INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-0363

 

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 

Federal 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, petitioned 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 Lancaster MkIII aircraft. PrecisionHawk is seeking to 

operate these aircraft under a special airworthiness certification in accordance with FAA 

Order 8130.34, at or below 1,000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL).

 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.113(a) prescribes that—

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of

an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor 

may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. 
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 an altitude of 500 feet above 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 person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

Section 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude 

by reference 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) No person may begin a flight in an 

airplane under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions unless (considering wind and 

forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended 

landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, (1) during the day, to fly after that for 

at least 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 normal cruising speed, to fly after that 

for at least 20 minutes.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

PrecisionHawk states that the Pathfinder initiative is a public-private partnership with 

the FAA, with the objective 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 enhance the effectiveness of this air commerce 

and provide better service to the farmers and property owners. 
3

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

see 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 which 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 activities 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 provide an equivalent level of safety to that of the underlying regulations.

The petitioner intends to operate the MkIII unmanned aircraft (UA) addressed in this request

under a special airworthiness certificate for the purposes of research and development in 

accordance 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 

employment contracts. The petitioner acknowledges that the PIC of the UAS for this EVLOS 

research may be compensated as an employee or affiliate of the company, however, the 

petitioner believes that this does not equate to a compensation for hire operation. 

Accordingly, the petitioner states that it believes these activities will generally be in line with 

§ 61.113 and will 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 private 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 Secretary of Transportation's (and FAA Administrator's) 

responsibilities to "establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the 

national airspace system (NAS)." PrecisionHawk states that in addition, approval of this 

exemption will benefit the public 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, 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 

MkIII, 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. PrecisionHawk 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 the 

FAA recently 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 persons 

involved in the PrecisionHawk 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 PrecisionHawk Flight 

Operations Manual.

The petitioner states that the Lancaster MkIII weighs 5.5 pounds with its payload camera or 

sensor equipment. They further state that should the light weight, along with the slow speed of 

the gliding aircraft, cause 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 risk 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 operations 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 to taring) the 

pressure altimeter prior to launch. The PrecisionHawk Lancaster MkIII UAV is not equipped 

with a barometric altimeter. The petitioner would use an alternate means for measuring and 

reporting UA altitude, such as GPS. PrecisionHawk will operate 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 equivalent 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 altimeter requirement under similar circumstances.

Regarding the request for relief from § 91.151, the petitioner refers to the condition and 

limitation in FAA exemptions under section 333, that requires 5 minutes of reserve power 

instead of 30 minutes of fuel 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 the local nature of the operations will provide an equivalent level of safety for all EVLOS 

research operations PrecisionHawk will be conducting for these experimental trials. 

The PrecisionHawk Lancaster Mk III has a total flight endurance of up to 45 minutes. 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 weather 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 exemptions under section 333.

PrecisionHawk believes that granting these exemptions is in the public interest, that it 

supports the FAA/PrecisionHawk CRDA, and supports the FAA Pathfinder 2 program in

conducting agriculture analysis over a much larger area. An exemption would thereby 
6

enhance the effectiveness of air commerce and provide 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 petitioner 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 February 19, 2016.

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

documents.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 

23801). Two comments were 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 program to advance regulatory and policy changes within and beyond visual line of 

sight. It points out that the operation is largely over remote and rural areas which are wellsuited for this type of research and present a much lower risk profile. It also highlights 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 concerns 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 

address these hazards. The FAA also finds that the petitioner has incorporated safety 
7

procedures 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 and a remote 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 any safety concerns associated with this issue.

With regard to ALPA’s concerns about the safe carriage of the Lithium-polymer batteries, the

FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s inspection and maintenance program and it believes that 

PrecisionHawk has appropriate safety procedures, including a life cycle replacement

schedule. The FAA finds 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 believes 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 aircraft 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 analysis, the FAA 

determined that 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 operational environment proposed by the petitioner. The 

FAA considers the overriding safety 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 time, and experience.

The petitioner plans to conduct research, including crew training and 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

Regarding ALPA’s comment concerning the issue of 14 CFR § 91.113, Right of Way, the 

FAA points 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. 

This 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 request 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 conduct 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 stating it believes 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 involved in the PrecisionHawk 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), provided 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 mitigations 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 have 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 traditional waterfall approach and is subject to a published configuration 

management program. The FAA has determined that granting the requested relief to 14 CFR 

§ 91.121 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 traditional propulsion methods on which safety margins are based. It further proposes

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 operate 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 limitations 

provides no adverse impact to safety and finds that an 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 

safe and reliable 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 

exemptions 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 grants 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 relief 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 privileges 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 certificate 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 commercial pilot versus a private pilot. The results showed that the 
10

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.

Exemption 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 commercially 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 petitioner 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 property 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 below 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 Waiver or Authorization: 

§ 91.119(b) and/or (c) (Minimum Safe Altitudes). 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, welfare, 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 special 
11

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 that 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 areas with 

permission 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 

persons on the surface. Operations must never pose an undue hazard to human beings that 

may be present.

In consideration of the above, the 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 level of safety.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter settings. An alternate means 

for measuring and reporting UA altitude is necessary because the PrecisionHawk MkIII UA is 

not equipped with a barometric altimeter. The petitioner proposes 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 field 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 interest 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 operational 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 the public interest. The petitioner has 

joined with the FAA under a CRDA to research UAS capabilities beyond current and 

proposed UAS operating regulations. Extended Visual Line of Sight is a UAS operation in 

which the PIC and/or the observer maintains an uninterrupted 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 all 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,

improving 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 granting an exemption is in the public 

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

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, PrecisionHawk is granted an exemption 

from §§ 61.113(a); 91.119(c); 91.121; and 91.151(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to operate 

its UAS up to 1,000 feet 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 exemption.

2. Operations must be conducted with aircraft that have been issued a special 

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 flight 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 under 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 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; however, 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;

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. Procedures are developed by the operator to use colored vests or other 

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 visitors 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 sufficient 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, the 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., on June 17, 2016. 

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service