April 2, 2015

Exemption No. 11253 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0817

Mr. Simon Nielsen

CEO Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. 606 Venice Boulevard, Suite E Venice, CA 90291

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This letter is to inform you that we have gran ted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you th e conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 3, 2014 1 , you petitioned the Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management , Inc. (hereinafter pe titioner or operator) for an exemption. The exemption would allow th e petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis of infrastr ucture inspections and operations.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2014, (79 FR 64242). The FAA received three comments on the petition for exemption. The Small

1 By letter dated February 9, 2015, and posted to the public docket on February 11, 2015, the petitioner provided

additional information.2

UAV Coalition (Coalition) commented in favor of the petition. The Air Line Pilots Association, Internat ional (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler gr oups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition

stated that it does not believ e that heightened safety meas ures should be required for the petitioner simply because of the commercial na ture of its operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under Section 333 of Public Law 112–95 that weighs the relative sa fety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial

vehicles based on commercial and noncomme rcial operations. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors 2 in Section 333 as a minimum. The Coalition stated the peti tion shows the FAA should consider factors other than those specified in Section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS , and the restricted operating area. The Coalition maintained that the peti tioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven

factors in Section 333 and include several additi onal mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security of the proposed UAS operati ons. The Coalition emphasized the FAA must

evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

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

an airman’s certificate. The Coalition further stat ed that if an airman certificate is required then, at a minimum, the FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing requirements that pertain to UAS commercial operations pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asserted that in section 333 Congress intended for the FAA to consider national security with resp ect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through pilot certification.

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the gran t of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (No. 11110), neither Section 333 nor the FAA’s exemption authority 3 allows the FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 U.S.C. § 44711. The FAA notes that under this exemption the petitioner proposed to use pilots holding private certificat es and it will be able to use the training program it proposed.

2 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112 95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”

3 49 USC § 44701(f)3

The Coalition commented that a visual observe r (VO) should not be required for all small UAS operations. The Coalition further asserted that the presence of one or more VOs may allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual lin e of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanned aircraft (UA) within VLOS of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted.

The FAA notes that one of the determinati ons for operations under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA finds that a VO complements th e PIC’s capability to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentar ily attending to other flyi ng tasks. The VO provides an additional level of operational safety.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA noted the petitioner’s reference to operations conducted wi thin controlled areas is not defined, nor does the petitioner detail procedures for controlling the airspace or area of operation. Specifically,

ALPA stated “there must be means both to ensu re that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.” The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e., VLOS and at or below 400 feet AGL) are suffici ent mitigations 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, ALPA stated that the pilo t and observer should be able to maintain a visual observation of the aircraft and area of operation wh en using voice communication. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communi cate with the operator from the most minimal distance possible. The c onditions and limitations regarding PIC and visual

observer communications a ddress those concerns.

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batte ries have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR

− 09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage (January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situa tion aboard manned airpla nes. Given the size of the battery and the operating conditions of th e UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations.

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigati ons should require safe modes to prevent fly-aways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk associated with such failure.

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “comp ensation or hire,” and therefore contends the pilot mu st hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with4

an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA

asserted a current second-class airman medi cal certificate should be required. NAAA also commented on pilot qual ification, 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 airc raft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibi lities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeat edly over a sustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and trai ning requirements of sport, recreational, private and commercial certificates and concl uded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a mean s to meet see and avoid requ irements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of

the PIC and VO.

Regarding the request for exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of § 91.119, ALPA stated all aircraft in the NAS must operate to the same high level of safety. ALPA argued this includes the maintenance of a safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters.

ALPA commented the aircraft will not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 91.121. ALPA stated that processes or m itigations must be in place to ensure the UA can accurately maintain altitude including engineering processes, software development and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and design assurance to ensure the ai rcraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercia lly in the National Airspace System (NAS). Regarding the fuel requirements of § 91.151, ALPA argued that using batteries as the only source of an aircraft’s power is a substantial shift from trad itional methods of propulsion, and requires further research to dete rmine best safety practices.

ALPA also expressed concern th at the petition makes no refere nce to compliance with, or a request for waiver from, 14 CF R 61.195, Flight instructor li mitations and qualifications, which defines the requirements for flight instru ctors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instru ction required for the certificates or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to operate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated flight instructor because the instruction is5

not being provided for a certificate or rating li sted in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such flight instruction because § 61.31(l) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.5 6 without a category and class rating. Instruction provided toward obtaining the pi lot certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor.

Regarding §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b), ALPA opposed the petitioner’s attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and recordkeeping requirements. ALPA states the UAS should comply with the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS. The FAA finds that adherence to the petitioner’s operating documents, as require d by the conditions and limitations below, is

sufficient to ensure that safe ty is not adversely affected.

ALPA also expressed concern th at the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of th e same general type. ALPA stated that this

results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPAs concern and in order to minimize potential im pact to the NAS, the F AA requires that each operator secure a Certificate of Authorization or COA which c overs specific details of the petitioners operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

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

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other ai rcraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS opera tions at low altitude s will increase the potential for collision with agricultural aircraft.

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO; and (c) the UAS PIC must always yiel d 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 st rictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, w ith the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned

aircraft.

As discussed below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Tran sportation to determine, consider ing a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certific ate is not necessary for certain operations. The6

Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner are the DJI S1000, DJI Phantom 2, and Drone

‐ Fleet

Carbon Fiber V5.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, C ertification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates . In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112

− 95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, a nd limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the S ecretary of Transportation has de termined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, th e FAA finds that the re quested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certific ation and testing requirements of part 36, is

not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial da ta collection. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those pr esented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption No s. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. ( see Docket No.

FAA

− 2014

− 0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of signi ficantly greater proporti ons, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gi ves the FAA good cause to find th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for re questing an exemption, I find that—

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously re quested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213 also apply to the situ ation you present; and

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S. C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Drone Fl eet & Aerospace Management, Inc. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c ), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and7

91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to a llow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Drone Fleet & Aero space Management, Inc. is hereafter referred to as the operator.

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 exemption are limited to the DJI S1000, DJI Phantom 2, and Drone

‐ Fleet Carbon Fiber V5 when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not permitted.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restricti on. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the

aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. 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 or

U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PI C and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbal ly at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not perm itted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must en sure that the VO can perform the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of8

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepa ncy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the pro cedures outlined in the operating documents,

the conditions and limitations herein ta ke precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the pr ocedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revi se its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and pr esent updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any la w enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revise d documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacte d if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical component, must undergo a functional test flight prio r to conducting further opera tions under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functi onal test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in a condition for safe flight. Th e pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e .g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manu facturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requ irements for the aircraft and aircraft

components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption mu st comply with all manufacturer safety

bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC mu st hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pi lot certificate. The PIC must also hold a

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal9

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PI C is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a ma nner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distan ces from persons, vessels, vehi cles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and e xperience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted dur ing dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and expe rience-building flights, al l persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonpartic ipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparti cipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. 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 rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facil ity Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the ai rport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a lett er of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the ai rport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. 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.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses it s GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the priv ate or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the even t of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that fo r at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Author ization (COA). All operations shall be conducted in accorda nce with an ATO-issued COA. The10

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under th e terms of the attached exemption.

22. 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 CF R part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure th e safe operation and flight of the UAS and any 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 aircraft is operating. These

documents must be made available to th e Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give wa y to all manned aviation operations and

activities at all times.

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

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

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently 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 in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons, and;

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or struct ures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects 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.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or es sential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

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

28. 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) within 24 hours. Accidents must be11

reported to the National Transportation Sa fety Board (NTSB) per instructions

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

.

If this exemption permits operations for th e purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM)

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction ove r the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived w ith the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person res ponsible for the on-s cene operation of the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N- Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PI Cs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtain ed permission from property owners

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made av ailable to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holde r or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, includi ng maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which film ing will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer th an 500 feet from pa rticipating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with al l applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.12

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight St andards Service