1 | P a g e

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. _______________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: 

HERON SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF GENERIC FIXED WING UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 

(PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Submitted on February 1, 2016

Brett Darcey on behalf of Heron Systems, Inc.

2121 Eisenhower Ave, Suite 401

Alexandria, VA 22314

571-257-8403
2 | P a g e

Dear Sir or Madam,

Heron Systems, Inc.; hereinafter known as the petitioner, is writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that Heron 

Systems, an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that we may operate our sUAS commercially in airspace regulated 

by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

The petitioner employs Kenneth Kroeger, hereinafter known as the PIC, who has been active in 

the RC model aviation industry for nearly 20 years with countless hours of flight time. He has both BS 

and MS degrees in Mechanical Engineering with a focus in flight control systems and is currently 

pursuing a PhD in Electrical Engineering. Regarding his PIC experience, he was the PIC for Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University’s Unmanned Systems Lab from 2010-2013. Through the 

certification process in obtaining and operating their COA (2009-ESA-3, 2010-ESA-28, 2010-ESA-13,

2011-ESA-6-COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77), he obtained both a Pilot’s 

Ground School Examination Certificate and obtained a continually updated 2

nd Class Airmen’s Medical 

Certificate. These operations required that Mr. Kroeger was proficient in configuring, maintaining, and 

operating fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and multirotor aircraft platforms. Most notable aircraft platforms that 

he was PIC for was the Yamaha RMAX, Aeroscout B1-100, Sig 110 and Kadet Seniors, Bergen 

Industrial Twin, and various other aircraft. While PIC, there were no incidents and no lapses in policy 

keeping, record keeping, and maintenance. Additionally, operations as PIC were improved upon to 

further safety of flight personal, spectators, and to ensure that operations were safe, smooth, 

professional, and efficient. 

Heron Systems is interested in operating small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS)—such as the

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class—commercially 

in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the purpose of collecting aerial 

video, photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, 

mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and expansion of basic and 

fundamental research principles and applications relating to the above over rural/controlled areas within 

the United States. Finding stressed vegetation is one of the most important aspects of farming as this has 

a direct impact on resulting crop yields which directly affects revenue and the global market supply. 

Stressed vegetation can result from a variety of sources such as pests, nutrient or water deficiencies, or 

improper planting techniques. However, finding stressed vegetation is often the most challenging aspect 

for a farming operation because of the magnitude and scale of the proposition. Leveraging sUAS 

technologies would provide farmers real-time actionable information about the health of their crops. 

This would enable farmers, field management, and agronomists to independently develop an acute 

understanding for the location and distribution of stressed crops in their fields. This knowledge will be 

obtained by conducting field surveys with the sUAS providing the farmer with immediate actionable 

information for their fields ensuring an increase in yields and productivity. Through a heightened 

awareness of location and distribution of crop stress, the farmer will also be able to further ensure a 

reduction of applied chemical treatments and thus decrease operational costs, decrease runoff, and 

increase compliance with their nutrient management plans.
3 | P a g e

Monitoring civil engineering and related operations is another important application for sUAS

platforms. Leveraging sUAS technologies would provide civil engineering job sites with real-time 

actionable information about the quantities of their goods and the progress of the work being done on a 

particular job site. This would enable engineers and other interested parties to make better adjustments 

and more informed business decisions based on the real-time progress/output of each job site. Aerial 

imagery and sensor data would be used to collect information regarding general progress of 

construction, estimations of the quantities contained in various raw material piles, and the input and 

output of laydown yards, among other purposes.

Commercial operations will be performed only at the request of and with the authorization and 

permission of clients, communities or their authorized agents in order to facilitate commerce and raise 

awareness of the responsible and beneficial uses of small unmanned air systems. Operations will be

conducted in accordance and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA 

as required by Section 333. Granting the request complies with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the national airspace 

system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] in the 

national airspace system” under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of UAS's for real 

estate and other community related purposes. Furthermore, the petitioner will conduct operations in 

compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA.

The petitioner believes that with the background and other related qualifications possessed by 

various team members that Heron Systems can greatly contribute to the FAA in exploring the proper 

integration of the UAS into the NAS for purposes other than cinematography applications. For the 

reasons stated below the petitioner respectfully requests the grant of an exemption allowing the 

petitioner/PIC to operate a remote controlled sUAS for the commercial purpose of collecting aerial 

video, photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, 

mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and expansion of basic and 

fundamental research principles and applications relating to the above over rural/controlled areas under 

400 feet and within Class G airspace within the United States. 

Thank you,

Heron Systems, Inc.

_________________________

Brett Darcey

Vice President

2121 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 401

Alexandria, VA 22314

571-257-8403
4 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 4

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... 6

PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 7

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER................................................................................. 7

HERON SYSTEMS’ OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 8

The sUAS................................................................................................................................................. 8

Flight Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Flight Operations ..................................................................................................................................... 8

AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY.................................................................. 10

Additional Autopilot Characteristics Demonstrate Its Equivalent Level of Safety............................... 10

Flights to be Conducted Pursuant to Specific Operating Limitations.................................................... 11

Addressing Typical Concerns of NAAA, ALPA, and USHPA............................................................. 15

PUBLIC INTEREST AND SAFETY.................................................................................................... 17

PRIVACY.............................................................................................................................................. 17

The Reasons Why Granting Heron Systems’ Request Would Be in the Public Interest; That Is, How It 

Would Benefit the Public as a Whole. ................................................................................................... 17

The Public Will Benefit From Decreased Congestion Of The NAS.................................................. 18

The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of These Fixed Wing UAS...................... 18

Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations with the Fixed Wing UAS Will Benefit the 

Economy............................................................................................................................................ 18

Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations with the Fixed Wing UAS Will Benefit the 

Environment...................................................................................................................................... 19

14 C.F.R.21(h): Airworthiness Certificates........................................................................................... 20

14 C.F.R 43.7: Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, 

appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration.......................................................................................................................... 20

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections conducted under parts 91 

and 125 and 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter ........................................................................ 21

14 C.F.R. 45.11(a,b,c): Marking of products......................................................................................... 21

14 C.F.R. 45.27(a): Location of marks, nonfixed-wing aircraft............................................................ 22

14 C.F.R 45.29 (3): Size of marks......................................................................................................... 23

14 C.F.R. 61.56: Flight Review............................................................................................................. 23

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)(b): Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command............................. 24

14 C.F.R. 61.133: Commercial pilot privileges and limitations. ........................................................... 26

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil aircraft airworthiness ...................................................................................... 27
5 | P a g e

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b2 & c): Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.................... 27

14 C.F.R. 91.103(b2): Preflight action .................................................................................................. 28

14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight crewmembers at stations................................................................................ 28

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-way rules: Except water operations...................................................... 29

14 C.F.R. 91.119(b)(c): Minimum safe altitudes: General.................................................................... 29

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings..................................................................................................... 29

14 C.F.R. 91.151: Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions....................................................... 30

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General ..................................................................................................................... 31

14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a)(d): Maintenance Required ................................................................................... 32

14 C.F.R. 91.407 (a)(b): Operation after maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration ................................................................................................................................................ 32

14 C.F.R. 91.409: Inspections................................................................................................................ 33

14 C.F.R. 91.417: Maintenance records ................................................................................................ 33

The FAA May Prescribe Any Other Conditions For Safe Operation. .............................................. 34

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A: GENERIC X-FRAME TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS......................................... 36

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL CHECKLISTS.................................................................................... 36
6 | P a g e

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AGL Above Ground Level

AOI Area of Interest

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATO Air Traffic Organization

AV Aerial Vehicle

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COA Certificate of Authorization

ELOS Equivalent Level of Safety

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulation 

GCS Ground Control Station 

GSC Ground Station Commander

GPS Global Positioning System

LOL Loss of Link 

NAS National Airspace System

NOTAM Notice to Airman

PIC Pilot In Command

RC Radio Control

Section 333 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333

SO Safety Observer

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

UA Unmanned Aircraft

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VLOS Visual Line of Site

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VO Visual Observer

VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing
7 | P a g e

PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal 

Registrar, should it be determined that publication is needed: 

Heron Systems, Inc. seeks exemption from the requirements of:

14 C.F.R §§ 21(h), 43.7, 43.11, 45.11 (a,b,c), 45.27(a), 45.29(3), 61.56, 61.113(a,b), 61.113, 91.7(a), 

91.9(b2, c), 91.103(b2), 91.105, 91.113(b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.403, 91.405(a,d), 91.407(a,b), 

91.409, 91.417, to operate commercially a small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) pursuant to Section 

333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). Approval of the exemptions requested 

by Heron Systems will allow for commercial operations of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero 

M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class to be conducted for the purposes of collecting aerial video, 

photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, mapping and 

inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and the expansion of basic and 

fundamental research principles and applications related to the above over rural/controlled areas under 

400 feet and within Class G airspace within the United States. The requested exemption should be 

granted because the operation of a small UAS, weighing approximately 8.2kg, inclusive of battery and 

payload, conducted in the strict conditions outlined below, will provide an equivalent level of safety, as 

Congress intended, while still allowing for commercial operations. Additionally, given the extenuating 

circumstances of the proposed PIC previous operational experience with certification of authorized UAS 

as PIC (2009-ESA-3, 2010-ESA-28, 2010-ESA-13, 2011-ESA-6-COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-

ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77), exceptional safety record, and requirements of PIC at that time, the 

petitioner would stress that the equivalent levels of safety as Congress had initially intended will be far 

exceeded within this request for exemption. The lightweight aircraft covered by the exemption are far 

safer than current conventional operations conducted with helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft weighing 

thousands of pounds and operating using combustible fuels, and operating in close proximity to the 

ground. The seven factors Congress directed the FAA to consider when approving Section 333 

exemption petitions - size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports, proximity to 

populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight – each support the request. In particular, the 

aircraft are small, and will operate at slow speeds, and close to the ground in order to more safely and 

efficiently conduct field surveys. The substantial increase of safety and decrease of risk to human life, 

coupled with the low risk use of sUAS to conduct these operations, and the experience of the petitioner 

weighs heavily in favor of granting the exemption. 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER 

Brett Darcey

Vice President, Heron Systems, Inc.

2121 Eisenhower Ave., Suite 401

Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: 571-257-8403

Email: brett.darcey@heronsystems.com

Kenneth Kroeger

PIC

7249 Parsons Court

Alexandria, VA 22306

Phone: 410-487-1350

Email: ken.kroeger@heronsystems.com
8 | P a g e

HERON SYSTEMS’ OPERATIONS 

The sUAS

Heron Systems, Inc. seeks an exemption to operate the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or 

other fixed wing vehicles of this class for compensation or hire within the NAS. The RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other vehicles of this class are fixed wing Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a 

Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic laptop, tablet, or smart phone systems. The vehicles 

in this class of aircraft have a maximum gross weight of approximately 3 kg, while having a wingspan 

of approximately 190 cm, a length of approximately 140 cm, and a minimum speed of approximately 

9.8 m/s (~19 knots). The RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of 

this class are equipped with a single electric powered propeller driven by Lithium Polymer batteries. 

The sUAS will have the following specifications or equivalent:

Airframe: RMRC Skyhunter/Skywalker/3DR Aero M/or equivalent

Control System: 3DR Pixhawk

TX: Spektrum DX8 (or equivalent)

RX: Spektrum 9020 (or equivalent)

Motors: Brushless outrunner motor 2820-3540, 800-1400kv (or equivalent)

Propellers: 9-12 in (such as the Gemfan 11x7)

TX Data Link: TM1000 (or equivalent)

Primary Control Link: 2.4 GHz

Primary Telemetry Link: 900 MHz

Video/Secondary Data Link: 5.8 GHz

Gimbal: Depends on Mission

Batteries: Flight: 3S-4S 5000mAH-10,000 mAH

Flight Time: 40+ minutes typical

Payload Max: ~2 lbs for additional payloads

Operating velocities: Minimum speed of ~9.8 m/s (~19 knots)

Flight Conditions

The proposed RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class

will be flown and operated within Class G airspace under 400 feet AGL. Heron Systems will only 

operate the sUAS in visual meteorological conditions no less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud 

or when visibility is at least 3 statute miles from the PIC. The aircraft shall only operate on privately 

controlled land with direct written consent from the land owner to perform such operations.

Flight Operations

The proposed flight operations with the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class will be conducted in a safe, accurate, and efficient manner for the purpose of 

collecting aerial video, photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture 
9 | P a g e

applications, mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and the 

expansion of basic and fundamental research principles and applications related to the above over 

specific rural/controlled areas with Class G airspace of the United States. 

Flights using the sUAS shall be conducted by at a minimum of a two person crew, however, three is 

considered optimum based on the experience of the petitioner. The three person crew shall consist of a 

pilot-in-command (PIC), a visual observer (VO), and a ground station commander/operator (GSC). 

While the PIC is expected to have proficient knowledge of the sUAS, it is expected that the VO and 

GSC also have demonstrable knowledge into the basic functions and operations of the specific

operations of the sUAS. 

The PIC has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of operations of the UAS. The PIC is the person 

who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of flight, has been designated as 

PIC before or during the flight, and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, 

for the conduct of the flight. The responsibility and authority of the PIC as described by 14 CFR 91.3, 

Responsibility and Authority of the Pilot-in-Command, apply to the unmanned aircraft PIC. The PIC 

position may rotate duties as necessary with equally qualified pilots. The PIC must conduct a pre-takeoff 

briefing as applicable prior to each launch. The briefing should include but is not limited to the details 

entailed on the mission cards. 

The purpose of the SO is to observe the surrounding operational airspace and alert the PIC if 

anything enters the operational areas within the UAS area of operations. The SO must be able to see the 

aircraft and the surrounding airspace throughout the entire flight, provide the PIC with the UA’s flight 

path, proximity to all aviation activities and other hazards sufficiently to exercise effective control of the 

UA in order to comply with CFR 91.111/91.113/91.115 and prevent the UA from creating a collision 

hazard. Additionally, the observer must be able to communicate clearly to the pilot any instructions 

required to remain clear of conflicting traffic, using standard phraseology as listed in the AIM when 

practical.

The purpose of the GSC is to monitor additional telemetry links and information streaming from the 

UAS flight computers or payload computers. Additionally, the role of the GSC is to support missions of 

the sUAS in such a manner to ensure successful operations. By enforcing a GSC to monitor aircraft 

peripheral telemetry, this allows the PIC and SO to further conduct a narrower set of duties which allows 

for an increase of focus on the aircraft and associated airspace. 

While the majority of flights will be manually piloted, some flights will be preprogrammed into the 

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class by the PIC. This 

automated functionality will be used to ensure the accuracy and successful data coverage for the target 

area. Throughout automated flights, the PIC will always hold the transmitter, monitor basic telemetry 

data on the Spektrum DX8 (or equivalent), and be prepared to abort the operation and fly the sUAS 

manually should an emergency situation occur. The GSC, if used, shall support the mission by relaying 

additional status to both the VO and PIC for flight time remaining, signal strength, and payload 

operations. 

Additional checklists pertinent for each of the operators at pre-flight operations, post-flight 

debriefings, maintenance logs, aircraft manuals, etc. are covered in the Appendices section of this 
10 | P a g e

proposal. These checklists are given to show the reviewer that the petitioner is thorough in their 

operational safety and functional checks. The checklists however are not necessarily holistic or all 

encompassing, therefore, Heron Systems, Inc. may modify these lists as needed to further ensure 

successful operations. 

AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY 

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

unmanned aircraft and its operation, Heron Systems’ operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class meets the conditions of FMRA Section 333, and 

will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. 

Section 333 provides authority for a UAS to operate without airworthiness certification and sets 

forth requirements for considering whether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, 

or otherwise pose a threat to national security. Specifically, FMRA Section 333 states the following, in 

part: 

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if 

certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before 

completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance 

required by section 334 of this Act. 

(b) Assessment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.--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; and

(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness 

certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the 

operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1). 

(c) Requirements for Safe Operation.--If the Secretary determines under this section that certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary 

shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national 

airspace system. 

In seeking this exemption, Heron Systems, Inc. submits that the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class can operate safely in the NAS pursuant to FMRA 

Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the characteristics of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero 

M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class; (b) the pilot certification requirement; and (c) the specific 

operating limitations. 

Additional Autopilot Characteristics Demonstrate Its Equivalent Level of Safety

The RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class do not 

create a hazard to users of the NAS, the public, or otherwise pose any threat to national security 

considering its size, weight, speed, and operational capability. The technical specifications of the RMRC 
11 | P a g e

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class are set forth by the 

various platform Specifications and Data Sheets, attached hereto as Appendix A. However, the 3DR 

Pixhawk autopilot system also ensure an equivalent or exceeded level of safety required based on its 

functionality and performance capabilities.

The RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class when 

operated with the Pixhawk autopilot system will be operated in three flight modes such as manual, flyby-wire, and fully autonomous. Switching between the flight modes is governed by the PIC’s RC TX on 

a 3 way position switch. Thus, in the event of any emergencies or desired change in operating mode, the 

PIC ultimately has a fast and effective way to command it. The manual flight mode requires that the PIC 

control the low-level angles, and rates of the UA. The fly-by-wire mode enables for the pilot to have an 

assisted flight performance. This means that the flight control system is ensuring that the altitude, and 

attitude of the aircraft is maintained steady while the PIC controls where the aircraft moves; allowing for 

the PIC to issue positional and rotational commands for the aircraft to meet. In a fully-autonomous 

operation the aircraft is prescribed a predefined mission prior to take-off that has been approved by the 

PIC. Upon entering this mode, the sUAS will perform the contents of the mission, often consisting of 

lawn-mower scanning patterns at varying altitudes of flight. 

The Pixhawk autopilot allow for the PIC to establish flight operational boundaries, establishing a 

virtual fence around the area of operations. The ground station system allows for the planner to:

1. Establish the boundary as a polygon defined through GPS points.

2. Define the action to take if the fence were breached (i.e. Land, RTL, RTR, Loiter, etc).

3. The location of the return point either being a return to launch or rally point after a timeout 

has been triggered between the action from step 2 being taken and no override from the PIC.

Additionally, the Pixhawk autopilot system provide countless ways for handling various failsafe 

procedures. First, GPS Failsafe’s are enabled if the aircraft has lost GPS lock or experience a GPS glitch 

for 5 seconds or greater when operating in a flight mode that requires a GPS. Upon entering the failsafe, 

the aircraft may Land or return control to the PIC. However, the PIC will not be able to switch into any 

mode requiring GPS functionalities until the values for HDOP and VDOP are below thresholds. 

Loss of Link failsafe procedures are important to ensure an ELS for the sUAS. The Pixhawk 

autopilot provides failsafe’s such as RTL, Land, and disarm in the event loss of link events occur. 

Similar failsafe event triggers occur in a variety of other cases such as loss of radio control links, low 

battery voltage or remaining capacity, etc.

Flights to be Conducted Pursuant to Specific Operating Limitations

In seeking this exemption, Heron Systems, Inc. proposes to commercially operate RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class for the special purpose of collecting 

aerial video, photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, 

mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and the expansion of basic 

and fundamental research principles and applications related to the above over specific rural areas with 

Class G airspace of the United States. In pursuing these operations Heron Systems will be governed by 

additional specific operating limitations (similar to those requirements of 2009-ESA-3, 2010-ESA-28, 
12 | P a g e

2010-ESA-13, 2011-ESA-6-COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77):

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption will be limited to the following aircraft described in 

the operating documents, rotorcraft UASs weighing less than 55 pounds maximum gross weight: 

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class . Proposed 

operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant. 

2. UAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations for the purpose of 

precision agriculture applications, mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related 

operations, and the expansion of basic and fundamental research principles and applications related to 

the above.

3. The UAS may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 20 knots.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 500 feet above ground level (AGL), as 

indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents unless a special request is made and 

approved by ATC. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

5. The UAS 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. 

6. The use of first person view (FPV) by the PIC or safety observer (SO) is not permitted. 

7. All operations must utilize a safety observer (SO). The SO may be used to satisfy the VLOS 

requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The SO and PIC must be able to 

communicate verbally at all times. Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight 

operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for 

the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the SO can perform the functions prescribed in the 

operating documents. 

8. The SO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and avoiding other air 

traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not permitted to operate the camera or 

other instruments. 

9. The operating documents and the grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS operations and 

made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations contained in the grant of exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating 

documents, the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption take precedence and 

must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator 

upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for 

extension or amendment to the grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or 

revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the exemption, then the operator must 

petition for amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may 

be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents. 

10. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe flight. 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. The Ground Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All 

maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.
13 | P a g e

11. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight 

characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight. 

The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the aircraft records. 

12. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, 

items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents. 

13. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

14. The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in 

accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of 

replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in 

service, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the 

UAS to service. 

15. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety Bulletins. 

16. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against 

discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

17. The petitioner for this proposal is considered to have extenuating circumstances allowing for him to 

operate the proposed UAS. Based on previous issued COAS (2009-ESA-3, 2010-ESA-28, 2010-ESA13, 2011-ESA-6-COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77) which the PIC had 

operated under, the required similar PIC Ratings shall be adhered to:

Rating requirements for the UAS PIC depend on the type of operation conducted. The 

requirement for the PIC to hold, at a minimum, a current FAA private pilot certificate or the 

FAA accepted agency equivalent, based on the application of 14 CFR Part 61, is predicated on 

various factors including the location of the planned operations, mission profile, size of the 

unmanned aircraft, and whether or not the operation is conducted within or beyond visual lineof-sight.

1. The PIC must hold, at a minimum, a current FAA private pilot certificate or the FAA accepted 

agency equivalent, based on the application or 14 CFR Part 61.under all operations:

a. Approved for flight in Class A, B, C, D, E, and G (more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL)) airspace.

b. Conducted under IFR (FAA instrument rating required, or the FAA accepted agency 

equivalent, based on the application or 14 CFR Part 61.

c. Approved for night operations.

d. Conducted at or within 5 NM of a joint use or public airfields.

e. Requiring a chase aircraft.

f. At any time the FAA has determined the need based on the UAS characteristics, mission 

profile, or other operational parameters.

2. Operations without a pilot certificate may be allowed when all of the following conditions are 

met:

a. The PIC has successfully completed, at a minimum, FAA private pilot ground instruction and 

passed the written examination, or the FAA accepted agency equivalent, based on the 

application. Airman Test reports are valid for the 24-calendar month period preceding the 

month the exam was completed, at which time the instruction and written examination must 

be repeated.
14 | P a g e

b. The PIC must maintain a 2nd class Airmen’s medical.

c. Operations are during daylight hours.

d. The operation is conducted in a sparsely populated location.

e. The operation is conducted from a privately owned airfield, military installation, or offairport location.

f. Operations are approved and conducted solely within visual line-of-sight in Class G airspace.

g. Visual line-of-sight operations are conducted at an altitude of no more than 400 feet Above 

Ground Level (AGL) in class G airspace at all times.

3. The FAA may require specific aircraft category and class ratings in manned aircraft depending 

on the UAS seeking approval and the characteristics of its flight controls interface.

These required qualifications are also derived from FAA-2015-0150.

18. Ancillary personnel such as systems operators or mission specialists must be thoroughly familiar 

with and possess operational experience of the equipment being used. If the systems being used are for 

observation and detection of other aircraft for collision avoidance purposes, personnel must be 

thoroughly trained on collision avoidance procedures and techniques and have direct communication 

with the UAS pilot, observer, and other crewmembers.

19. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification 

criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the 

UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification 

flight hours must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes 

of training the operator’s PICs are permitted under the terms of the exemption. However, training 

operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and 

experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered 

nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. 

20. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. All operations 

must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). If flight at night is required, a 

special request will be made at the FAA office closest to proposed area of operations. Flights under 

special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

21. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current 

FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is 

obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s 

COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the 

Administrator upon request. 

22. 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. 

23. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a pre- determined location 

within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the operating 

documents. 

24. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance 

with the operating documents. 

25. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and 
15 | P a g e

land the UA with 25% battery power remaining. 

26. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under the grant of exemption. This COA will 

also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, 

but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation. All operations shall be conducted in accordance with 

airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential 

transponder requirements. 

27. All aircraft operated in accordance with the exemption must be identified by serial number, 

registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 47, and have identification (N- Number) markings in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practical. 

28. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the 

UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate 

government oversight agency requirements. 

29. The documents required fewer than 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the 

Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating. These documents must be made 

available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. 

30. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation operations and activities 

at all times. 

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

32. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons (persons 

other than the PIC, SO, operator trainees or essential persons), vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: 

a. 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 a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and 

are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or; 

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the owner/controller of such vessels, 

vehicles or structures has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and; 

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, SO, operator trainees or essential persons do not present an undue 

hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a). 

33. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission from 

the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land owner/controller or 

authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

34. 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 be reported to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. 

Addressing Typical Concerns of NAAA, ALPA, and USHPA

NAAA has previously stated that it represents the interests of small business owners and pilots 
16 | P a g e

licensed as commercial applicators. It has been made clear in other Section 333 requests that NAAA 

members operate in low-level airspace, and clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these 

operators.

NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for 

agricultural safety, and agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see and avoid 

functions needed to prevent collisions. NAAA believes that UA operations at low altitudes will increase the 

potential of collision hazards with agricultural aircraft. 

Heron Systems, Inc. can answer this concern by stating that it has been contacted by many 

operators of piloted aircraft for agricultural operations interested in the capabilities of sUAS 

technologies as it relates to precision agricultural applications. Additionally, Heron Systems, Inc.

answers this concern by reasoning that if indeed the airspace surrounding agricultural areas has a 

significantly higher percentage of congestion in the NAS, then the applications of using sUAS would 

ultimately benefit the pilots themselves as this would reduce their risks associated with flight while 

gaining the same information in a more timely and cost effective manner. 

In its comments, the USHPA submitted similar concerns relative to activities of other low altitude user 

groups including ballooning, skydiving, powered ultralights, etc.

Heron Systems, Inc. can address the concerns of the USHPA by stating that the concerns of 

operating such low-altitude groups of aircraft within a potential operating area of a sUAS presents little 

to no risk to both aircraft systems. Following typical right-of-way rules, the manned aircraft would 

ultimately have the right-of-way over the airspace. Additionally, enough time to respond to the airspace 

congestion would be easily possible by the PIC because of the relatively low operating speeds of the 

proposed aircraft groups. Additionally, with the use of both a PIC and SO to observe the surrounding 

airspace, a visual confirmation would be able to be positively achieved by the operating crew of the 

sUAS and mitigation actions taken well in advance before any risk of near midair collisions. 

To address further common concerns of NAAA, ALPA, and USHPA, Heron Systems, Inc.

proposes that the issuance of NOTAMs and the coordination of planned activities with the FSDO 

several days in advance of operations ensures that attempts have been made to address and make other 

pilots aware of operational activities and advise them to use their best judgements on flight plans.

Additionally, the petitioner of this proposal suggest those who are concerned about the 

operations of this operation, consider the experience and extenuating circumstances of the 

petitioner/PIC. While operating as the PIC under COA’s issued to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University’s Unmanned Systems Lab (2009-ESA-3, 2010-ESA-28, 2010-ESA-13, 2011-ESA-6-

COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77), operations were professional, safe, and 

successful. There were no incidents where safety concerns had ever occurred with operators in the NAS. 

The agricultural areas similar to the areas where the above COAs had served are the intended areas of 

operations for Heron Systems, Inc. as well as controlled areas for civil engineering and related areas. 

The requirements of the COAs that had been issued and the PIC had operated under provide the basis for 

the exemption requests and proposed equivalent levels of safety of this work. 
17 | P a g e

PUBLIC INTEREST AND SAFETY 

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for decades, 

Heron Systems’ proposed operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class will not implicate any privacy and/or safety issues. Specifically, the RMRC 

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class will be operated only in 

compliance with operating documents (i.e., the Aerial Operations Manuals, Checklists, Maintenance 

Logs, and Instruction Manuals) and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. Flight 

operations will be conducted over private properties with the owner’s permission in Class G airspace

under 400feet AGL. Granting Heron Systems, Inc. the proposed exemptions will ensure benefits to the 

public interest while ensuring their privacy is not intruded upon.

PRIVACY

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for decades, 

Heron Systems’ proposed operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class will not implicate any privacy issues. Specifically, the RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class will be operated only in compliance 

with operating documents (i.e., the Aerial Operations Manuals, Checklists, Maintenance Logs, and 

Instruction Manuals) which requires the property owner involvement and in accordance with the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, including the minimum altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. When the 

sUAS is being flown, the sensory systems will be focused on the proposed data source at hand for the 

mission, thus minimizing inadvertent video or still images of uninvolved persons. All data collected will 

be for private use only and will not be distributed through public channels. Additionally, data being 

collected in the proposed rural agricultural or controlled civil engineering operational areas suggest that 

the likelihood of persons within range of the sensory imaging systems not relating to the direct 

commercial operations of the sUAS are slim to none. However, in the event that individuals not relating 

to the operation of the sUAS were captured by the sensory systems, no attempt will be made to identify 

any individuals filmed during the flights except in cases where they are trespassing upon or damaging 

customer property, or interfering with the applicant’s or its customers’ operations.

The Reasons Why Granting Heron Systems’ Request Would Be in the Public 

Interest; That Is, How It Would Benefit the Public as a Whole. 

Granting the present request for exemptions will further the public interest by allowing Heron 

Systems to collect aerial video, photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision 

agriculture applications, mapping and inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations,

and the expansion of basic and fundamental research principles and applications. Additionally, use of 

the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class will decrease 

congestion of the NAS, reduce pollution, and provide significant benefits to the economy. Notably, the 

benefits of Heron Systems’ proposed operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or 

other fixed wing vehicles of this class will be realized without implicating any privacy issues. 
18 | P a g e

The Public Will Benefit From Decreased Congestion Of The NAS. 

The RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class are

battery powered UASs and can serve as a safe, efficient, and economical alternative to the manned 

aircraft traditionally utilized to obtain aerial imagery and sensory data. By reducing the amount of 

manned aircraft needed to perform aerial acquisitions, an exemption allowing the use of a RMRC 

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class would reduce the amount 

of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air pollution, as well as increase the safety of life and 

property in the air and on the ground. 

Furthermore, by reducing the number of manned aircraft operating in the NAS, congestion 

around airports caused by arriving and departing aircraft will be reduced. The RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class does not require an airport to takeoff 

or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft conducting aerial video and photography missions 

would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air traffic control during the ground, takeoff, 

departure, arrival, and landing phases of flight operations.

The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of These Fixed Wing UAS. 

Conducting aerial acquisitions with the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other 

fixed wing vehicles of this class, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly benefit the public by drastically 

reducing the levels of air and noise pollution generated during traditional aerial video and still 

photography flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors, the RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class produces no air pollution, and is a 

viable environmental alternative to typical manned aircraft operations. The RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class, while reducing the carbon footprint 

of aerial acquisitions, also eliminates noise pollution, as the UAS is propelled by battery powered 

electric motors, rather than an internal combustion engine. 

By using the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this 

class to perform aerial acquisitions, the substantial risk to life and property in the air and on the ground, 

which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft flight operations, will be substantially 

reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of flight crew members located onboard the 

aircraft, the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class, has 

less physical potential for collateral damage to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared 

to the manned aircraft that typically conduct similar operations. 

Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations with the Fixed Wing UAS Will Benefit the Economy. 

In addition to being safe and efficient, the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other 

fixed wing vehicles of this class is an economical alternative to using manned aircraft to conduct similar 

aerial operations. As such, operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class will allow United States based companies, like Heron Systems, Inc., to 

remain competitive and contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising cost of 

aviation fuel and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulatory actions phasing out leaded 
19 | P a g e

aviation fuels, U.S. owned and operated companies must adopt new and alternative technology in order 

to remain competitive. Operating the battery powered RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or 

other fixed wing vehicles of this class is one such technology that not only allows companies greater 

operational flexibility compared to manned aircraft, but provides such flexibility without the high 

operational cost of a traditional manned aircraft. 

By operating the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of 

this class, companies such as Heron Systems, Inc., can remain competitive and profitable, and therefore, 

provide greater job stability to employees and contractors, which will ultimately contribute to growth of 

the U.S. economy. Improved financial performance of U.S. companies, through commercial use of the 

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class, provides a stable 

workforce that increases consumer spending; improves local, state, and federal tax revenues; and allows 

companies to invest in research and development in order to remain competitive both in the United 

States and abroad. 

Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations with the Fixed Wing UAS Will Benefit the

Environment. 

It is known that pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides used in agricultural operations can 

contaminate water supplies through methods of direct application, runoff, wind transport, and 

atmospheric decomposition. Fertilizer applications commonly involving nutrients such as phosphorus, 

nitrogen, and potassium are often applied in excess of the crops needs in order to ensure proper uptake 

by the stressed plant and account for direct/indirect losses of the application. However, much of the NPS 

pollution is in direct relation to the runoff and leaching effects resulting from this form of application 

method. As stated from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 40% of the nitrogen and 50% of the 

phosphorus pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay result from agricultural runoffs from within the local 

region. Similar pollution and run-off levels are noted by the EPA across the country in other agricultural 

areas. 

This over application is a direct result from the farmers lack in current capabilities of performing 

crop health assessments of their fields on a weekly or even monthly basis. Therefore, when infected or 

stressed crops are identified, current methods prohibit the farmer from identifying the distribution and 

epicenter of the stressor primarily because of the magnitude of scale of the problem. Leveraging a 

specially outfitted aircraft such as the one put forward in this proposal would allow for farmers to gain 

insight into the health of their fields on a regular basis. The aircraft would provide the capabilities to 

quickly and efficiently survey their fields and collect more information than human visual assessments 

would ever be able to. The information gained would allow the farmer to precisely understand the 

distribution of stress in his/her crops and precisely target treatment plans for their fields. These aerial 

crop health assessments when used in precision agriculture applications would become a powerful tool 

for farmers to observe, measure, and respond to variability in their fields in an attempt to increase yield 

while simultaneously reducing their inputs ensuring a further successful agricultural operation and thus 

reducing operational costs, reduce environmental impact, and increase crop yields and return on 

investments.
20 | P a g e

REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED 

14 C.F.R.21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

Section 21 subsection (h) states the following: 

This section is too long for purpose of the proposal. Please see the appropriate CFR from the FAA.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. This ELS 

is based on the size, weight, operating speed, and operational environment as described in the previous 

section.

14 C.F.R 43.7: Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft 

engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

Section 43.7 states the following: 

Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to

service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. 

(a) Except as provided in this section and § 43.17, no person, other than the Administrator, may approve an aircraft, 

airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service after it has undergone 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. 

(b) The holder of a mechanic certificate or an inspection authorization may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft 

engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service as provided in Part 65 of this chapter. 

(c) The holder of a repair station certificate may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, 

or component part for return to service as provided in Part 145 of this chapter. 

(d) A manufacturer may approve for return to service any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or 

component part which that manufacturer has worked on under § 43.3(j). However, except for minor alterations, the 

work must have been done in accordance with technical data approved by the Administrator. 

(e) The holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under Part 121 or 135, may 

approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service as 

provided in Part 121 or 135 of this chapter, as applicable. 

(f) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate may approve an aircraft for return to service after performing 

preventive maintenance under the provisions of § 43.3(g). 

(g) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a maintenance rating may approve an aircraft 

issued a special airworthiness certificate in light-sport category for return to service, as provided in part 65 of this 

chapter. 

(h) The holder of at least a sport pilot certificate may approve an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot and issued 

a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for return to service after performing preventive 

maintenance under the provisions of § 43.3(g). 

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems, 

Inc. seeks the requested relief because the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class does not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 

Part 21, Subpart H. Additionally, as the FAA has not established standards for obtaining a UAS rating, 

this ordinance is not applicable. 
21 | P a g e

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Content, form, and disposition of records for inspections 

conducted under parts 91 and 125 and 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419 of this chapter

Section 43.11 states the following: 

(a) Maintenance record entries. The person approving or disapproving for return to service an aircraft, airframe, aircraft 

engine, propeller, appliance, or component part after any inspection performed in accordance with part 91, 125, § 

135.411(a)(1), or § 135.419 shall make an entry in the maintenance record of that equipment containing the following 

information: 

(1) The type of inspection and a brief description of the extent of the inspection. 

(2) The date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service. 

(3) The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate held by the person approving or disapproving for 

return to service the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part, or portions thereof. 

(4) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is found to be airworthy and approved for return to service, the 

following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert 

type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition.” 

(5) Except for progressive inspections, if the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed 

maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the 

following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert 

type) inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items dated (date) has been provided for the aircraft owner 

or operator.” 

(6) For progressive inspections, the following or a similarly worded statement—“I certify that in accordance with a 

progressive inspection program, a routine inspection of (identify whether aircraft or components) and a detailed 

inspection of (identify components) were performed and the (aircraft or components) are (approved or disapproved) 

for return to service.” If disapproved, the entry will further state “and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items 

dated (date) has been provided to the aircraft owner or operator.” 

(7) If an inspection is conducted under an inspection program provided for in part 91, 125, or § 135.411(a)(1), the 

entry must identify the inspection program, that part of the inspection program accomplished, and contain a statement 

that the inspection was performed in accordance with the inspections and procedures for that particular program. 

(b) Listing of discrepancies and placards. If the person performing any inspection required by part 91 or 125 or § 

135.411(a)(1) of this chapter finds that the aircraft is unairworthy or does not meet the applicable type certificate data, 

airworthiness directives, or other approved data upon which its airworthiness depends, that persons must give the owner or 

lessee a signed and dated list of those discrepancies. For those items permitted to be inoperative under § 91.213(d)(2) of this 

chapter, that person shall place a placard, that meets the aircraft's airworthiness certification regulations, on each inoperative 

instrument and the cockpit control of each item of inoperative equipment, marking it “Inoperative,” and shall add the items to 

the signed and dated list of discrepancies given to the owner or lessee. 

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Based on 

the size and payload capacity of the aircraft, the UAS does not have the capability to carry and maintain 

placards in/on the UA. Additionally, no inspection process at this time has been formalized and certified 

by the FAA. An ELS will be sustained as all of Heron Systems flight crews will be required to keep log 

books of all maintenance, repair, and flight operations for the UAS at the ground station operation point 

and travel accordingly with the aircraft. 

14 C.F.R. 45.11(a,b,c): Marking of products

Section 45.11 states the following: 

(a) Aircraft. A manufacturer of aircraft covered under §21.182 of this chapter must mark each aircraft by attaching a 

fireproof identification plate that—

(1) Includes the information specified in §45.13 using an approved method of fireproof marking;
22 | P a g e

(2) Must be secured in such a manner that it will not likely be defaced or removed during normal service, or lost or 

destroyed in an accident; and

(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section, must be secured to the aircraft fuselage exterior 

so that it is legible to a person on the ground, and must be either adjacent to and aft of the rear-most entrance door or on the 

fuselage surface near the tail surfaces.

(b) Aircraft engines. A manufacturer of an aircraft engine produced under a type certificate or production certificate must 

mark each engine by attaching a fireproof identification plate. Such plate—

(1) Must include the information specified in § 45.13 using an approved method of fireproof marking;

(2) Must be affixed to the engine at an accessible location; and

(3) Must be secured in such a manner that it will not likely be defaced or removed during normal service, or lost or 

destroyed in an accident.

(c) Propellers and propeller blades and hubs. Each person who produces a propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub under 

a type certificate or production certificate must mark each product or part using an approved fireproof method. The marking 

must—

(1) Be placed on a non-critical surface;

(2) Contain the information specified in § 45.13;

(3) Not likely be defaced or removed during normal service; and

(4) Not likely be lost or destroyed in an accident.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Based on 

the size and payload capacity of the aircraft, the UAS does not have the capability to carry and maintain 

fireproof identification plates in/on the UA. Requiring placards could become hazardous as a result of 

the additional weight and strain placed on the aircrafts lift capability and flight dynamics. Heron 

Systems’ flight operations personnel will keep all information related to the UAS within its operations 

manual located at the ground station. Additionally, the UAS N-Number will be affixed with lettering as 

large as practically possible once received from the FAA Registration office. This exemption provides 

an ELS as relevant documentation and information is available to any of the flight personal including the 

PIC at any time.

14 C.F.R. 45.27(a): Location of marks, nonfixed-wing aircraft

Section 45.27 (a) states the following: 

(a) Rotorcraft. Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, 

fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by § 45.23.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems is 

prepared to identify its UAS by serial number, register them in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 57, and 

have N-Number markings on the sUAS. However, 14 C.F.R. 45.27 requires that each operator of a 

rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or 

tail the marks required by §45.23. The RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing 

vehicles of this class, due to their small size, do not have a cabin, fuselage, boom or tail to display the 

marks required by §45.23. Therefore, an ELS will be maintained such that each of these markings will 

be displayed on the wings, fuselage, or tail of the fixed wing vehicle as large as practically possible.
23 | P a g e

14 C.F.R 45.29 (3): Size of marks

Section 45.29(3) states the following: 

(3) Rotorcraft, must be at least 12 inches high, except that rotorcraft displaying before April 18, 1983, marks required by

§ 45.29(b)(3) in effect on April 17, 1983, and rotorcraft manufactured on or after April 18, 1983, but before December 31, 

1983, may display those marks until the aircraft is repainted or the marks are repainted, restored, or changed.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: The FAA has 

previously determined that relief from this section is not necessary, so long as the UAS in question is 

registered with the FAA and the markings are as large as practically possible. Therefore, an ELS will be 

maintained by ensuring that the above requirements are met. 

14 C.F.R. 61.56: Flight Review

Section 61.56 states the following: 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section, a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight 

training and 1 hour of ground training. The review must include:

(1) A review of the current general operating and flight rules of part 91 of this chapter; and

(2) A review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary 

for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.

(b) Glider pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a glider, each of which includes a flight to traffic 

pattern altitude, in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft 

unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that 

person has—

(1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor and

(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has 

satisfactorily completed the review.

(d) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, passed a pilot proficiency check conducted 

by an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force, for a pilot certificate, rating, or operating privilege 

need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.

(e) A person who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, satisfactorily accomplished one or more 

phases of an FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency award program need not accomplish the flight review required by this section.

(f) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate and who has, within the period specified in paragraph (c) of this section, 

satisfactorily completed a renewal of a flight instructor certificate under the provisions in § 61.197 need not accomplish the 

one hour of ground training specified in paragraph (a) of this section.

(g) A student pilot need not accomplish the flight review required by this section provided the student pilot is undergoing 

training for a certificate and has a current solo flight endorsement as required under § 61.87 of this part.

(h) The requirements of this section may be accomplished in combination with the requirements of § 61.57 and other 

applicable recent experience requirements at the discretion of the authorized instructor conducting the flight review.

(i) A flight simulator or flight training device may be used to meet the flight review requirements of this section subject to the 

following conditions:

(1) The flight simulator or flight training device must be used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a 

training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(2) Unless the flight review is undertaken in a flight simulator that is approved for landings, the applicant must meet 

the takeoff and landing requirements of § 61.57(a) or § 61.57(b) of this part.

(3) The flight simulator or flight training device used must represent an aircraft or set of aircraft for which the pilot 

is rated.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. As the 
24 | P a g e

FAA has not established the necessary rating or training requirements to operate sUAS specifically, the 

guidelines provided by C.F.R. 61.56 are impossible to satisfy. Therefore, Heron Systems, Inc. proposes 

that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by requiring that the PIC must have accumulated and 

logged, in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft 

pilot (with a minimum of 5 hours of those hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of 

UAS to be used for operations under the exemption). In addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must 

accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes) with a minimal 

operational time of 15 minutes per flight. 

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)(b): Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command

Section 61.113 states the following: 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for 

compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. 

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or 

employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Relief from 

Section 61.113(a) and (b) entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command, is 

requested to the extent necessary to allow Heron Systems, Inc. to conduct commercial operations of the 

proposed sUAS. Heron Systems, Inc. also submits that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained 

as the proposed PIC has already previously passed an airmen’s ground school exam, maintains a 2nd

class airmen’s medical, and is familiar with required operations of UAS in the NAS from his prior 

experience at Virginia Tech when operating as PIC aircraft under their COA. Further, Heron Systems, 

Inc. submits that all flights of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing 

vehicles of this class conducted by the PIC pursuant to the grant of this Petition: (1) will be incidental to 

Heron Systems’ business operations; and (2) will not carry passengers or property for compensation or 

hire. 

Heron Systems, Inc. submits that the equivalent level of safety established by Section 61.113(a) 

and (b) will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting 

minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the RMRC 

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class in a manner consistent 

with the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances 

from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. Considering Heron Systems’ proposed area of operations, 

and the operating limitations set forth-above; the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge 

requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements (See Exemption No. 11062); and the airmanship 

skills necessary to safely operate the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing 

vehicles of this class, Heron Systems, Inc. submits that the additional manned airmanship experience of 
25 | P a g e

a certificated pilot would not further elevate the airmanship skills necessary for Heron Systems’ specific 

proposed flight operations. 

The FAA has previously stated that “The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training 

requirements of sport, recreational, private and commercial certificates and concluded 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.” The petitioner of 

this proposal agrees that the knowledge requirements needed towards the pilot certificates of above are 

necessary for UAS PICs to understand the fundamental basics of operations within the NAS and the 

associated responsibilities. However, the petitioner also believes that because a PIC may possess a pilot 

certification that does not guarantee or ensure an equivalent level of safety can be guaranteed, this 

requirement can be substituted for operational experience. Additionally, in order to gain experience as a 

certified PIC, under current regulations operations must be conducted with an instructor with appropriate 

ratings. As the FAA has not proposed a current certification process for pilot’s ratings of UAS, this 

would appear to be an unobtainable requirement. Additionally, if we assume that a proposed PIC is to 

obtain equivalent operational time through their own means, the FAA cannot guarantee based on the 

proposed schema that they are capable of successfully performing operations without an individual with 

the appropriate ratings present. 

The PIC for this proposal is considered to have extenuating circumstances allowing for him to 

operate as PIC of the proposed UAS. Based on previously issued COAS which had only required the 

PIC have equivalently a student pilot certificate (which required no solo rating) (2009-ESA-3, 2010-

ESA-28, 2010-ESA-13, 2011-ESA-6-COA, 2011-ESA-61-COA-R, 2012-ESA-56-R, 2012-ESA-77)

which he had operated under, Heron Systems, Inc. proposes the same stringent requirements in order to 

establish an equivalent level of safety. Additionally, the petitioner poses that these requirements are 

similar to the ones as considered by the FAA currently in FAA-2015-0150. The petitioner poses to the 

FAA that the proposed PIC would be capable of easily satisfying the requirements of Section III A, B, 

C, D, E titled Pilot Qualifications. However, due to the untimely nature of FAA rulings on exemptions, 

economy and environmental effects would be mounting for undue timeliness of resolving regulations of 

which would be satisfied anyway. These requirements are as followed:

The PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 

25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot (with a minimum of 5 hours of those hours as a UAS 

pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption). In 

addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 

days (for currency purposes). 

Rating requirements for the UAS PIC depend on the type of operation conducted. The 

requirement for the PIC to hold, at a minimum, a current FAA private pilot certificate or the FAA 

accepted agency equivalent, based on the application of 14 CFR Part 61, is predicated on various factors 

including the location of the planned operations, mission profile, size of the unmanned aircraft, and 
26 | P a g e

whether or not the operation is conducted within or beyond visual line-of-sight.

1. The PIC must hold, at a minimum, a current FAA private pilot certificate or the FAA accepted 

agency equivalent, based on the application or 14 CFR Part 61.under all operations:

a. Approved for flight in Class A, B, C, D, E, and G (more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL)) airspace.

b. Conducted under IFR (FAA instrument rating required, or the FAA accepted agency 

equivalent, based on the application or 14 CFR Part 61.

c. Approved for night operations.

d. Conducted at or within 5 NM of a joint use or public airfields.

e. Requiring a chase aircraft.

f. At any time the FAA has determined the need based on the UAS characteristics, mission 

profile, or other operational parameters.

2. Operations without a pilot certificate may be allowed when all of the following conditions are 

met:

a. The PIC has successfully completed, at a minimum, FAA private pilot ground instruction and 

passed the written examination, or the FAA accepted agency equivalent, based on the 

application. Airman Test reports are valid for the 24-calendar month period preceding the 

month the exam was completed, at which time the instruction and written examination must 

be repeated.

b. The PIC has successfully obtained, at a minimum, a 2nd class Airmen’s Medical Certificate.

c. Operations are during daylight hours.

d. The operation is conducted in a sparsely populated location.

e. Operations are approved and conducted solely within visual line-of-sight in Class G airspace.

f. Visual line-of-sight operations are conducted at an altitude of no more than 400 feet Above 

Ground Level (AGL) in class G airspace at all times.

These guidelines provided would satisfy the requirements of 14 C.F.R. 61.113 and given the 

extenuating circumstances of the previous experience of the PIC, the petitioner can ensure that an 

equivalent level of safety has been far exceeded for the operations of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class for Heron Systems, Inc.

14 C.F.R. 61.133: Commercial pilot privileges and limitations.

Section 61.133 states the following: 

(a) Privileges—

(1) General. A person who holds a commercial pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of 

an aircraft—

(i) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in 

accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the 

operation; and 

(ii) For compensation or hire, provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part 

and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation. 
27 | P a g e

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. First, the 

sUAS will not be carrying individuals. Second, as the request for exemption 14 C.F.R. 61.113 a 

commercial pilot certificate would not be required for operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class.

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil aircraft airworthiness

Section 91.7 subsection (a) states the following: 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems, 

Inc. seeks the requested relief because the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class does not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 

Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Heron Systems, Inc. and the PIC will ensure that the RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class is in airworthy condition based upon 

its compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Pre-Flight Checklist, Post-Flight Debrief, Monthly 

Maintenance Log, and RMRC Skyhunter/Skywalker/3DR Aero M/other UAS of this class Instruction 

Manuals) prior/after every flight, and further, determine that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight, as 

stated in the conditions and limitations above. The equivalent level of safety established by Section 

91.7(a) will be maintained because prior to every flight, Heron Systems, Inc. and the PIC will ensure 

that RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class is in an 

airworthy condition based upon the UAS’s compliance with its operating documents and as stated in the 

conditions and limitations herein.

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b2 & c): Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard 

requirements

Section 91.9 subsections (b2 & c) states the following: 

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is 

available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, 

markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

(c) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this 

chapter.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. First, the 

FAA has yet to put in place the necessary procedures or process for approving manuals for UAS 

operations. Second, given the size and the configuration of the UAS, there is no method in which to 
28 | P a g e

carry a flight manual aboard the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing 

vehicles of this class while maintaining a feasible and safe operational weight. Additionally, a manual 

aboard an unmanned aircraft poses no use to the PIC operating from the ground. Therefore, an ELS is 

achieved by maintaining all proper manuals and records at the ground station where a PIC or FAA 

inspector may have access to them. On August 8, 2014, the FAA issued a memorandum entitled 

“Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s 

control station.” This document stated that in the case of sUAS, “maintaining these documents at the 

pilot’s control station would meet the intent of the rule as the pilot would be able to produce the 

documents for his or her own information or to an FAA inspector.” In regards to subsection c, the 

requests for relief of the previous sections relating to part 45 above apply here.

14 C.F.R. 91.103(b2): Preflight action

Section 91.103 subsections (b2), states the following: 

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance 

information:

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information 

appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway 

slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Heron 

Systems is mandating that the flight operations crew is well versed in the flight operations, vehicle 

characteristics, and mission; flights however will not be conducted at airports and therefore the 

information in this section does not apply.

14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight crewmembers at stations 

Section 91.105 states the following: 

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—

(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation 

of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her 

shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. 

Operations of the UAS will not be conducted by the flight operations crew unless all personnel are in 

attendance, alert, at their appropriate positions, and understand the purpose of their role and duty on the 

flight. However, the UAS is not carrying flight crewmembers and therefore an exemption is requested.
29 | P a g e

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-way rules: Except water operations 

Section 91.113 subsection (b) states the following: 

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules 

or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. 

When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass 

over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Heron 

Systems makes this request in the specific case of the UAS passing under a right-of-way aircraft. As the 

proposed UAS altitude is at or below 400 feet AGL, and the data collection sources of interest are at or 

below 400 feet AGL, the proposed UAS operations pose no danger or threat to other aircraft within the 

NAS. However, in the event that another aircraft enters the vicinity of the UAS, the PIC operating under 

VFR will be able to yield the correct right-of-way and thus ensuring an ELS.

14 C.F.R. 91.119(b)(c): Minimum safe altitudes: General 

Section 91.119 subsections (c) states the following: 

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated 

areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems, 

Inc. seeks the requested relief because the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class will only be operated at altitudes less than 400 feet AGL. An ELS will be 

maintained as the areas of operations will contain a significantly spare density of hazards and the sUAS 

will operated within VLS of the PIC at all times. Similar requests for exemption have been approved 

using this ELS definition. 

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

Section 91.121 states the following: 

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by 

reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the 

aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported 

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an 

appropriate altimeter setting available before departure;

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 
30 | P a g e

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft.

Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 is sought to the 

extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. This relief is

required to allow flight operations of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class, which utilize a barometric pressure sensor, Global Positioning System 

(GPS), and a radio communications telemetry data link to downlink altitude information from the UA to 

the PIC at the ground control station (GCS). Heron Systems, Inc. seeks the requested relief because the

altimeter of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class

may be set on the ground to zero feet AGL. 

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.121 will be maintained because the 

altitude information of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of 

this class will be provided to the PIC via GPS and Barometric pressure equipment and a radio 

communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active monitoring of 

the flight path and altitude. This altitude information, combined with the proposed operation of the 

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class within visual line 

of sight, at or below 500 feet AGL, will ensure a level of safety equivalent. The altitude information will 

be generated by GPS equipment installed onboard the aircraft. The FAA has previously granted relief 

from Section 91.121 specific to UAS.

14 C.F.R. 91.151: Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions 

Section 91.151 states the following: 

(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. 

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Relief is 

requested to the extent required to allow flights of the lithium polymer battery powered RMRC 

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class during daylight hours in 

visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), for a total duration of 20

minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at 

least 5 minutes. Heron Systems, Inc. seeks the requested relief because without an exemption from 

Section 91.151(b), the flight time duration of the battery powered RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR 

Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class impossibly constrain the practicality of the flight 

operations that Heron Systems, Inc. proposes to conduct pursuant to this Petition. 

Significantly, as set forth below, the technical specifications of the operating documents of the

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class, and Heron 

Systems’ proposed operating limitations, ensure that Heron Systems, Inc. will safely operate the battery 
31 | P a g e

powered RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class during 

daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough 

battery power to fly for a total duration of 18 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, 

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 5 minutes.

A grant of this exemption would ensure an equivalent level of safety established by 14 C.F.R. 

Section 91.151(b) as a result of (1) the technical specifications of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class; (2) the limitations on the proposed flight 

operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight operations. Accordingly, Heron Systems, Inc. and 

the PIC will ensure the safe operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed 

wing vehicles of this class during daylight hours in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly 

for a total duration of 18 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising 

speed, to fly after that for at least 5 minutes. 

Here, as in Exemption No. 11109, the technical specifications of the RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class; the limitations on the proposed 

flight operations; and the location of the proposed operations, will ensure an equivalent level of safety 

established by 14 C.F.R. Section 91.151(b). Furthermore, safety will be ensured as the RMRC 

Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class are equipped to provide 

audible and visual warnings to the PIC at the GCS and from the UAS when the UA experiences low 

battery voltage, the first warning occurring at approximately 33% remaining battery power, and again at 

approximately 10% remaining battery power. At the critically low battery level, the RMRC Skyhunter, 

Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class will descend and land automatically 

at a predetermined descent rate. 

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Section 91.151 establish that 

safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the UAS 

are considered. Relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums 

prescribed in Section 91.151, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. Moreover, the FAA has 

previously granted relief from Section 91.151 specific to UAS.

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

Section 91.403 states the following: 

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, 

including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this 

subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued 

airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, 

inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures 

set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance 

with an inspection program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is 

the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
32 | P a g e

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Heron 

Systems intends to fully comply with the maintenance requirements to keep an aircraft in an airworthy 

condition. However, the implications that “prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, 

including part 43 of this chapter” impose is the reason an exemption is being requested. To achieve an 

ELS to 14 C.F.R. 91.403, Heron Systems will maintain its UAS in an airworthy condition and adhere to 

all manufacturer requirements for inspecting and maintaining the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR 

Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class. Maintenance records will be available to the flight

crew before, during, and after operations.

14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a)(d): Maintenance Required

Section 91.405 subsections (a & d) states the following: 

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(d) When listed discrepancies include inoperative instruments or equipment, shall ensure that a placard has been installed as 

required by § 43.11 of this chapter.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. The FAA 

has previously determined that relief from 14 C.F.R. 91.405 is warranted. As Heron Systems has made 

clear, operators will inspect the sUAS prior and post each flight and maintain rigorous logging 

procedures of any findings or maintenance. Heron Systems is also asking for exemption of the placard 

requirements of 43.11. As previously stated, due to the small size and practical limitations of the sUAS, 

there is no room or feasible way to fix placards. To achieve an ELS, Heron Systems will keep logbooks 

detailing all inspections, maintenance, and repairs to the sUAS. Heron Systems will also follow 

DJI’s/3DR’s/or equivalent guidelines for inspection and maintenance. As the FAA has determined in 

Exemption Nos. 11136 and 11138, following the manufacturer’s guidelines will achieve an equivalent 

level of safety to 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a) and (d), because of the small size of the sUAS in question and the 

limited nature of operations.

14 C.F.R. 91.407 (a)(b): Operation after maintenance, preventative maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration

Section 91.407 subsections (a & b) states the following: 

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration 

unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by § 43.9 or § 43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b) No person may carry any person (other than crewmembers) in an aircraft that has been maintained, rebuilt, or altered in a 

manner that may have appreciably changed its flight characteristics or substantially affected its operation in flight until an 

appropriately rated pilot with at least a private pilot certificate flies the aircraft, makes an operational check of the 

maintenance performed or alteration made, and logs the flight in the aircraft records.
33 | P a g e

(c) The aircraft does not have to be flown as required by paragraph (b) of this section if, prior to flight, ground tests, 

inspection, or both show conclusively that the maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration has not 

appreciably changed the flight characteristics or substantially affected the flight operation of the aircraft.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. The FAA 

has previously determined that relief from 14 C.F.R. 91.407 is warranted. This section prevents any 

aircraft from operation that “has undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration unless (1) it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this 

chapter; and (2) the maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter 

has been made.” However, Heron Systems has already previously requested exemptions from 43.7 and 

43.11 as described previously. Heron Systems has requested that our proposed operators will have the 

capability to maintain and repair the sUAS to an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 for 

both the type of sUAS, intended use, and operating environment. 

An ELS will be achieved because Heron Systems’ flight operational personnel will regularly inspect 

and maintain its sUAS in accordance with appropriate manuals. Heron Systems will keep detailed 

inspection, maintenance, and flight logs that will always be available to personal or FAA inspectors. 

14 C.F.R. 91.409: Inspections

Section 91.409 states the following: This segment is too long to place into the body of this 

submission. Please look up the details of this section.

Extent of relief Heron Systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: Heron Systems 

requests an exemption based on the requirements for an ELS pursuant to Section 333 aircraft. Heron 

Systems makes this request because this section is only applicable to aircraft maintaining an 

airworthiness certificate. 

14 C.F.R. 91.417: Maintenance records

Section 91.417 states the following: This segment is too long to place into the body of this 

submission. Please look up the details of this section.

Extent of relief Heron systems, Inc. seeks providing an equivalent level of safety: The FAA has 

previously determined that relief from 14 C.F.R. 91.417 is warranted. Heron Systems requests 

exemption as it is only applicable to aircraft with airworthiness certificates. Because this sUAS will not 

possess an airworthiness certificate, the exemption request is valid. An ELS will be achieved because 

Heron Systems flight operational personnel will regularly inspect and maintain its sUAS in accordance 

with appropriate manuals. Heron Systems will keep detailed inspection, maintenance, and flight logs 

that will always be available to personal or FAA inspectors. 
34 | P a g e

The FAA May Prescribe Any Other Conditions For Safe Operation. 

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) 

and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16 entitled Special Conditions, Heron Systems, Inc. requests that the FAA prescribe 

special conditions for the intended operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or 

other fixed wing vehicles of this class, which contain such safety standards that the Administrator finds 

necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, 

and 14 C.F.R §§ 21(h), 43.7, 43.11, 45.11 (a,b,c), 45.27(a), 45.29(3), 61.56, 61.113(a,b), 61.113, 

91.7(a), 91.9(b2, c), 91.103(b2), 91.105, 91.113(b), 91.119(b,c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.403, 91.405(a,d), 

91.407(a,b), 91.409, 91.417. Such special conditions will permit safe operation of the UAS for the 

limited purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States for 

compensation or hire. FMRA Section 333 sets forth the requirements for considering whether a UAS 

will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and 

further, provides the authority for such UAS to operate without airworthiness certification in accordance 

with any requirements that must be established for the safe operation of the UAS in the NAS. 

Likewise, the Administrator may prescribe special conditions pursuant to 14 C.F.R.

§ 21.16, for operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles 

of this class, since the airworthiness regulations of 14 C.F.R. Part 21 do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards, due to the novel or unusual design features of the aircraft. Section 21.16, 

entitled Special Conditions, states the following: 

If the FAA finds that the airworthiness regulations of this subchapter do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller because of a novel or 

unusual design feature of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller, he prescribes special 

conditions and amendments thereto for the product. The special conditions are issued in 

accordance with Part 11 of this chapter and contain such safety standards for the aircraft, 

aircraft engine or propeller as the FAA finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established in the regulations. 

This Petition is made pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(FMRA) Section 333, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain UAS may 

operate safely in the NAS. As such, Heron Systems’ request for exemption may be granted pursuant to 

the authority of FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, as set forth above. FMRA Section 333 sets 

forth the requirements for considering whether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the 

public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and further, provides the authority for such UAS 

to operate without airworthiness certification. 

As discussed in detail above, Heron Systems, Inc. will operate the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 

3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class safely in the NAS, without creating a hazard to 

users of the NAS, or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. 
35 | P a g e

CONCLUSION 

As set forth herein, Heron Systems, Inc. seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.61 and 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which will permit safe 

operation of the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of this class

commercially, without an airworthiness certificate, for the limited purpose of collecting aerial video, 

photography, and sensory data types of to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, civil 

engineering and related operations, and associated expanded basic research principles and applications 

over specific areas within the United States. By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be 

fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also 

advancing the interests of the public, by allowing Heron Systems, Inc. to safely, efficiently, and 

economically operate the RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or other fixed wing vehicles of 

this class commercially within the NAS. 

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Heron Systems, Inc. respectfully requests that the 

Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 21(h), 

43.7, 43.11, 45.11 (a,b,c), 45.27(a), 45.29(3), 61.56, 61.113(a,b), 61.113, 91.7(a), 91.9(b2, c), 

91.103(b2), 91.105, 91.113(b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.403, 91.405(a,d), 91.407(a,b), 91.409, 

91.417, and permit Heron Systems, Inc. to operate a RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, 3DR Aero M, or 

other fixed wing vehicles of this class commercially for the limited purpose of collecting aerial video, 

photography, and sensory data to be used in support of precision agriculture applications, mapping and 

inspection operations, civil engineering and related operations, and the expansion of basic and 

fundamental research principles and applications related to the above over rural/controlled areas under 

400 feet and within Class G airspace within the United States

Dated: February 1, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

 Heron Systems, Inc.

_________________________

Brett Darcey

Vice President

2121 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 401

Alexandria, VA 22314

571-257-8403
36 | P a g e

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: GENERIC X-FRAME TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Heron Systems, Inc. only utilizes safe and reliable UASs. 3DR is an industry leader in small UAS 

production. 3DR UASs are loaded with ground breaking software enabling the user to set parameters 

which will not allow flight into controlled airspace. Parameters can also be set to limit flight to no higher 

than a predetermined and set altitude as well as limit flight to a predetermined and set distance. In 

addition, 3DR software provides real-time altitude and location information to the PIC via the linked 

monitor (smart phone/tablet devices).

RMRC Skyhunter, Skywalker, and 3DR Aero M user manuals are attached as examples (if available). 

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL CHECKLISTS

Checklists for Packing, Preflight, Postflight, Mission Cards, and Accident Reports are attached. The lists 

are to give the reviewers an idea of operations for Heron Systems, Inc. Heron Systems, Inc. notes 

however these lists may not be holistic or all-inclusive and therefore may be modified as needed to 

better ensure successful flight operations.