i

Exemption No. 10598

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC  20591

   

In the matter of the petition of    

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON

CANADA LIMITED    Regulatory Docket No. FAA‐2012‐0123

for an exemption from § 27.1 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations    

   

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 2

Regulatory Basis for Granting Reconsideration............................................................................................ 4

Discussion

I. The Denial Order Committed Errors of Law in Ignoring the Safety and Public Interest

Determinations of the Canadian Government.......................................................................... 7

II. The Denial Order Erred As a Matter of Law and Fact In Failing To Find That Bell Has Met

the Safety Requirement  ........................................................................................................... 8

A. The Denial Order Makes No Specific Findings as To Whether Bell Has Met the Safety

Requirement of Part 11 ...................................................................................................... 8

B. The Safety of the Exemption Has Been Established by More than Substantial

Evidence.............................................................................................................................. 8

C. With the Additional Equipment Required by TCCA, the 429 Meets Part 29 or

Provides an Equivalent Level of Safety to Part 29 Requirements..................................... 10
ii

III. The Denial Order Erred As a Matter Of Law And Fact In Finding That An Exemption

Would Not Serve The Public Interest................................................................................ 11

A. Precedent and the Agency’s Own Economic Analysis Establish That an

Exemption Would Provide Important Public Benefits ............................................... 11

B. The Denial Order Relies on an Incomplete Competitive Analysis.............................. 13

1. Eurocopter already has a Competitive Advantage as a Result of

Regulatory Waivers....................................................................................... 13

2. The Impact Of Eurocopter’s Regulatory Advantage Is Clear......................... 14

3. The Denial Order Has Already Helped Eurocopter Capture More of the

Mark .............................................................................................................. 15

4. Granting Bell’s Exemption Will Level the Playing Field ................................. 15

5. The Exemption Would Not Give Bell an Unfair Advantage over Other

Part 27 or Part 29 Models............................................................................. 16

6. The Exemption Would Promote Safety and Innovation ............................... 16

C. The Denial Order Should Have Considered the Impact of the Exemption on U.S.

Jobs............................................................................................................................. 18

IV. The Denial Order Has a Negative Impact on Public Policy................................................ 19

A. The Denial Order Errs in Holding That the Line between Parts 27 and 29 is

Fixed and Unyielding............................................................................................ 19

B. Focusing Exclusively on Gross Weight Ignores the Amended Regulation and

Results in a Decision that Places Form over Substance....................................... 19

C. The Denial Order Effectively Requires That an Industry Consensus or

Rulemaking Be in Progress In Order To Grant Bell Canada’s Exemption

Request................................................................................................................ 20

D. The Denial Order Does Not Correctly Characterize Agency Precedent............... 22

E. Removing Safety Equipment to Increase Payload Is Not the Right Answer........ 23

V. Conclusion and Request for Relief.................................................................................... 25
Exemption No. 10598

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC  20591

   

In the matter of the petition of    

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON

CANADA LIMITED    Regulatory Docket No. FAA‐2012‐0123

for an exemption from § 27.1 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations    

   

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

“A 1,000‐pound increase in gross weight will result in improved mission performance

without causing a decreased level of safety to the pilot or passengers. FAA has

determined that this increase in gross weight will be of benefit to the public by

allowing an expansion of the mission capability (improved payload, range, etc.) of this

helicopter. This should be particularly beneficial to operators of air ambulances, etc.”1

In the mid‐1990s, FAA granted gross weight exemptions of 500‐1000 pounds to nearly all Part 27

rotorcraft then operating at the top of the weight class.    These exemptions were granted to Agusta,

Kaman, and MD Helicopters three years before Part 27.1 was amended to raise the class weight.  The

exemptions were granted permanently, irrespective of whether Part 27 weight limits were ever

increased.  A similar Part 27 gross weight exemption was granted in Europe for the Eurocopter EC135.

Subsequently, FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans determined that a product gap existed at

the light end of Part 29 because it was not economically viable to certificate a new model under Part 29

below 8,000 pounds.  The only helicopter operating then and now in that weight range is the Eurocopter

Deutschland BK117 (aka “EC145”)2 – a model that is “grandfathered” on a 1983 type certificate and

exempt from having to meet many of the latest Part 29 standards such as bird strike and flaw tolerance.

When granting class weight exemptions in the mid‐1990’s, FAA determined that new Part 27

models were at a weight disadvantage to older models because they had to meet higher certification

                                                           

1 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996) (emphasis added). 2 Eurocopter Deutschland markets the latest version of the BK117 as the “EC145”.  Though marketed as

a unique model, it is FAA certificated as the BK117‐C2 under Type Certificate H13EU, issued in 1983.  The

model will hereafter be referred to as the EC145.   
2

standards.  The Agency also determined that it would be in the public interest to permit certain Part 27

models to operate at the lower end of Part 29 if that would improve the utility of the model in public

service operations, such as EMS.  Those were the grounds on which exemptions were granted at that

time.

Fifteen years later, Bell finds itself in the same position that Eurocopter, Agusta, Kaman, and MD

faced in the mid‐1990’s.  The Bell 429 is certified to the very latest standards of Part 27, and actually

meets 97% of Part 29, but this makes the model heavier than its older competitors.    The 429 could

readily operate at 7,500 pounds and provide greatly improved performance for operators, including

critical public interest operators like HEMS.  It has been granted an exemption to operate at this weight

by Transport Canada and eleven other nations.

On August 13, 2012, FAA issued a Denial Order that reversed course on key findings it adopted

fifteen years ago in support of gross weight exemptions granted to other manufacturers.    The Order

seems to rely on assumptions and factual conclusions submitted by Bell’s competitors on the last day of

the notice and comment period.  Bell did not have a procedural opportunity to reply to these inaccurate

submissions.    Therefore, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. (“Bell”) respectfully petitions FAA to

reconsider the August 13, 2012 Denial Order.

In support of this Petition for Reconsideration, Bell also will present additional evidence,

argument, and testimony demonstrating the significant life‐saving and public interest benefits of the

requested exemption.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bell 429 is a 7,000 pound twin‐engine helicopter certificated by Transport Canada Civil

Aviation (“TCCA”) in 2009 as a “normal” category rotorcraft under the Canadian equivalent of US Part

27.    It is the only helicopter certificated under the newest, most stringent standards for “normal”

category rotrocraft.    Because Bell designed the 429 as a “Category A” helicopter, and chose to add

further safety enhancements, it actually meets ninety‐seven percent of the latest requirements of Part

29 (“transport category”).    The 429 is certificated for 7,500 pounds external load, but is limited by

regulation in the United States to 7,000 pounds for internal load.

Earlier this year, Bell petitioned FAA to validate an exemption granted by TCCA that increases

internal load of the 429 by 500 pounds.  This was necessary to enhance the 429’s usefulness for EMS

and law enforcement operators, who need the increased range and load for emergency services,

particularly in remote areas.  TCCA granted the exemption after an extensive review, finding the weight

increase safe and in the public interest.  Eleven other nations have already validated the exemption.

FAA, however, declined Bell’s request.  This decision seems to have been strongly influenced by

the objections of other helicopter manufacturers, who claimed that an exemption would give the 429 a

competitive advantage.   FAA found that the exemption would be unfair to competing manufacturers,

based on the assumption that FAA would be waiving requirements for the 429 that competing models

were required to meet.

The Denial Order, however, was in error on this point as a matter of law and fact.  The closest

Part 29 models are “grandfathered” on old type certificates, and FAA has already waived more of the

current Part 29 requirements for those helicopters than the Agency would waive for Bell in granting the
3

429 exemption.  The Bell 429 meets far more of current Part 29 than its nearest “transport category”

competitor, the Eurocopter Deutschland EC145.   

In addition, the Denial Order makes a competitive impact analysis based on incomplete data

submitted by a competitor on the final day of the notice and comment period.  Bell does not believe

that the competitive impact on European manufacturers is a matter of “public interest” under Part

11.81.  To the extent the Agency considers competitive impact, however, Bell believes FAA will reach

different conclusions with more complete data.  A complete review of the US light twin market would

reveal that competing models are certified under much older and less rigorous standard.  It is also clear

that Eurocopter Deutschland currently dominates the US light twin market, delivering 74% of all

helicopters in this class over the past 6 years.  This is a competitor that did not need special protection in

the US marketplace.

While the competitive impact on European helicopter manufacturers is not a valid “public

interest” consideration, the impact of the exemption on US jobs is very much a matter of public interest

and should have been given great weight by FAA.    The Agency recognized that the exemption would

likely create additional 429 sales at the expense of competitors.  The Bell 429 is manufactured in the

United States and Canada by Bell’s 12,000 U.S. and Canadian employees.   Almost all other light twin

helicopters sold in the United States over the past six years were manufactured in Europe.  Eurocopter

holds three quarters of the U.S. light twin market, but only has 876 employees in this country.  

Additional 429 sales will unquestionably drive jobs to U.S. workers that would otherwise go to Europe,

and that is a public interest factor in the U.S. that is paramount.

The Denial Order also failed to consistently apply precedent.    The very significant benefit of

enhanced EMS and law enforcement rotorcraft capabilities was previously recognized by FAA as a

matter of public interest in granting two previous exemptions.    This conclusion was reinforced by an

economic study performed by the Office of Aviation Policy and Plans.  The Denial Order found, however,

that persons whose lives were saved by enhanced helicopter EMS capabilities were simply “customers”

of the 429, whose survival apparently provides “very minimal economic benefit to the overall public.”  

This was clearly error.

Finally, the Denial Order makes recommendations and conclusions that run counter to public

policy and FAA’s overriding safety mission.  The Denial Order suggests that it is preferable for operators

to remove safety equipment on the 429 to reduce weight rather than grant a gross weight exemption.  

The sanctity of gross weight under Part 27 should not be elevated above any practical consideration.

Increasing the gross weight of the Bell 429 from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds has no adverse

impact on safety.  The number of occupants will not be changed and the helicopter is already certified to

operate at that gross weight.    The exemption will permit EMS and law enforcement to operate with

greater flexibility and range, and will drive additional jobs to the U.S. economy.  These are public interest

factors as a matter of law.  Accordingly, FAA should validate the 429 gross weight exemption granted by

TCCA, and rescind the Denial Order.

   
4

REGULATORY BASIS FOR GRANTING RECONSIDERATION

Section 11.101 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR § 11.101) requires a petition for

reconsideration to show that (a) there is a significant additional fact and why this fact was not presented

earlier; (b) FAA made an important factual error; or (c) FAA incorrectly interpreted a law, regulation, or

precedent.  As summarized below, this Petition for Reconsideration satisfies all three requirements of

section 11.101:

(a) Significant Additional Facts:   

Competitive Impact – The Denial Order reached conclusions about the competitive impact of

the exemption.  The underlying data on which FAA relied was submitted by Bell’s competitors

on the final day of the Notice and Comment period.  Therefore, Bell did not have a procedural

opportunity to respond to these allegations by competitors, many of which were incorrect and

misleading.  Bell believes that, had the additional facts and data presented in this petition been

available to FAA prior to the issuance of the Denial Order, the Agency would have reached

different conclusions regarding competitive impact of the exemption.

Public Interest – The Denial Order concluded that a gross weight exemption would not provide a

benefit to the public as a whole.    The Petition for Reconsideration presents an expert report

from an EMS helicopter pilot describing in very specific terms how an increase in gross weight

would provide significant benefits to the public throughout the United States.    Bell did not

provide such a report in its original petition because the public benefit of increased gross weight

for HEMS was recognized in prior exemptions granted by FAA.    Since the Denial Order casts

those prior findings in doubt, Bell has submitted additional evidence directed at this point.

Economic Impact – The Denial Order rejected Bell’s claim that additional sales of the 429

resulting from the exemption would create additional U.S. jobs.    FAA adopted the view

proposed by Eurocopter that the impact on U.S. employment would be neutral regardless of

which competitor received the sales order, since the three major competitors are incorporated

outside the U.S. and each has U.S. facilities.  The Eurocopter statement on which FAA relied was

submitted on the last day of the Notice and Comment period, so Bell did not have a procedural

opportunity to reply.  Eurocopter failed to disclose that it had only 876 employees in the United

States, and that the bulk of its manufacturing was completed by 12,500 employees in France

and Germany.    Bell has 10,000 U.S. employees and 2,000 Canadian employees, and all

manufacturing for the 429 is completed in the U.S. and Canada.    Bell has also submitted an

economic impact analysis, prepared by a third party economist, confirming the significant

impact that granting the exemption would have on the U.S. economy.  Bell believes that FAA

would have reached different conclusions regarding the impact of the exemption on U.S.

employment and the U.S. economy based on this data.

Safety – The Denial Order did not reach any specific conclusions regarding safety, and it is not

clear from the Order whether the Agency accepted the findings of TCCA in this regard or simply

did not reach the issue.  Because there were no specific findings on safety of the exemption, Bell

has submitted expert reports from an independent Engineering firm that reviewed the safety

aspects of the gross weight exemption.    Bell believes these will assist FAA in making specific

findings on the safety issue.
5

(b) Important Factual Errors – For reasons set forth more specifically below in the Petition for

Reconsideration, the following statements in the Denial Order are factually incorrect:

“This would present Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers with an economic

advantage over their part 27 competitors since their competitors are limited to a 7,000 pound

MGW.”

“Comparable helicopters at a similar weight class that are part 29 certified would also be at a

disadvantage since they were required to meet more costly part 29 certification requirements.”

“Further, there are other normal category helicopters currently available in the market that can

achieve similar operational capabilities proposed by Bell Canada that did not require an

exemption for increased gross weight.”

“Obtaining category A approval for the Bell 429 was strictly a Bell Canada business decision.  

This decision enhances the marketability of the Bell 429 when compared to non∙category A

helicopters.”

“We agree that jobs in the United States could be created with the sale of more than 300 new

helicopters. If there is a demand for that many helicopters, then helicopter manufacturers will fill

that need. Like Bell Canada, most of the non‐domestic manufacturers also have facilities in the

U.S. Therefore, we believe that jobs will be added regardless of the manufacturer if there are

additional helicopter sales as suggested by the petitioner.”

“The FAA acknowledges that granting an exemption from § 27. 1 would probably increase the

potential usefulness of the Bell 429, to the current operators. However, we anticipate that there

will be very minimal economic benefit to the overall public if the petition for exemption is

granted. We anticipate that most of the economic benefits will be realized only by Bell Canada,

Bell 429 operators, and their customers.”

“Other normal category helicopters accommodate similar type equipment. The availability of

these other part 27 helicopters remains an option for operators.”

“The certification procedures for aeronautical products and parts together with the

airworthiness standards in the 14 CFR (Federal Aviation Regulations) are intended to establish

varying levels of safety for different aeronautical products. As these regulations developed over

time, the FAA has based the distinction between normal and transport category rotorcraft

certification requirements, in part, on the maximum certified gross weight of the aircraft. The

gross weight of aircraft provided a meaningful indication of the number of people and the

amount of cargo likely to be carried, as well as the design complexity and performance

capabilities of the aircraft. At each stage of the incremental adoption of the airworthiness

standards in 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, the FAA met the procedural and legal burdens of

establishing a compelling safety rationale for each additional safety requirement. Parts 27 and

29 each establish an appropriate minimum level of safety for the design of normal and transport

category rotorcraft, respectively. The effect of granting Bell Canada's petition would be

tantamount to a de facto rulemaking action to amend part 27 by increasing its applicability
6

weight. In addition, the effect of a grant would be tantamount to exempting the Bell 429 from

the application of part 29.”

“The FAA has received a number of petitions for exemption to increase the gross weight of

specific helicopters to exceed the weight limitation of § 27.1. Typically, the FAA has denied these

requests. The FAA has only granted exemptions to § 27.1 in one situation, directly related to

rulemaking that increased the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters.”

“The argument made by the petitioner that an increase in gross weight for the Bell 429 is needed

to accommodate the installation of safety enhancing equipment is not valid justification. An

increase in gross weight for any normal category helicopter would accommodate the installation

of additional safety enhancing equipment.”

“The exemption relief sought for the Bell 429 would, if granted, place the BelI 429 at a

competitive advantage to other rotorcraft over 7,000 pounds already required to meet part 29.

Said differently, the relief sought would, if granted, put existing part 29 rotorcraft manufacturers

at a competitive disadvantage owing to the greater costs to certify and produce their products.”

(c) FAA Incorrectly Interpreted a Law, Regulation or Precedent:

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret precedent from prior Part 27 gross weight

exemption decisions, including McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505

(Sept. 5, 1996), Agusta S.p.A. Exemption No. 6518 (Oct. 9, 1996), and Kaman Aerospace

Corporation Exemption No. 6433 (Apr. 25, 1996).

The Denial Order fails to consider the precedential impact of Amerifight, Inc. Exemption No.

8480A (Apr. 21, 2006), finding that exemption requests are independent of ongoing regulatory

considerations.

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret and apply 14 CFR § 11.81, adding an additional

factor that is not in the regulation

The Denial Order does not correctly interpret 14 CFR § 27.1, denying the relevance of the 1999

amendment to the regulation adding passenger capacity as a defining element of Part 27.

The Denial Order effectively amends 14 CFR § 11.81 without following the Administrative

Procedure Act.

The Denial Order fails to consider and interpret the precedential impact of the Office of Aviation

Policy and Plan’s Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and

Trade Impact Assessment for Proposed Rule:  Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category

Rotorcraft Gross Weight and Passenger Limits.

The Denial Order fails to address the Chicago Convention or the U.S.‐Canada Bilateral Aviation

Safety Agreement, or handle this as a validation request of an exemption already granted by

TCCA.
7

I. THE DENIAL ORDER COMMITTED ERRORS OF LAW IN IGNORING THE SAFETY AND PUBLIC

INTEREST DETERMINATIONS OF THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

The Bell 429 was type certificated in 2009 by TCCA, the national authority overseeing

certification of this model.    That type certificate was thereafter validated by FAA pursuant to the

Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (“BASA”) between the United States and Canada.  It has also been

validated by a number of other countries pursuant to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the

“Chicago Convention”).

With FAA’s concurrence, Bell followed the same procedure in seeking an increased gross weight

exemption to the 429 type certificate, first seeking the exemption from TCCA as the original type

certificating authority.  TCCA conducted an extensive technical evaluation of the request and found that

the exemption was in the public interest and did not affect aviation safety.  TCCA thereafter issued the

exemption, which thus far has been validated by eleven additional nations.    TCAA submitted the

underlying exemption petition to FAA on behalf of Bell as a validation request.

As the type certificating authority for the 429, TCCA carefully reviewed the safety aspects of

granting an increased gross weight exemption and conducted a detailed risk assessment.    TCCA

evaluated the relative safety of the 429 to other Part 29 rotorcraft, and determined that the 429 was

compliant with many more provisions of current Part 29 than the EC145, S76C and S76D.    TCCA also

attached many conditions to the exemption mandating safety related equipment over and above the

requirements of Part 29.   This mandatory equipment is not required to be installed on any other Part 29

rotorcraft as basic equipment and increases the level of safety of the 429 beyond these other Part 29

helicopters.   Clearly, TCCA made a very thorough review of the safety implications of the exemption and

established beyond a shadow of a doubt the equivalent level of safety that is the standard for granting

Bell’s Petition.

TCCA further determined that the exemption was in the public interest.    The public interest

factors in both the United States and Canada are virtually identical.  The benefits of improved range and

additional payload are as significant to EMS and other helicopter operations in Canada as they are in the

United States.  The critically injured patient in a remote area whose life can be saved by a 429 with a full

load of fuel is just as important to the American people as it is to the Canadian people.  An increase in

429 sales will create more jobs in both countries and increase the global competitiveness of North

American products.

The United States and Canada have the world’s largest trading relationship and are parties to a

number of treaties designed to reduce trade barriers and encourage cooperation between government

agencies.  These treaties are built on the concept of mutual trust and respect between regulators on

both sides of the border.  This is particularly true with respect to airworthiness issues:

The underlying principle behind these Implementation Procedures is that

certification projects will be based on mutual trust by both authorities,

which will lead to design acceptance in compliance with the importing

authority’s airworthiness standards.    This process requires effective

communication between the FAA and TCCA.  The exporting authority, as

delegated by the importing authority, makes determinations of

compliance with the importing authority’s certification basis.    The

importing authority should be able to make findings of compliance,
8

without further showing, based upon the exporting authority’s

statements of compliance.3

The airworthiness standards of Parts 27 and 29 under United States and Canadian law have

been harmonized and the standards for obtaining an exemption are identical under the laws of the two

countries.  Canada has one of the largest civil aviation systems in the world, and Transport Canada is

highly regarded as a world leader in aviation safety.  Indeed, the United Nations selected Canada as the

headquarters for ICAO.

While one of Bell’s competitors apparently does not hold TCCA in the highest regard,4 Bell is

confident that FAA does not share that view.  When reviewing a validation request from Canada, FAA

has always started from a presumption that the determinations made by an agency of the Government

of Canada are valid and appropriate.

The Denial Order, however, makes no attempt to identify any reason that demands FAA depart

from the international validation process.  The omission in the Denial Order of any reference to the work

and findings of TCCA creates the unfortunate impression that FAA did not take this work into

consideration.  For this reason alone, FAA should reconsider the Denial Order and clarify that the work

of TCCA has been afforded the consideration to which it is justly entitled.  

II. THE DENIAL ORDER ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FAILING TO FIND THAT BELL

HAS MET THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT

A. The Denial Order Makes No Specific Findings as to Whether Bell Has Met the Safety

Requirement of Part 11

The exemption provisions of Part 11 require that a petitioner demonstrate that an exemption

does not adversely affect aviation safety or is equivalently safe to the rule being exempted.  The Denial

Order contains no specific discussion regarding the relative safety of the Bell 429 with an increased

weight of 500 pounds.  The last paragraph of the Order states that Bell’s petition is being denied as “not

in the public interest”, so it would appear that FAA either accepted the safety findings of TCCA or

elected not to address safety and let the denial rest only on “public interest”.

B. The Safety of the Exemption Has Been Established by More than Substantial Evidence

There is no question that the Bell 429 can safely operate at 7,500 pounds.    In fact, at 7,500

pounds, the Bell 429 still maintains its Category A, single‐engine performance.    The rotorcraft was

designed and certified to operate at 7,500 pounds with an external load, so the ability of the helicopter

                                                            3

  Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness Covering Design Approval, Production Activities, Export

Airworthiness Approval, Post Design Approval Activities, and Technical Assistance Between Authorities

Under the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of

America for Promotion of Aviation Safety, at Section 3.0, para. a. 4 EADS claims in its public comment that Bell Canada was “forum shopping” when it first sought the

exemption from TCCA.    This is a curious assertion, given that the 429 type certificate was issued by

Canada.    The “forum shopping” allegation suggests that EADS’ leaders regard TCCA as insufficiently

competent or insufficiently objective to make an independent or appropriate determination.  EADS is of

course free to express its own views.  Bell strongly disagrees with any negative characterization of TCCA,

and does not believe such an opinion is held by FAA, EASA, or anyone else in the industry.
9

to carry this load was established to the satisfaction of TCCA and FAA at original certification.  Prior to

granting the recent gross weight increase for internal loads, TCCA required Bell to conduct additional

certification testing and analysis to confirm compliance to the applicable requirements with the

additional 500 pounds internal gross weight.    In other words, Bell has established, and TCCA has

accepted, that the structural components of the 429 meet the structural requirements necessary to

operate under the higher loads and stresses caused by the weight increase, and that aircraft handling

and performance are not adversely impacted.  And, moreover, Bell has since had its engineering work

independently reviewed. 5

FAA and TCCA currently permit a number of helicopter models to operate under Part 29 without

meeting today’s standards.    If it is safe for these models to operate above 7,000 pounds without

meeting all the current Part 29 certification requirements, it cannot be unsafe for the Bell 429 to do the

same.

TCCA also examined the certification basis of the Bell 429 when compared to the certification

basis of the EC145, S76C, and S76D.  Not only does the Bell 429 have the most advanced certification

basis of any certificated rotorcraft, it meets more than ninety‐seven percent of the current Part 29

requirements, including flaw tolerance of composite structure, HIRF protection, flammable fluid fire

protection, and the latest requirements for transmissions and gearboxes.  In addition, the 429 is the only

rotorcraft that has used the MSG‐3 process in the development of its maintenance program.  As a result,

the 429 surpasses the EC145, S76C, and S76D in its overall compliance with current Part 29 standards.

This is best reflected in a comparison chart of the models, prepared by Transport Canada:

                                                           

5 Investigative Report Bell 429:  Analysis of Transport Canada’s Approval of Increase in Gross Weight is

appended as Exhibit “1”.
10

The chart above compares the Bell 429 to Part 29 requirements and to other models where

amendment levels differ.  Not only does the chart show that the 429 exceeds the Part 29 certification

standards of three other Part 29 rotorcraft, it also shows that the 429 meets almost all the current

provisions of Part 29.  

C. With the Additional Equipment Required by TCCA, the 429 Meets Part 29 or Provides

an Equivalent Level of Safety to Part 29 Requirements

The Bell 429 is certificated to higher standards than any other Part 27 rotorcraft in the world,

and this certification basis heavily overlaps with current Part 29.  Bell has had the certification basis of

the helicopter reviewed by an independent engineering firm, and they determined that the 429 meets

97.8% of current Part 29 requirements.6

  

TCCA carefully reviewed those provisions of Part 29 that Bell did not currently meet and

imposed a number of conditions that would mitigate toward an equivalent level of safety.  Bell 429’s

operating under the exemption in Canada must be equipped with Cockpit Voice Recorder/Flight Data

Recorder (CVR/FDR), Helicopter Terrain Avoidance and Warning System (HTAWS), radar altimeter, dual

auto‐pilot with coupled flight director capability (minimum three axes), and an appropriate and effective

bird repellent device or technology, such as forward flashing lights.    The other nations that have

validated the TCCA exemption have imposed the same requirements.

This was a balanced approach by TCCA that raised the safety bar in certain areas above that

required for other Part 29 rotorcraft, with enhancements such as CVR/FDR, HTAWS, and radar altimeter.  

This in turn offset certain Part 29 requirements the 429 could not meet without a major redesign, like

flaw tolerance of metallic structure.    TCCA also required an effective bird repellant technology as an

alternative means of complying with bird strike.  Dual auto‐pilot with flight director capability enhances

the single pilot IFR capabilities of the rotorcraft to correspond with Part 29 requirements.   

There are some Part 29 requirements that TCCA did not require Bell to specifically demonstrate.  

For example, a new Part 29 design must be subjected to certain additional endurance testing prior to

receiving a type certificate.  The Bell 429 has now been in service for three years, however, so the design

has effectively been subjected to additional endurance testing.    Part 29 also imposes certain cabin

material, signage, and passenger emergency equipment requirements.    TCCA conditioned the gross

weight exemption on a requirement that the passenger capacity of the 429 remain the same.  

Therefore, passenger safety was not impacted by the exemption in any way that would call for the

installation of additional cabin equipment.    TCCA did not require Canadian operators to install such

additional equipment.

Bell recognizes FAA’s concern that granting weight class exemptions could create precedent that

would erode the enhanced safety standards of Part 29.  The 429 exemption request, however, would

not create such precedent.    The 429 is so close to meeting all current Part 29 requirements that an

exemption would set a very high bar for other rotorcraft to meet.  Any ship equipped and certificated to

the same standard as the 429 would, after all, exceed the current Part 29 compliance of models such as

the EC145, the EC155, and the S76.  It is these grandfathered designs that set the lower end of current

Part 29 compliance.

                                                           

6 Investigative Report Bell Model 429: Analysis of Compliance with FAR Part 29, appended as Exhibit “2”.
11

III. THE DENIAL ORDER ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FACT IN FINDING THAT AN EXEMPTION

WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A. Precedent and the Agency’s Own Economic Analysis Establish that an Exemption

Would Provide Important Public Benefits

Bell’s petition provided a detailed analysis of how an increase in gross weight on the 429 would

be extremely beneficial to the public, particularly in the ability to offer improved support for EMS

operations.  A number of public comments received by FAA in support of Bell’s Petition also focused on

the benefits to EMS and other industries.  As characterized in the Denial Order:

Other commenters in favor of granting the exemption pointed to the expanded mission

or operational opportunities and increased safety margins for the Bell 429 the additional

500 pounds of allowed weight would provide. This includes, the capability to operate

under both visual flight rules and IFR, carry extra mission equipment and additional

passengers (operational or patient). and carry additional fuel for longer range flights

(e.g., to service additional areas), extended on‐site loitering, and reduced en route

refueling during missions (for example, emergency medical services, law enforcement,

utility and gulf oil platform transport). A commenter also stated that added onboard fuel

also reduces costs of enroute refueling and noise abatement at airports used for

remotely managed fuel cache sites.    Another commenter believes the current weight

restriction directly compromises the quality of patient care. A congressional commenter

encouraged the approval of the weight increase to increase service capability in a safe

and cost effective way, and to serve his state’s constituents through air ambulance and

emergency medical service providers.7

FAA previously determined that the improved utility to EMS and law enforcement providers was

in the public interest and cited this as basis for granting an increased gross weight exemption for the

Agusta 109:

An increase in the gross weight of the A109 will allow the helicopter to take off with a

full fuel loading. This will increase the range of the helicopter, allowing passengers to be

transported over longer distances. This increased distance will be of particular benefit in

rural areas where medical care is not immediately available, or in situations where a

patient must quickly be transported to a specific center for specialized care. An added

benefit will be the ability to transport more than one patient at a time. This can be

especially beneficial in the case of an accident involving more than one person or in

situations where a family member needs to accompany a patient.

8

The Agency made the same finding in granting a gross weight exemption for the MD900:

A 1,000‐pound increase in gross weight will result in improved mission performance

without causing a decreased level of safety to the pilot or passengers. FAA has

determined that this increase in gross weight will be of benefit to the public by allowing

                                                           

7 Denial Order at 4.

8 Agusta S.p.A. Exemption No. 6518 at 6‐7 (Oct. 9, 1996).
12

an expansion of the mission capability (improved payload, range, etc.) of this helicopter.

This should be particularly beneficial to operators of air ambulances, etc.9

The determination was also made independently by FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans:

Another safety benefit, although not directly related to rotorcraft safety, is that the

7,000 pound part 27 rotorcraft would have a greater range for a given payload than

would a 6,000 pound part 27 rotorcraft. This factor is important for Emergency Medical

Services (EMS) rotorcraft which, typically, carry a considerable amount of fairly heavy

medical equipment (oxygen tanks, gurneys, etc.) plus the emergency medical person(s).

As a result, the current part 27 weight restriction limits the amount of fuel several EMS

rotorcraft models can carry, which, in turn, limits their ranges. An increase in the part 27

rotorcraft’s allowable weight would permit these EMS rotorcraft to carry more fuel

(and/or additional medical equipment) and, thereby, increase their ranges and/or

provide better emergency care for the victim. This increased range is particularly crucial

in the western United States where a victim may have to be transported hundreds of

miles to the closest appropriate hospital. Finally, the increased allowable weight may

permit the transport of an additional victim ‐ an important consideration for more rapid

transportation of multiple accident victims.

10

Unfortunately, FAA effectively reversed these prior determinations in the Denial Order:

The FAA acknowledges that granting an exemption from § 27.1 would probably increase

the potential usefulness of the Bell 429, to the current operators. However, we anticipate

that there will be very minimal economic benefit to the overall public if the petition for

exemption is granted. We anticipate that most of the economic benefits will be realized

only by Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers.

11

This finding interprets “public interest” very narrowly.  An exemption request, by its very nature,

relates to a specific model of aircraft, so the members of the public who will benefit from the exemption

are almost always the “operators” of the aircraft and their “customers.”  Which of these terms describes

a critically injured patient in a remote area whose life can be saved by a helicopter that can dispatch

with a full load of fuel or critical medical equipment?   Based on the above noted similar exemptions

granted in the mid‐1990’s, FAA formerly considered this person to be a member of the public whose life

was a matter of public interest.   

The Denial Order fails to distinguish between Bell’s “customer” (e.g., an EMS operator) and

“members of the public” (e.g., a critically ill or injured patient being transported by that EMS operator)

in determining where, and how, the public interest will be served by Bell’s requested exemption.  Bell

                                                           

9 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996) (emphasis added).

10 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule:    Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 21‐22 (APO‐320 March 1997) (emphasis in original), is appended as Exhibit “3”. 11 Denial Order at 7.
13

does not believe it would be reasonable to exclude the interests of EMS patients and other helicopter

users from being part of the “public interest”. 12

B. The Denial Order Relies on an Incomplete Competitive Analysis

FAA’s denial of Bell’s petition places a great deal of emphasis on a finding that the requested

exemption would provide Bell with a competitive advantage in the helicopter marketplace.  Specifically,

FAA states that granting the exemption:

would present Bell Canada, Bell 429 operators, and their customers with an economic

advantage over their part 27 competitors since their competitors are limited to a 7,000

pound MGW. Comparable helicopters at a similar weight class that are part 29 certified

would also be at a disadvantage since they were required to meet more costly part 29

certification requirements.13

These conclusions in the Denial Order are not correct, as Bell will demonstrate more specifically

below.  Moreover, Bell does not believe that the competitive interests of other manufacturers equate to

“public interest” in the United States, since the competing manufacturers are located in Europe and

they employ a relatively small workforce in this country.  It should also be considered that FAA no longer

has the statutory authority to regulate competition between manufacturers.    In 1996 Congress

specifically eliminated the “development of air commerce and the promotion of civil aeronautics” from

those matters that FAA may consider.14   

1. Eurocopter Already has a Competitive Advantage as a Result of Regulatory

Waivers

Any time FAA grants a regulatory waiver to a single party, the Agency is providing a competitive

advantage unique to that party.  In 2001, FAA excepted Eurocopter Deutschland from having to meet

many current Part 29 requirements, including bird strike or flaw tolerance on the EC145.    Two years

later, FAA provided the same exception to Eurocopter France for the EC155.  These regulatory waivers

clearly were not granted by FAA because it believed the bird strike or fatigue tolerance safety

regulations in Part 29 were unnecessary.  Clearly, they were granted because compliance with bird strike

and fatigue tolerance requirements would exact a significant weight penalty on the EC145 and EC155.  

This would present engineering challenges that Eurocopter and FAA clearly decided were severe enough

to make these requirements impractical on the EC145 and EC155.    The waivers afforded a very

significant competitive advantage to Eurocopter, since competing models that were subsequently

certificated had to meet bird strike and fatigue tolerance requirements and would consequently be

heavier.  This is precisely the competitive advantage Eurocopter is attempting to preserve by opposing

an exemption for the Bell 429.

                                                           

12 Bell has attached expert testimony by Mr. Larry Grandy, an experienced EMS helicopter pilot, detailing

the problems caused for EMS operators by the current weight restriction, and explaining many different

ways in which the requested 500 pound increase will enable EMS operators to save more lives and

conduct operations more safely.  Mr. Grandy’s expert testimony is appended as Exhibit “4”.

13 Denial Order at 6. 14 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104‐264, § 401(a), 110 Stat. 3255 (1996)

(removing “developing” and “promoting” from the text of 49 U.S.C. § 40101(d)).

15

3. The Denial Order Has Already Helped Eurocopter Capture More of the Market

Within thirty days of FAA’s issuance of the Denial Order, Bell lost a major competitive bid for

sixteen light twin EMS helicopters.  The order was awarded instead to Eurocopter.  Prior to the denial of

Bell’s petition, Eurocopter claimed to FAA that a 429 gross weight exemption would be unfair, giving the

429 a competitive and economic advantage.    Now that the exemption has been denied, Eurocopter

gleefully boasts in a press release that “over the last ten years, the EC135 has accounted for over 80% of

the light twin helicopters delivered to the U.S. air medical industry.” 15  Clearly, FAA was not provided

with complete and accurate information when it made findings about the competitive impact of a 429

exemption.

4. Granting Bell’s Exemption Will Level the Playing Field

In practical terms, if FAA waives bird strike and fatigue tolerance on a Part 29 helicopter, there is

not a great deal of difference between an exempted Part 29 model and a helicopter certificated under

Part 27, particularly when an older Part 29 model is compared against a new Part 27 helicopter.  This is

what TCCA found when it compared the 429, EC145, S76C, and S76D.

There is a well known product gap at the light end of Part 29, recognized by the Office of

Aviation Policy and Plans in a study published fifteen years ago:

Obtaining a part 29 type certificate for a relatively small rotorcraft (less than 8,000

pounds) is not, generally, an economically viable option because the cost of compliance

with the requirements of part 29 is substantially higher than that of part 27 . . . .  As a

result, only one manufacturer has built a part 29 rotorcraft with a maximum gross

weight less than 8,000 pounds. Consequently, there is a rotorcraft product gap between

the heaviest part 27 rotorcraft and the lightest part 29 rotorcraft.16

Even though the 429 meets ninety‐seven percent of the current provisions of Part 29, to be

certificated as a Part 29 model, it would have to meet 14 C.F.R . § 29.631 “bird strike,” 14 CFR § 29.571

“flaw tolerance of metallic structure,” and other Part 29 requirements, all of which would add significant

weight to the airframe. The end result for Bell, if it had to certificate the 429 as a 7,500 pound Part 29

helicopter, would be a ship that was considerably more expensive because of the additional

development and production costs and, therefore, no longer an economically viable option.    The

additional airframe weight would also have a significant impact on performance.

Even at 7,500 pounds, the Bell 429 is at a competitive disadvantage to the EC145 by

approximately 300 pounds of available payload.  Adding additional weight that compliance to Part 29

requirements would dictate means the 429 would have no way to effectively compete against the

EC145, which does not have to meet bird strike or flaw tolerance.  The economics of Part 29 certification

just will not allow a new model certificated under the latest standards to compete against a helicopter

operating with waivers under a thirty year‐old type certificate.

                                                           

15 See Exhibit “3”

16 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule:    Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 3‐4.
16

In the final analysis, Bell’s petition for gross weight exemption on the 429 does exactly the same

thing as the exceptions already granted the EC145:  allows the 429 to operate in an economically viable

way in the product gap at the lowest end of Part 29.    Granting the exemption will not give Bell a

competitive advantage.  It will help to level the playing field.

5. The Exemption Would Not Give Bell an Unfair Advantage over Other Part 27 or

Part 29 Models

In order for the exemption to give Bell an economic advantage over Part 27 competitors, there

would have to be other Part 27 competitors currently restricted by the 7,000 pound MGW.  There is only

one other Part 27 helicopter with a maximum gross weight of 7,000 pounds, and that is the Agusta 109.   

The Agusta 109 entered service in 1975 at 5,732 pounds MGW.    Over the past thirty‐seven

years, Agusta has raised the MGW by 1,268 pounds without significantly updating its certification basis –

a gross weight increase of more than twenty percent of the original design weight.  There is no evidence

before the Agency that Agusta could grow the weight of the model any further with its current design.  

Presumably, Agusta would have to surrender the “grandfathering” advantage the A109 has, and bring

the certification of the model up to Amendment 40 before it would qualify for an exemption based on

the precedent of a 429 exemption.  

The next two closest competitors to the 429 are the Eurocopter Deutschland EC135 and MD

Helicopters MD902.  These twin‐engine rotorcraft have an MGW of 6,500 pounds.  To the extent these

models are technically capable of growing 500 pounds and this weight growth would enhance the

performance of the rotorcraft, their manufacturers could do so now.  They do not need a gross weight

exemption.  If an increase in the gross weight of the 429 has the additional effect of forcing competitors

to make similar improvements they are already capable of making, then that is very clearly something in

the public interest and a reason to grant the exemption, not deny it.

The remainder of the current Part 27 rotorcraft fleet is considerably below 6,500 pounds.  It is

very unlikely in the foreseeable future that technology will permit single‐engine models to approach

7,000 pounds and thereby be at a competitive disadvantage because of an increase to the gross weight

of the twin‐engine 429.

The exemption would not give a competitive advantage over competing Part 29 models, since

there are no competing Part 29 models other than the EC145.  The next largest Part 29 model in weight

is the Eurocopter France AS365N3 at 9,370 pounds.    This model is certified only to Amendment 16,

adopted in 1978, and meets less of current Part 29 than the EC145.  More fundamentally, the AS365 is a

much larger helicopter.  There is no credible argument that raising the gross weight of a 429 from 7,000

to 7,500 pounds could have any competitive impact on a helicopter that weighs 9,370 pounds.  If that

was the case, the EC145 at 7,900 pounds would already cannibalize sales of the AS365 and Eurocopter

would not offer both products.  Light twins and medium twins are different products serving different

markets.  A heavier 429 will not have any more impact on medium twin and larger Part 29 helicopters

than the EC145 already exerts.

6. The Exemption Would Promote Safety and Innovation

One of the reasons FAA has previously granted exemptions is to promote new models that meet

the latest safety standards:
17

The MD900 is a helicopter that meets a later and more stringent regulation than many

other normal category helicopters.    Meeting these anticipated increased design

standards has increased the level of safety and has also increased the gross weight to

near the 6,000‐pound limit assuming the payload capacity remains constant.17

* * *

The K‐1200 is a helicopter that meets later and more stringent regulations than many

other helicopters performing the same mission. The design changes required to meet this

increased level of safety have, in fact, driven the gross weight to the 6,000‐pound limit. A

500‐pound increase in gross weight will result in improved mission performance.18

This conclusion is echoed in the economic analysis performed by the Office of Aviation Policy

and Plans:

The principal safety benefit of the proposed rule would derive from the relaxation of the

part 27 weight limitation. The FAA believes that this relaxation would encourage

applicants to take advantage of this new market by developing new part 27 rotorcraft

models that would incorporate safety improvements and would displace some older

part 27 type certificated models. As that evolution occurs, new rotorcraft model

certifications would be based on the most recent part 27 standards. Thus, the proposal

would likely improve the overall safety level of the general rotorcraft fleet beyond what

it would have been in the absence of the proposal.19

FAA has always shown flexibility in its approach to “grandfathering” updated models on top of

older type certificates, very frequently exempting the updated model from having to meet current

regulations.  Bell does not take issue with the grandfathering process, but it would be bad policy to be

flexible with the type certification process as it applies to older type designs but be very rigid when it

comes to exemption requests for new type designs.    That gives considerable economic incentive to

continue offering old type designs instead of developing something new.

Eurocopter is actually a prime example of this process in action.  It currently has five Part 29

models in production: EC145, AS365, EC155, AS332, and EC225.   These are all grandfathered on type

certificates issued between 1971 and 1983.  Despite being the world’s largest helicopter manufacturer,

it is the only major manufacturer not to have certificated a new type design in the past decade, and

currently is in the process of another update to an old type design with the EC145T2.

As a matter of policy, the exemption process should not be weighted to favor old designs over

new designs.    If the exemption process is to be weighted at all, preference should be given to

exemptions that encourage manufacturers to develop new designs.    That is properly in the public

interest.

                                                           

17 McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 at 6 (Sept. 5, 1996).

18 Kaman Aerospace Corporation Exemption No. 6433 at 6 (Apr. 25, 1996).

19 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

for Proposed Rule:    Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft Gross Weight and

Passenger Limits, at 20.
18

C. The Denial Order Should Have Considered the Impact of the Exemption on U.S. Jobs

“So we have a huge opportunity at this moment to bring manufacturing back. But we

have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves

what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do

everything we can to help you succeed.”20

The economic impact of the exemption on Bell’s competitors is not a matter of public interest.  

The economic impact on the US economy and the creation of U.S. jobs, however, is very much a matter

of public interest and is highly relevant.  Bell’s petition presented evidence that the exemption would

increase sales of the 429 and create additional jobs in the United States.  The Denial Order declined to

consider this impact, assuming that additional sales demand would drive the same number of jobs to

the U.S. economy no matter which “non‐domestic manufacturer” sold the helicopter.  This assumption

and conclusion was not correct and was not supported by evidence before the Agency.

The Bell 429 has forty‐nine percent U.S. content, most of which is manufactured in Fort Worth,

Texas.  In fact, Bell is one of the largest employers in North Texas.  Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. and Bell

Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. are both subsidiaries of Textron Inc., a U.S. company which is also the

parent of Cessna and Lycoming and is a backbone of the U.S. aviation industry.

Eurcopter has 876 employees in the United States and 200 in Canada.    Bell has 10,000

employees in the United States and 2,000 in Canada.  Yet, Eurocopter delivered more helicopters in the

United States last year than Bell delivered on a worldwide basis.  All those Eurocopter products sold in

the United States are not being manufactured by 876 U.S. employees.  They are being manufactured by

Eurocopter’s 12,500 employees in France and Germany.

It is not Bell’s position that raising the gross weight of the 429 by 500 pounds would expand the

overall demand for helicopters in the United States by several hundred ships.    It is Bell’s position,

however, that the exemption will increase the number of 429’s sold.  FAA clearly shares this view, since

the Denial Order expresses considerable interest in the impact of the exemption on competing models,

all of which happen to be manufactured in France, Germany, and Italy.21  The 429 is manufactured in the

United States and Canada.    U.S. and Canadian workers will be building these helicopters instead of

workers in France and Germany.

Bell has provided a more detailed analysis of the economic impact of the exemption on sales of

the 429.  With the gross weight exemption, Bell forecasts that it will sell more than 425 additional 429’s

between 2013 and 2031.  The impact to the U.S. economy of these additional sales has been analyzed by

Dr. Loren C. Scott, an independent Economist.  Dr. Scott projects that these additional sales will create

1,100 additional jobs in the United States.    These additional jobs will, in turn, drive additional sales

throughout the U.S. economy, creating a net positive impact of $4.6 Billion between 2013 and 2031 if

the exemption is granted.    This is the direct result of moving high‐paying manufacturing jobs from

Europe to the United States.  Dr. Scott’s report is attached as Exhibit “6”.

                                                           

20 2012 State of the Union Address. 21 The EC 135, EC 145, and AW109 are the closest competitors to the 429, and they are French, German,

and Italian helicopters.  The MD900 is also a twin‐engine helicopter of similar weight and was made in

the US, but FAA records do not reflect any production of this model since 2009.   Bell assumes it has

already succumbed to European competition.
19

IV. THE DENIAL ORDER HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PUBLIC POLICY

A. The Denial Order Errs in Holding that the Line Between Parts 27 and 29 is Fixed and

Unyielding

The Denial Order adopts a policy view that gross weight must be an impenetrable dividing line

between regulatory classes that can only be crossed by rulemaking.  This viewpoint is most vigorously

argued by EADS in its public comment, claiming that Bell is “not acting responsibly” by even seeking a

gross weight exemption for a Part 27 rotorcraft.    It is not clear whether EADS believes that Agusta,

Kaman, and MD Helicopters acted responsibly when they applied for exemptions for their products, or

whether FAA was acting responsibly when it granted them.    It is also not clear whether EADS is

conceding that Eurocopter did not act responsibly when it applied for and received a Part 27 gross

weight exemption for the EC135 in Europe22.  It goes without saying that the EADS view is not consistent

with Eurocopter’s actions, the actions of Agusta, Kaman, and MD, or the actions of FAA and European

regulators in granting those exemption requests.   

If gross weight is an impenetrable regulatory barrier, then gross weight exemptions cannot be

granted, and FAA should not have granted them previously to Agusta, Kaman, and MD.23  An attempt

has been made to distinguish these exemptions on the basis that they were granted on the eve of a

change in the Part 27 weight limit, but that would not be an accurate characterization.    Exemptions

were granted to Agusta, Kaman, and MD three years before the rule was changed.    Moreover, the

exemptions were permanently granted, with no provision for rescinding them if FAA elected not to

change the Part 27 limit.    It is worth noting also that the 2006 exemption granted to Ameriflight

(Exemption No. 8480A) breached the “wall” between Parts 135 and 121 to permit an aircraft to be

operated above the 7,500 pound limit for on‐demand operations.  FAA did so in the face of opposing

comments that the line between 121 and 135 should not be blurred, noting that “there have been no

studies or analyses completed concerning the proposed changes.”24  

In 1996, FAA would never have taken the position that the gross weight limit change to Part 27

was a “done deal”.  The fact is that the proposed rule was not even developed and published until nearly

two years after the exemptions were granted, and more than another year was taken up with public

comments and revisions.  At any point in the process, a decision could have been made not to change

the weight limit.  FAA has to view its precedent in light of what it knew in 1996 – three years before the

rule change process was completed.    It cannot take the position that the results of this three‐year

process were irrelevant or pre‐ordained.  

B. Focusing Exclusively on Gross Weight Ignores the Amended Regulation and Results in

a Decision that Places Form over Substance

The definition of “normal category rotorcraft” was expanded in 1999 to include not only gross

weight, but also number of occupants the rotorcraft can carry.  The Denial Order is therefore incorrect

when it states that “the fundamental philosophy in the evolution of FAA airworthiness standards is a

                                                           

22 See EC135 Type Certificate, attached as Exhibit “7”,   23 FAA also has granted exemptions from the weight limit for light sport aircraft, further demonstrating

that FAA does not consider a gross weight limit to be inviolate.   E.g., Terrafugia Inc. Exemption No.

10072 (May 27, 2010); Indigenous Peoples Technology and Education Center, Inc.  Exemption No. 10450

(Feb. 15, 2012).

24 Amerifight, Inc. Exemption No. 8480A at p. 2 (Apr. 21, 2006).  
20

continued enhancement in safety with an accepted different level of safety based on gross weight.”  

Since 1999, the dividing line between Parts 27 and 29 has been based on gross weight and passenger

capacity.  This is an important and pragmatic regulatory change that should not be ignored.

Current FAA regulations permit a rotorcraft to operate at 7,000 pounds carrying eight

passengers without having to meet the higher requirements of Part 29.  Adding fifty pounds to the gross

weight, however, would require a recertification under Part 29, even though the helicopter is carrying

the same number of passengers.  It would be difficult to argue that this additional fifty pounds makes

the aircraft any less safe or increases risks for the eight passengers.  Of course, Bell recognizes that there

always to be a “line”, but the exemption process exists so that lines can be examined on a case‐by‐case

basis.  Otherwise, rigid enforcement of every line leads to unnecessary measures that hinder rotorcraft

development and harm aviation safety.

When Part 27 was amended in 1999 to add, for the first time, a maximum passenger capacity, it

gave the exemption process a common sense tool that goes to the heart of the distinction between

“normal” and “transport” helicopters.    The effect of this amendment must be considered.    Bell’s

exemption request for the 429 does not seek any change in passenger capacity, and the capacity of the

rotorcraft still remains firmly within the definition of Part 27.  Applying a common sense standard, if the

passenger capacity doesn’t change, a relatively small percentage increase in gross weight is simply not

the type of change that justifies pushing the entire model into transport category certification.

C. The Denial Order Effectively Requires that an Industry Consensus or Rulemaking Be in

Progress in Order to Grant Bells Exemption Request

The Denial Order is also in error by effectively requiring that a rulemaking proposing to increase

the Part 27 MGW must be underway, or that an industry consensus recommending such an increase

exist, before FAA can grant Bell’s request for a weight exemption.    FAA’s procedural rules, 14 CFR §

11.81, require a petition for exemption to demonstrate only two factors in order to be granted: safety

and public interest.    There is no requirement that a rulemaking be underway that will amend the

regulation to match the exemption being requested.    Nor is there a requirement that an “industry

consensus” about the desirability or content of a rulemaking have been reached.    The Denial Order

effectively amends 11.81 to add a third element, without following the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Denial Order states that “[a]ny change to the current philosophy of rotorcraft airworthiness

standards needs to be done in a public forum.”25 FAA later reiterates its position by confirming it “will

issue a notice in the future to seek public input to determine if 7,000 lbs is the correct MGW for part

27.”26  As an initial matter, Bell submits that its exemption application, which was filed in a public docket

and which generated fifty‐eight comments from the public, is just such a public forum.  Regardless, the

existence of a pending or contemplated rulemaking addressing the relief sought by an exemption is not

one of the two factors FAA rules establish must be demonstrated to grant an exemption.  

FAA has not, to Bell’s knowledge, previously required that a rulemaking be in progress in order

for an exemption to be granted under 11.81.    Indeed, despite the Denial Order’s assertion that the

exemptions granted to Kaman, Agusta, and MD were “directly related to [a] rulemaking that increased

                                                           

25 Denial Order at 6.

26 Denial Order at 8.
21

the weight limitation for all part 27 helicopters,”27 no such rulemaking was in progress when these

exemptions were granted in 1996.    As discussed elsewhere in this Petition, on April 25, 1996, FAA

granted Kaman an exemption from Part 27 to increase the weight of its K‐1200 helicopter from 6,000

pounds to 6,500 pounds.    On September 5, 1996, FAA granted a second exemption from Part 27’s

weight restriction that authorized McDonnell Douglas to increase its MD900 helicopter weight from

6,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds.  Less than a month later on October 9, 1996, FAA granted a third weight

increase exemption, this time to Agusta, which allowed it to increase its A109 helicopter series weight

from 6,000 pounds to 7,000 pounds.   However, FAA did not issue the notice of proposed rulemaking

proposing the Part 27 weight increase until June 25, 1998, nearly two years after these exemptions were

granted.28   

The Denial Order also proposes that, if there is no rulemaking underway, there at least must be

industry consensus on the relief sought in order to grant an exemption.  When addressing the public’s

input to Bell’s petition, the Denial Order states, “[c]omments did not indicate that the community at

large believes the 7,000 lb limit is inappropriate.”29 The Denial Order also goes to great lengths to assert

that the only reason the three 1996 exemptions to the Part 27 weight limitation were granted is because

the “ARAC agreed that a gross weight limitation increase of part 27 to 7,000 pounds was appropriate.”30  

Again, abundant precedent and the Agency’s own rules demonstrate that such consensus is not a

prerequisite.    Indeed, in a similar case involving an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”)  

recommendation, FAA made clear that a “grant of exemption stands on its own merit, as presented by

[the petitioner], not on the basis of the justification or recommendation for general rulemaking by the

ARC.”31   

Bell respectfully suggests that, as a policy matter, FAA’s approval of exemption requests should

not be tied to the commencement of a rulemaking or an ARAC, ARC, or other industry recommendation

                                                           

27 Denial Order at 7.

28 64 FR 45092    (Aug. 18, 1999) (citing the June 25, 1998, notice of proposed rulemaking).    The

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), provides that a rulemaking commences with the

issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) or an Advance NPRM where applicable.  While

FAA did establish an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (“ARAC”) on January 5, 1995, to discuss a

Part 27 weight increase, this did not comprise the initiation of the APA rulemaking process.  See 60 FR

4221 (Jan. 20, 1995) (announcing the establishment of the Rotorcraft Gross Weight and Passenger Issues

Working Group (“GWWG”), which was a subgroup of the ARAC Rotorcraft Issues Group).  As specifically

noted by FAA in its internal agency guidance, ARACs are authorized under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2) (“FACA”) and not the APA.  See FAA Office of Rulemaking, ARM

Committee Manual, at 37 (ARM 001‐015, Rev #38 (Sept. 12, 2011).  While an ARAC’s deliberations and

findings may prove useful to FAA in its later APA rulemaking process, the commencement of an ARAC

does not trigger the start of the rulemaking process.  Even once an ARAC completes its consideration

and makes a recommendation to FAA, there is no guarantee that the recommendation will ultimately be

adopted; the proposal must still be vetted by various levels within the Agency, a rulemaking proceeding

commenced, and public and inter‐agency comments considered.

29 Denial Order at 5.

30 Denial Order at 8.

31 Amerifight, Inc., Exemption No. 8480A at p. 7 (Apr. 21, 2006).  Bell notes that an ARC is an aviation

deliberative body involving FAA and industry representatives created by statute that makes rule change

recommendations to FAA.  Bell submits that, for purposes herein, there are no substantive differences

between an ARAC and ARC.
22

as to the desirability of a rule change.    By binding the approval of an exemption to a rulemaking or

industry consensus, FAA will effectively eliminate exemptions in the majority of cases.  This is contrary

to the intent of Congress, which, in providing for exemptions in the federal aviation statute, specifically

recognized that relief from existing regulations may be granted upon a sufficient showing of safety and

public interest.   

Bell also believes it would be imprudent to elevate industry consensus to the prominence it

seems to be given in the Denial Order.    While industry consensus can certainly be relevant to a

regulatory change, it has no proper place in the exemption process.  The exemption process permits FAA

to seek public comment, which it did in this case.    FAA received fifty‐eight comments, ninety‐three

percent of which favored the exemption.   FAA should consider all of the public comments equally, not

just the four comments from industry competitors who opposed the exemption.

Industry consensus is a factor that is highly dependent on the needs of individual companies.  

For example, back in the mid‐1990s, MD Helicopters and Agusta vigorously argued in favor of gross

weight exemptions on the MD900 and A109 on grounds very similar to those presented by Bell.  Fifteen

years later, MD and Agusta vigorously oppose a gross weight exemption for a model that may compete

against the MD900 and A109.  Their newfound opposition is very clearly driven by competitive concerns

rather than a change in philosophy.

The difference is this:  in the early 1990s there were five manufacturers with products in service

or under development who would directly benefit from an increase in the Part 27 gross weight limit:  

MD (MD900), Agusta (A109), Kaman (K‐1200), Bell (427), and Eurocopter Deutschland (EC135).  In 2012,

only Bell is in this position.  By dragging industry consensus out of the rulemaking process and over to

the exemption process, FAA risks abandoning its role as a neutral regulator in favor of something that

amounts to a popularity contest driven by the market position of individual industry players.   

D. The Denial Order Does Not Correctly Characterize Agency Precedent

The Denial Order asserts that FAA has received “a number of petitions” to increase the gross

weight of Part 27 helicopters, and that, “typically,” FAA has denied such requests.32 The record indicates

that FAA has received a total of six other requests for Part 27 gross weight exemptions – two for the

Agusta A109, two for the Kaman K‐1200, and two for the MD900.    Three of the six requests for

exemption from the weight restrictions were granted by FAA as being safe and in the public interest.33

Looking at the three petitions that were denied by FAA, two are very similar.    In 1991,

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (now MD) applied for a gross weight exemption on the MD900,

which was still under development at that time.  The petition sought a weight exemption up to 20,000

pounds, and this was denied by FAA.  The petition was thereafter resubmitted by MD in 1995, this time

seeking an exemption of 1,000 pounds.  The second exemption was granted by FAA.

                                                           

32 Denial Order at 7.

33 Kaman Aerospace Corporation Exemption  No. 6433 (Apr. 25, 1996) (granting exemption for K‐1200);

Airlink Exemption No. 5831 (Jan. 12, 1994) (denying exemption to Airlink for Agusta A109); Agusta S.p.A.

Exemption No. 6518 (Oct. 9, 1996) (granting subsequent exemption to Agusta for A109); McDonnell

Douglas Helicopter Corporation Exemption No. 5638 (Apr. 13, 1993) (denying exemption for MD900);

McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems Exemption No. 6505 (Sept. 5, 1996) (granting subsequent

exemption request for MD900).
23

In 1996, FAA granted an exemption to Kaman Aerospace for a 500 pound increase for the

K‐1200.  A second (2007) petition by Kaman for the K‐1200 to increase the maximum gross weight by

nearly 100% to 12,000 pounds was denied by FAA without a detailed discussion.    FAA referred the

petitioner back to the 1991 MD denial discussed above.

The third petition denied by FAA was submitted by a single operator in 1993 for a gross weight

exemption on its Agusta 109 aircraft.  This petition was not submitted by a manufacturer and, because it

applied only to a single ship, the petitioner was not able to make an adequate showing of public

interest.  Thereafter, a gross weight exemption was granted for all A109s in response to a petition from

Agusta.

The Denial Order incorrectly concluded that Bell’s petition “does not differ materially from other

petitions that have been denied”.  Bell’s petition is readily distinguishable from the denied petitions, and

virtually identical to the three that were granted to Agusta, Kaman, and MD.  The denied petitions were

either by a single operator or for very large or undefined weight increases.  In contrast, like the petitions

that were granted, this is a petition by the manufacturer for a modest and defined gross weight

increase.    The public interest and safety considerations are almost identical.    If precedent is to be

consistently applied, Bell’s petition should be granted.

E. Removing Safety Equipment to Increase Payload Is Not the Right Answer

It is currently possible for Bell 429 operators to seek and obtain approval for installation

of additional equipment, if the mission dictates. This could necessitate the removal of

some equipment to comply with the part 27 weight limitation.34

In its standard configuration, the Bell 429 is certificated as a Category A rotorcraft and can

operate with a single pilot under Instrument Flight Rules.   As FAA is aware, these are very important

safety enhancements.    Category A certification means the rotorcraft has the redundant systems

necessary to continue operating safely on only one engine, which is critical if an engine is lost during

flight.  Single pilot IFR capability means the 429 can safely operate on instruments in visibility conditions

that would endanger a non‐IFR rotorcraft.  This is particularly important to EMS operations that often

have to dispatch in marginal conditions to save a life.  

It is true that Bell made a “business decision” to make these important safety features standard

in the 429, while the European manufacturers made a “business decision” not to make them standard

for their models – and Bell is now having to pay the price for its safety‐enhancing “business decision.”  

These additions certainly make the 429 heavier in its standard configuration than competing models,

but they directly drive an improvement in safety standards.  Since safety is FAA’s overriding and primary

mandate, the Agency should encourage all manufacturers to make Category A and single pilot IFR a

standard feature.  In refusing to recognize the public interest in building these safety features into the

standard configuration of the 429, the Denial Order is fundamentally at odds with FAA’s principal duty to

promote aviation safety.

Bell also offers a number of optional features on the 429 that enhance rotorcraft safety, such as

radar altimeter, Terrain Collision and Avoidance System, and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning

System.  Some of these features are available as options on competing helicopter models.  Some are

                                                           

34 Denial Order at 7.
24

not.  No matter what helicopter they are installed on, however, all these options add weight and reduce

useful payload.  This means they reduce the ability to dispatch with as much medical equipment, or fuel,

or patients, or passengers.  Because the 429 gross weight is limited by regulation, if exempted from that

limit, it could dispatch with a full array of safety equipment and a full payload.    With the 429, an

operator does not necessarily have to make a choice between safety and payload.   The Denial Order

rejects this potential, however, in favor of removing equipment to preserve the regulatory limit.  This is

difficult to reconcile with the Agency’s fundamental safety mission.  It is also difficult to reconcile with

the Agency’s current rulemaking activities.    FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2010,

covering a series of new regulations aimed specifically at improving EMS safety:

From 2002 to 2008, there has been an increase in fatal helicopter air ambulance

accidents. To address these safety concerns, the FAA is proposing to implement

operational procedures and require additional equipment on board helicopter air

ambulances.    Many of these proposed requirements currently are found in agency

guidance publications and would address National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

safety recommendations.35

These new regulations would include the installation of additional safety equipment such as

HTAWS.    The Bell 429 includes HTAWS, CVR/FDR, and radar altimeter standard in the 7,500 pound

configuration approved by TCCA.    FAA’s declared purposed in adopting these new regulations is “to

improve safety for air ambulance operations and other commercial helicopter operations.”  Therefore, it

would be incorrect to characterize Bell’s choice to raise the safety bar as not being in the public interest.  

FAA has itself recognized the public interest the equipment serves.

   

                                                           

35 FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 75 FR 62639 (Oct. 12, 2010).

Exhibit “1”

   

10338 Miller Road 

Dallas, TX 75238 

Phone: 214-343-3811 ■ Fax: 214-343-3812 

www.esi-website.com 

This report and its contents are the Work Product of Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI). This report should only be 

duplicated or distributed in its entirety. This report may contain confidential or court protected information; please 

contact an authorized entity prior to distributing. Conclusions reached and opinions offered in this report are based upon 

the data and information available to ESI at the time of this report, and may be subject to revision as additional 

information or data becomes available after the date of publication. 

Copyright 2012 Engineering Systems Inc. 

                                                                            

Investigative Report

Bell 429: Analysis of Transport Canada’s

Approval of Increase in Gross Weight

ESI File 39465C

Report Prepared for:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.

12,800 rue de l’Avenir

Mirabel, Québec

Canada   J7J 1R4

Submitted by:

_______________________________________                          September 27, 2012

Mark Allen Lewis, M.E., P.E.    

Senior Consultant  

Texas P.E. License Expires:  September 30, 2013

Technical Review by:

_______________________________________                September 27, 2012

Robert C. Winn, Ph.D., P.E.   

Chairman of the Board, Principal & Director‐ Aviation

Colorado P.E. License Expires:  October 31, 2013
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 2 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Introduction  

Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI) was retained on behalf of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. to 

provide technical support relating to a Petition for Exemption to increase the gross weight of the Bell 

429 Helicopter. 

Background  

Transport Canada granted the Bell 429 Type Certificate H-107 in June of 2009 as a Normal Category 

Rotorcraft in accordance with Section V, Chapter 527, Section 527.1(a) of the Canadian Aviation 

Regulations (CAR). Certification on that basis is limited by the text of the cited section to rotorcraft with 

a maximum weight of 7,000 pounds. For Transport Canada to approve operation at the higher gross 

weight of 7,500 pounds, the applicable regulations required that the Bell 429 be granted an exemption to 

the gross weight limitation of Section 527.1(a). The granting of such an exemption required a change to 

the rotorcraft’s Type Certificate. To support their exemption request, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 

Limited (BHTCL) developed a certification plan to address the effect of the increased gross weight on 

the limitations and performance of the rotorcraft, and to confirm that the gross weight increase would 

not compromise rotorcraft safety. Transport Canada found the work performed by BHTCL in 

accordance with that certification plan persuasive and the necessary exemption (No. 102-2011) was 

granted in December of 2011. 

Resources

The activities engaged in to arrive at the conclusions stated in this report included review of the 

pertinent Transport Canada regulatory documents, the Transport Canada Type Certificate Data Sheet 

(TCDS), and BHTCL’s Report No. 429-099-156 (“Model 429 Certification Plan Gross Weight Increase 

to 7,500 Pounds”), as well as consultation with BHT engineers. None of the conclusions expressed in 

this report were based on examination of or testing of exemplar rotorcraft. 

Process

Under Canadian regulations, changes to the type design of a certificated rotorcraft require approval by 

Transport Canada. The regulatory basis for approval of such changes is Subpart 21 of Section V of the 

CARs. Guidance regarding the procedure necessary to comply with the requirements of Subpart 21 is 

provided by Transport Canada’s Advisory Circular (AC) No. 500-016 (“Establishing the Certification 

Basis of Changed Aeronautical Products”). 

A critical parameter affecting the steps required to comply with the requirements of Subpart 21 is the 

determination of whether the proposed change is or is not “significant.” AC No. 500-016 provides the 

regulatory guidance necessary to make that determination by providing tables containing examples of 

specific changes or categories of changes that were explicitly determined to be either “significant” or 

“not significant.” The header of Table A.4.3 in Appendix A of the cited AC reads “The following are 

examples of not significant changes to rotorcraft.” The “Description of Change” column for Entry 5 in 

that table reads “Expanded limitations with minimal or no design changes, following further 

tests/justifications or different mix of limitations (CG limits, oil temperatures, altitude, minimum/ 

maximum weight, minimum/maximum external temperatures, speed, ratings structure).” The quoted text 

clearly indicated that an expansion of the maximum weight limitation of a rotorcraft was considered to 
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 3 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

be a “not significant” change. As the change was deemed “not significant”, CAR 521 allows the 

certification for the changed Type Certificate to be based upon standards of the same revision as those 

used in the original Type Certificate. 

The regulatory basis for the original Type Certificate issued by Transport Canada was Section V, 

Chapter 527 of the CARs. That chapter was reviewed and the subset of those requirements likely to be 

affected by the increase in gross weight was determined. The subset generated was compared to those 

requirements of Chapter 527 addressed by the Compliance Checklist found in BHTCL report 

“Model 429 Certification Plan Gross Weight Increase to 7,500 Pounds” (Report No. 429-099-156), as 

well as with the activities represented in that same report as necessary to comply with the regulatory 

requirements applied to the proposed change. The regulatory requirements considered by the report are 

listed in the table in Figures 1a-1e. The subjects addressed by the activities the report deemed necessary 

are listed in the table in Figure 2. 

Analysis   

The requirements contained in the Compliance Checklist found in BHTCL Report No. 429-099-156 

were consistent with the ESI-generated subset of Part 527 requirements likely to be affected by the 

change in the maximum gross weight proposed. Similarly, the activities listed in that same report were 

found sufficient to provide the necessary basis for the regulatory requirements they were intended to 

fulfill. 

Conclusions

The basis upon which Transport Canada approved the change to the Bell 429 Type Certificate by 

granting exception to the 7,000 gross weight limit of Section 527.1(a) of the CARs was consistent with 

the applicable regulatory requirements and included consideration of all of the requirements of 

Section V, Chapter 527 of the CARs likely to be affected by the increase in maximum gross weight 

proposed. In addition, the items addressed in the Compliance Checklist in Bell Report No. 429-099-156, 

and the activities identified in that same report as necessary to evaluate the effect of the increased weight 

on the rotorcraft’s performance and regulatory compliance, were found sufficient to support the 

conclusion that the proposed increase in maximum gross weight from 7,000 pounds to 7,500 pounds (an 

increase of 7.1%) was unlikely to adversely affect rotorcraft safety. 
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 4 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1a Regulatory Requirements Considered

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527   1 a.   Prescribes the airworthiness standards   27‐37  

527   1 b.   Part 21 requires compliance with this part   27‐37  

527   1 c.   Multi‐engine rotorcraft   27‐37  

527   21   Proof of compliance at each weight & e.g.   27‐21  

527   21 a.   Compliance by tests or by calculations   27‐21  

527   21 b.   Compliance by systematic investigation   27‐21  

527   25 a.   Weight limits, max. weight   27‐44  

527   27 a.   C. G. limits fore & aft & lateral selected   27‐2  

527   27 b.   C. G. extremes within struct. limits   27‐2  

527   27 c.   C. G. limits within flight tested   27‐2  

527   31   Removable ballast may be used   27‐0  

527   33 a.   Main rotor speed limits   27‐14  

527   33 b.   Normal main rotor high pitch limit (power on)   27‐14  

527   33 c.   Normal main rotor low pitch limit (power off)   27‐14  

527   45 a.   Performance general. ISA   27‐21  

529   45 a.   Performance general, ISA, CAT A   29‐24  

529 45 b.2.   Compliance with performance req. CAT A   29‐24  

527   49 a.   Performance at minimum operating speed.   27‐44  

529   49 a.   Performance at Min. Operating Speed, CAT A   29‐39  

527   51   Take‐off: General   27‐44  

529   51 Take‐off data: general, CAT A   29‐39  

529   53 a.   Take‐off: Engine failure, rejected T/O, CAT A   29‐39  

529   53 b.   Takeoff: Engine failure, continued T/O, CAT A   29‐39  

529   55 a.   T/O Decision Point (TDP): definition, CAT A   29‐39  

529   55 b.   TDP: designated by two parameters, CAT A   29‐39  

529   55 c.   TDP: pilot recognition time Interval, CAT A   29‐39  

529   59 a.   Take‐off path: determination procedure, CAT A   29‐44  

529   59 b.   Take‐off path: VTOSS up to 200ft, CAT A   29‐44  

529   59c.   Take‐off path: 200ft up to 1000ft., CAT A   29‐44  

529   59 d.   Take‐off path: level path, CAT A 29‐44  

529   59 e.   Take‐off path: distance, CAT A   29‐44  

529   60   Elevated heliport take‐off path: CAT A   29‐39  

529   61 a.   Take‐off distance: CAT A   29‐39  

529   61 b.   Take‐off distance: elevated pad, CAT A   29‐39  

529   62   Rejected take‐off: CAT A   29‐44  

529   64   Climb: general, CAT A   29‐39  

527   65 b.   Climb performance, all engines operational   27‐33  

529   65 a.   Steady rate of climb, AEO, CAT A   29‐39  

527   67   Climb performance, OEI   27‐23  

529   67 a.   Climb: One‐engine‐inoperative (OEI) CAT A   29‐44  
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 5 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1b Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527   75 a.   Landing performance, general   27‐44  

527   75 b.   Power failure, safe landing ‐multi‐engine   27‐44  

529 75 a. Landing, general, CAT A 29‐39

529   75 b.   Landing data determination, CAT A   29‐39  

529   77   Landing Decision Point (LOP): CAT A   29‐44  

529   79 a.   Landing performance, CAT A   29‐39  

529   79 b.   Power failure conditions, CAT A   29‐39  

529   81   Landing distance: CAT A   29‐44  

529   85 a.   Balked Landing: smooth transition, CAT A   29‐44  

529   85 b.   Balked Landing: safe climb‐out, CAT A   29‐44  

529   85 c.   Balked Landing: descent below 15ft, CAT A   29‐44  

527   87 a.   Limiting height‐speed envelope   27‐44  

527   87 b.   Power failure conditions   27‐44  

529   87 a.   Height‐velocity envelope: CAT A   29‐39  

527   141 a.   Flight characteristics, general   27‐21  

527   143 a.   Controllability & maneuverability.   27‐44  

527   143 b.   Margin of cyclic at Vne   27‐44  

527   143 c.   Wind velocity => 17 knots, IGE   27‐44  

527   143 d.   Wind velocity => 17 knots, OGE   27‐44  

527   143 e.   After failure of one engine   27‐44  

527   143 f.1.   Slowing from Vne (power‐on) to Vne(power‐off)   27‐44  

527   143 f.2.   Margin of cyclic cont. at 1.1 Vne (power‐off)   27‐44  

527   171   Stability: general   27‐0  

527   173 a.   Static long. stab., control move. vs trim spd   27‐44  

527   173 b.   Control position slope vs speed curve   27‐44  

527   175 a.   Demo. static longitudinal stability, climb   27‐44  

527   175 b.   Demo. static longitudinal stability, cruise   27‐44  

527   175 c.   Demo. static long. stability, VNE   27‐44  

527   175 d.   Demo. static long. stability, autorotation   27‐44  

527   177   Static directional stability   27‐44  

527   231   Ground handling, general   27‐0  

527   241   Ground resonance   27‐0  

527   261   Vibration   27‐0  

527   301 a.   General, loads: strength requirements   27‐0  

527   301 b.   General, loads: loading conditions   27‐0  

527   301 c.   General, loads: effect of deflections   27‐0  

527   303   Factor of safety   27‐0  

527   305 a.   Strength & deformation, limit load   27‐0  

527   305 b.   Strength & deformation, ultimate load   27‐0  

527   307 a.   Proof of struct., critical loading condition   27‐26  
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 6 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1c Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527   307 b.1.   Proof of struct., dyn. & end. tests of rotor   27‐26  

527   307 b.4.   Proof of str., flight stress measurement test   27‐26  

527   307 b.5.   Proof of structure, landing gear drop tests   27‐26  

527   309a.   Design limitations, max. weights   27‐0  

527   309 c.   Design limitations, max. forward speed   27‐0  

527   309 d.   Design lim., max. rear‐& sideward speeds   27‐0  

527   309 e.   Design limitations, C.G. limits   27‐0  

527   309 g.   Design limit maneuvering load factors   27‐0  

527   321 a.   Flight loads: general, factors   27‐11  

527   321 b.   Flight loads, conditions for wts & loads dist   27‐11  

527   337   Limit maneuvering load factor   27‐26  

527   339   Resultant limit maneuvering loads   27‐11  

527   341   Gust loads   27‐0  

527   351   Yawing conditions   27‐34  

527   391   Control system & surface loads   27‐34  

527   411 a.   Ground clearance, tail rotor   27‐0  

527   411 b.   Ground clearance, tail rotor guard   27‐0  

527   471 a.   Ground loads, general, equilibrium   27‐0  

527   471 b.   Critical centers of gravity   27‐0  

527   473   Ground loading conditions & assumptions   27‐2  

527   501   Ground loading condo : L.G. with skids   27‐26  

527   521   Water loads: float landing conditions   27‐0  

527   547 c.   Main rotor structure, loads   27‐3  

527   547 d.   Main rotor structure, loads during ground op.   27‐3  

527 547 e.   Main rotor structure, limit torque   27‐3  

527   549 a.   Fuselage UG & pylon structure, loads   27‐3  

527   549 b.   Fuselage L/G & pylon str., aux. rotor thrust   27‐3  

527   549 c.   Fuselage UG & pylon str., engine   27‐3  

527   549 d.   Fuselage & pylon structure, engine mount   27‐3  

527   561 a.   Emergency landing conditions, general   27‐32  

527   561 b.   Emergency landing load factors   27‐32  

527   561 c.   Emergency landing, retention of items   27‐32  

527   561 d.   Emergency landing, ultimate loads, fuel tanks   27‐32  

527   571 a.   Fatigue evaluation of structure, general   27‐26  

527   571 b.   Fatigue tolerance evaluation   27‐26  

527   571 c.   Replacement time evaluation   27‐26  

527   571 d.   Fail‐safe evaluation   27‐26  

527   571 e.   Combination of replacement time & fail‐safe   27‐26  

527   629   Flutter   27‐26  

527   661   Rotor blade clearance   27‐2  
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 7 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1d Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527   663 a.   Ground resonance, prevention   27‐26  

527   663 b.   Ground resonance, variation during service   27∙26  

527 675 d. Control stops, main rotor blades   27‐16  

527 691   Autorotation control mechanism   27‐0

527 723 Shock absorption tests   27‐0

527   725   Limit drop test   27‐0

527   727   Reserve energy absorption drop test   27‐26  

527   771 c.   Pilot compartment, vibration & noise   27‐0  

527   901 c.   Powerplant installation, general   27‐23

529   903 b.   Engine isolation: Cat A   29‐36  

527   907 a.   Engine vibration, prevent harmful vibration   27‐0  

527   907 c.   Engine vibration, rotor drive vibration   27‐0  

527   939 b.   Turbine eng. op. charact's, air inlet distort   27‐11  

527   1091 a.   Air induction, supply air required   27‐23  

527   1093 b.1.i.   Induction sys. icing prot., turbine   27‐23  

527   1093 b.2.   Induction sys. icing prot., idle 30 min.   27‐23  

527   1301‐1   Rotorcraft Ops After Ground Cold Soak   ‐ 

527   1317 a.   HIRF Protection   27‐42  

527   1317 b.   HIRF protection   27‐42  

527   1317 c.   HIRF protection   27‐42  

527   1501 a.   Operating limitations & information, general   27‐14  

527   1501 b.   Operating limitations & information, RFM   27‐14  

527   1503   Airspeed limitations: general   27‐0  

527   1505 a.   Never‐exceed speed, relation to max. speeds   27‐21  

527   1505 b.   Never‐exceed speed, variation alt/rpm/temp/wt   27‐21  

527   1505 c.   Never‐exceed speed, power‐off   27‐21  

527   1509 a.   Rotor speed, max. power‐off   27‐0  

527   1509 b.   Rotor speed, min. power‐off   27‐0  

527   1509 c.   Rotor speed, min. power‐on   27‐0  

527   1519   Weight & center of gravity   ‐ 

527   1527   Maximum operating altitude   27‐14  

527   1529   Instructions for continued airworthiness   27‐18  

527   1581 a.   RFM, general, furnishing Information   27‐14  

527   1581 b.   RFM, general, approved information   27‐14  

527   1581 d.   RFM, general, table of contents   27‐14  

527   1583 a.   RFM, operating limitations, airspeed & rotor   27‐16  

527   1583 c.   RFM, operating limitations, wt. & loading   27‐16  

527   1583 g.   RFM, operating limitations, altitude   27‐16  

527   1585 a.   RFM, operating procedures, normal & emergency   27‐21  

527   1587 a.1.   Performance information, H V envelope   27‐44  
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 8 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1e Regulatory Requirements Considered (continued)

Subchapter Section Description Amendment

527   1587 a.2.i   Performance information, hovering ceiling   27‐44  

527   1587 a.2.ii.   Performance information, max safe wind   27‐44  

527   1587 b.1   Performance information, take‐off related   27‐44  

527   1587 b.2   Performance information, landing related proc   27‐44  

529   1587 a.   Performance information, CAT A   29‐51  

527   1589   Loading information   27‐0  

527   8884 A27.4   Instr. for Continued Airworth., limitations   27‐24  

527   9970 B.I   IFR, General   27‐19  

527   9971 B.II.a   Vyi Instrument climb speed   27‐19  

527   9972 B.II.b   Vnei IFR Vne   27‐19  

527   9973 B.II.c   Vmini IFR Vmin   27‐19  

527   9974 B.III   Trim   27‐19  

527   9975 B.IV.a.   Static long. stability, General   27‐19  

527   9976 B.lV.b.   Single pilot, Climb   27‐19  

527   9977 B.IV.b.   Single pilot, Cruise   27‐19  

527   9978 B.IV.b.   Single pilot, Slow cruise   27‐19  

527   9979 B.IV.b.   Single pilot, Descent   27‐19  

527   9980 B.IV.b.   Single pilot, Approach   27‐19  

527   9982 B.V.   Static lateral‐directional stab., trim   27‐44  

527   9983 B.VI   Dynamic stability   27‐19  

527   9984 B.VII.a   Stability Augmentation System (SAS)   27‐44  

527 9988 B.lX.a.   RFM, Limitations   27‐19  

527   9990 B.IX.c.   RFM, Performance   27‐19  

527   9991 App C 527.1   Criteria for Category A ‐General   27‐33  

527   9992 App C 527.2   Applicable part 29 sections.   27‐33  

527   10990   D27.1 ‐Appendix D / Part 27 ‐HIRF 1317   27‐42  

527   10991   D27.2 ‐Appendix D / Part 27 ‐HIRF 1317   ‐ 

527   10992   D27.3 Appendix D / Part 27 ‐HIRF 1317   ‐ 

527   10993   D27.4 Appendix D / Part 27 ‐HIRF 1317   ‐ 

527   10994   D27.5 Appendix D/ Part 27∙ HIRF 1317   ‐ 

527   10995   D27.6 Appendix D I Part 27 ‐HIRF 1317   27‐42  

527   51600 SubCh. A   516.5 : Noise Emission Standards (f) Ch. 8   ‐ 

527   51600 SubCh. B   516.7: Noise Evaluation Methods (b) App.2.4   ‐ 
Bell 429 TC Approval Analysis Page 9 of 9

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 2 Subjects Addressed

Subject Report No.

Model 429 Structural Design Criteria 429‐930‐001

Model 429 External Design Loads 429‐930‐002

Model 429 Internal Design Loads 429‐930‐003

Model 429 Airframe Structural Analysis 429‐930‐004

Model 429 Engine Mounts and Fixed Equipment Analysis 429‐930‐005

Model 429 Landing Gear Structural Analysis 429‐930‐006

Model 429 Fatigue Methodology Plan 429‐099‐040

Fatigue Life Substantiation of Dynamically Loaded Components 429‐099‐535

Main Rotor Hub and Blade Structural Analysis 429‐930‐009

Pylon Support Static Structural Analysis 429‐930‐011

Occupant Safety and Environmental Systems ‐

Model 429 Engine Air Induction System 429‐960‐006

Model 429 Engine Air Induction System Icing 429‐960‐008

Model 429 Engine and Transmission Oil Cooling Loss of Forced Air 429‐960‐025

Engine Air Induction Snow Test  ‐

Propulsion System Cooling  ‐

Fuel and Hydro‐Mechanical Systems  ‐

Avionics and Electrical Systems  ‐

Demonstration of HIRF Compliance to AWM 527.1317 by Similarity to EASA

     CS‐27 Special Condition F‐01. 429‐905‐095

Flight Test: Handling Qualities Test Plan/Report 429‐993‐001

Flight Test: Performance Test Plan/Report 429‐993‐002

Flight Test: Category A ‐ Runway 429‐993‐003

Flight Test: Category A ‐ Helipad 429‐993‐004

Flight Load Level Survey 429‐099‐007

Dynamic Components Cold Weather Survey 429‐991‐011

Engine Vibration Survey 429‐909‐001

Drive System Vibration Survey 429‐909‐003

Ground Resonance, Air Resonance, and Forward Flight Aeromechanical

    Stability Substantiation 429‐909‐004

Noise Compliance Test Plan of the Model 429 7,500 lbs IGW Configuration 429‐993‐022

Noise Certification Compliance of the Model 429 7,500 lbs IGW Configuration 429‐993‐023

Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement BHT‐429‐FMS‐11

Maintenance Manual BHT‐429‐MM‐1
Exhibit “2”

   

10338 Miller Road 

Dallas, TX 75238 

Phone: 214-343-3811 ■ Fax: 214-343-3812 

www.esi-website.com 

This report and its contents are the Work Product of Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI). This report should only be 

duplicated or distributed in its entirety. This report may contain confidential or court protected information; please 

contact an authorized entity prior to distributing. Conclusions reached and opinions offered in this report are based upon 

the data and information available to ESI at the time of this report, and may be subject to revision as additional 

information or data becomes available after the date of publication. 

Copyright 2012 Engineering Systems Inc. 

Investigative Report

Bell Model 429: Analysis of  

Compliance with FAR Part 29

ESI File 39465C

Report Prepared for:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd.

12,800 rue de l’Avenir

Mirabel, Québec

Canada   J7J 1R4

Submitted by:

_______________________________________                          September 27, 2012

Mark Allen Lewis, M.E., P.E.                

Senior Consultant  

Texas P.E. License Expires:  September 30, 2013

Technical Review by:

_______________________________________                September 27, 2012

Robert C. Winn, Ph.D., P.E.   

Chairman of the Board, Principal & Director‐ Aviation

Colorado P.E. License Expires:  October 31, 2013
Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 2 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Introduction  

Engineering Systems Inc. (ESI) was retained on behalf of Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Ltd. to 

provide technical support relating to a Petition for Exemption to increase the gross weight of the Bell 

429 Helicopter. 

Support Provided  

The technical support provided by ESI consisted of providing an independent determination of those 

requirements of Part 29 applicable to the Bell 429 and, of those applicable requirements, which were 

met by the existing rotorcraft. 

Resources

The analysis performed was based on FAR Part 29 with Amendment 29-0 through 29-51, excluding 

29-50 - CV/FDR. Compliance of the existing rotorcraft with each applicable Part 29 requirement was 

determined by a combination of consultation with BHT engineers and review of BHT-provided 

documents pertinent to certification of the 429. None of the conclusions expressed in this report 

regarding compliance of the existing rotorcraft with the requirements of Part 29 were based on 

examination of exemplar rotorcraft. 

Process

Each requirement of Part 29 was reviewed and determined to be either applicable or inapplicable to the 

Bell 429. The applicable subset of Part 29 requirements was then compared to the requirements of FAR 

Part 27, the Normal Category Rotorcraft part of the FARs to which the Bell 429 was certified by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 2009. Those applicable requirements of Part 29 that were 

either textually identical to the corresponding requirements of Part 27 or were identical in the required 

characteristics or performance communicated by the corresponding requirements of Part 27 were 

deemed complied with by the existing rotorcraft by virtue of its current certification by the FAA to 

Part 27. 

For the applicable requirements of Part 29 that were not determined to be equivalent to corresponding 

requirements in Part 27 by textual inspection, compliance or non-compliance of the existing rotorcraft 

with those requirements was determined by review of documents provided by BHT, by consultation 

with BHT engineers, or both. 

The materials provided by BHT and consultations with BHT engineers yielded one of three different 

conclusions regarding compliance of the existing rotorcraft with each and every applicable requirement 

of Part 29; compliant, partially-compliant, or non-compliant. Absent definitive documentation or 

confirmation by BHT that the existing Model 429 met a particular Part 29 requirement, the rotorcraft 

was assumed to be non-compliant with the requirement in question. Only those requirements with which 

the rotorcraft was determined to be compliant were considered in calculation of the percentage of the 

Part 29 requirements met by the existing rotorcraft. 
Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 3 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Conclusions

The results of the assessment procedure described above indicated that the Bell 429, as it currently 

exists, is compliant with 97.9% of the requirements of FAR Part 29 (Amendment 29-0 through 29-51, 

excluding 29-50 - CV/FDR). That percentage is based on compliance with 1734 of the 1772 Part 29 

requirements applicable to the subject rotorcraft. Those requirements of Part 29 with which the Bell 429 

as it currently exists was determined to be non-compliant are listed in table form in Figures 1a-1c. 

Similarly, those requirements of Part 29 for which the rotorcraft was found to be partially-compliant are 

listed in table form in Figure 2. Where the title of the section applicable to the requirement addressed 

lacked sufficient detail to convey the sense of the requirement, the total text of the section was included 

in the table entry. Taken together, the requirements identified in Figures 1a-1c and 2 constitute a 

complete list of those requirements of Part 29 with which the foregoing analysis found the existing 

rotorcraft to be less than fully compliant. 

Figure 1a:   Non‐Compliant

§ 29.341 Gust loads. Each rotorcraft must be designed to withstand, at each critical airspeed including 

hovering, the loads resulting from vertical and horizontal gusts of 30 feet per second. 

§ 29.631 Bird strike. The rotorcraft must be designed to ensure capability of continued safe flight and 

landing (for Category A) or safe landing (for Category B) after impact with a 2.2-lb (1.0 kg) bird when the 

velocity of the rotorcraft (relative to the bird along the flight path of the rotorcraft) is equal to VNEor 

VH(whichever is the lesser) at altitudes up to 8,000 feet. Compliance must be shown by tests or by analysis 

based on tests carried out on sufficiently representative structures of similar design. 

§ 29.671 General. (c) A means must be provided to allow full control movement of all primary flight 

controls prior to flight, or a means must be provided that will allow the pilot to determine that full control 

authority is available prior to flight. 

§ 29.783 Doors. (e) There must be means for direct visual inspection of the locking mechanism by 

crewmembers to determine whether the external doors (including passenger, crew, service, and cargo doors) 

are fully locked. There must be visual means to signal to appropriate crewmembers when normally used 

external doors are closed and fully locked. 

§ 29.783 Doors. (h) Nonjettisonable doors used as ditching emergency exits must have means to enable 

them to be secured in the open position and remain secure for emergency egress in sea state conditions 

prescribed for ditching. 

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (d) Each passenger emergency exit marking and each locating sign 

must have white letters 1 inch high on a red background 2 inches high, be self or electrically illuminated, and 

have a minimum luminescence (brightness) of at least 160 microlamberts. The colors may be reversed if this 

will increase the emergency illumination of the passenger compartment. 

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (f) Each emergency exit, and its means of opening, must be marked 

on the outside of the rotorcraft. In addition, the following apply: 

§ 29.811 Emergency exit marking. (1) There must be a 2-inch colored band outlining each passenger 

emergency exit, except small rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 12,500 pounds or less may have a 2-inch 

colored band outlining each exit release lever or device of passenger emergency exits which are normally 

used doors. 
Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 4 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1b:   Non‐Compliant (continued)

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (b) Exterior 

emergency lighting must be provided at each emergency exit. The illumination may not be less than 0.05 footcandle (measured normal to the direction of incident light) for minimum width on the ground surface, with 

landing gear extended, equal to the width of the emergency exit where an evacuee is likely to make first 

contact with the ground outside the cabin. The exterior emergency lighting may be provided by either interior 

or exterior sources with light intensity measurements made with the emergency exits open. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (c) Each light 

required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must be operable manually from the cockpit station and from a 

point in the passenger compartment that is readily accessible. The cockpit control device must have an “on,” 

“off,” and “armed” position so that when turned on at the cockpit or passenger compartment station or when 

armed at the cockpit station, the emergency lights will either illuminate or remain illuminated upon interruption 

of the rotorcraft's normal electric power. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. (d) Any means required to assist the occupants in descending to the ground 

must be illuminated so that the erected assist means is visible from the rotorcraft. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (1) The assist 

means must be provided with an illumination of not less than 0.03 foot-candle (measured normal to the 

direction of the incident light) at the ground end of the erected assist means where an evacuee using the 

established escape route would normally make first contact with the ground, with the rotorcraft in each of the 

attitudes corresponding to the collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the 

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency 

lighting system, it— (i) Must automatically be activated when the assist means is erected; 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the 

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency 

lighting system, it— (ii) Must provide the illumination required by paragraph (d)(1); and 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (d) (2) If the 

emergency lighting subsystem illuminating the assist means is independent of the rotorcraft's main emergency 

lighting system, it— (iii) May not be adversely affected by stowage. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (e) The energy 

supply to each emergency lighting unit must provide the required level of illumination for at least 10 minutes at 

the critical ambient conditions after an emergency landing. 

§ 29.812 Emergency lighting. For transport Category A rotorcraft, the following apply: (f) If storage 

batteries are used as the energy supply for the emergency lighting system, they may be recharged from the 

rotorcraft's main electrical power system provided the charging circuit is designed to preclude inadvertent 

battery discharge into charging circuit faults. 

§ 29.853 Compartment interiors. For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers— (b) In 

addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2), seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember 

seats, must meet the test requirements of Part II of appendix F of Part 25 of this chapter, or equivalent. 

§ 29.855 Cargo and baggage compartments. (d) Each cargo and baggage compartment that is not sealed 

so as to contain cargo compartment fires completely without endangering the safety of a rotorcraft or its 

occupants must be designed, or must have a device, to ensure detection of fires or smoke by a crewmember 

while at his station and to prevent the accumulation of harmful quantities of smoke, flame, extinguishing 

agents, and other noxious gases in any crew or passenger compartment. This must be shown in flight. 

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive 

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of 

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: 
Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 5 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 1c:   Non‐Compliant (continued)

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive 

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of 

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (1) Ten-hour test cycles must be used, 

except that the test cycle must be extended to include the OEI test of paragraphs (b)(2) and (k), of this section 

if OEI ratings are requested. 

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive 

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of 

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (2) The tests must be conducted on the 

rotorcraft. 

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive 

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of 

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (3) The test torque and rotational speed 

must be— (i) Determined by the powerplant limitations 

§ 29.923 Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests. (a) Endurance tests, general. Each rotor drive 

system and rotor control mechanism must be tested, as prescribed in paragraphs (b) through (n) and (p) of 

this section, for at least 200 hours plus the time required to meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (k) of this section. These tests must be conducted as follows: (3) The test torque and rotational speed 

must be— (ii) Absorbed by the rotors to be approved for the rotorcraft. 

Safety Equipment § 29.1411 General. (e) Long-range signaling device. The stowage provisions for the 

long-range signaling device required by §29.1415 must be near an exit available during an unplanned ditching.

Appendix B to Part 29—Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight VIII. Equipment, systems, and 

installation. The basic equipment and installation must comply with Subpart F of Part 29 through Amendment 

29–14, with the following exceptions and additions: (a) Flight and navigation instruments. (2) A standby 

attitude indicator which meets the requirements of §§29.1303(g)(1) through (7), instead of a rate-of-turn 

indicator required by §29.1303(g). If standby batteries are provided, they may be charged from the aircraft 

electrical system if adequate isolation is incorporated. The system must be designed so that the standby 

batteries may not be used for engine starting. 
Bell 429 Compliance Analysis Page 6 of 6

ESI Project No. 39465C September 27, 2012

Figure 2:   Partially Compliant

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

The structure must be shown by analysis supported by test evidence and, if available, service experience to 

be of fatigue tolerant design. The fatigue tolerance evaluation must include the requirements of either 

paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, or a combination thereof, and also must include a determination of 

the probable locations and modes of damage caused by fatigue, considering environmental effects, 

intrinsic/discrete flaws, or accidental damage. Compliance with the flaw tolerance requirements of paragraph 

(b)(1) or (2) of this section is required unless the applicant establishes that these fatigue flaw tolerant methods 

for a particular structure cannot be achieved within the limitations of geometry, inspectability, or good design 

practice. Under these circumstances, the safe-life evaluation of paragraph (b)(3) of this section is required. 

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

(1) Flaw tolerant safe-life evaluation. It must be shown that the structure, with flaws present, is able to 

withstand repeated loads of variable magnitude without detectable flaw growth for the following time 

intervals— (i) Life of the rotorcraft. 

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. 

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (i) The residual strength evaluation must show 

that the remaining structure after flaw growth is able to withstand design limit loads without failure within its 

operational life. 

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (ii) Inspection intervals and methods must be 

established as necessary to ensure that failures are detected prior to residual strength conditions being 

reached. 

§ 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure. (b) Fatigue tolerance evaluation (including tolerance to flaws). 

(2) Fail-safe (residual strength after flaw growth) evaluation. (iii) If significant changes in structural stiffness or 

geometry, or both, follow from a structural failure or partial failure, the effect on flaw tolerance must be further 

investigated. 

§ 29.853 Compartment interiors. For each compartment to be used by the crew or passengers— (a) The 

materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces applied to the materials) must meet the following test 

criteria as applicable: (2) Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and upholstery), seat cushions, padding, 

decorative and non-decorative coated fabrics, leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical conduit, thermal 

and acoustical insulation and insulation covering, air ducting, joint and edge covering, cargo compartment 

liners, insulation blankets, cargo covers, and transparencies, molded and thermoformed parts, air ducting 

joints, and trim strips (decorative and chafing) that are constructed of materials not covered in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, must be self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the applicable portion of 

appendix F of Part 25 of this chapter, or other approved equivalent methods. The average burn length may not 

exceed 8 inches and the average flame time after removal of the flame source may not exceed 15 seconds. 

Drippings from the test specimen may not continue to flame for more than an average of 5 seconds after 

falling. 

§ 29.1331 Instruments using a power supply. For category A rotorcraft—(a) Each required flight instrument 

using a power supply must have— (3) A visual means integral with each instrument to indicate when the 

power adequate to sustain proper instrument performance is not being supplied. The power must be 

measured at or near the point where it enters the instrument. For electrical instruments, the power is 

considered to be adequate when the voltage is within the approved limits 
Exhibit “3”

   

 
 



 




 




















Exhibit “4”

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
LARRY GRANDY 

AVIATION ACCIDENT CONSULTANTS 

3473 RAVINE DRIVE 

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 

760-729-6298, 760-701-2083 (c) 

QUALIFICATION SUMMARY

Forty four years of progressive experience as an operational rotary and fixed wing 

pilot. Military and civilian designations as Mission commander, Formation Leader, 

Chief Pilot, Chief Flight Instructor, Standardization Pilot, Safety Officer, Functional 

Check Pilot, Aircraft Commander, Maintenance Officer and FAA Check 

Airman/Aviation Safety Counselor. 

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Arts, Miami University, 1968 

Master of Science, University of Southern California, 1980 

Graduate, University of Southern California Aviation Safety and Security Program, 

2010 

Graduate, Helicopter Association International Human Factors Safety Course, 2002

Graduate, Commanding Officer’s Safety Course, 1985

Graduate, U. S. Navy Fixed Wing Transition Course, 1974

Graduate, U. S. Army Rotary Wing Course, 1968

ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP

Helicopter Association International, International Society of Air Safety Investigators, 

National Association of Flight Instructors, American Helicopter Society, National 

Emergency Medical Services Pilots’ Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. 

FLIGHT CERTIFICATION

Airline Transport Pilot-Helicopter 

Flight Instructor-Instrument, Helicopter 

Former FAA Check Airman 

AIRCRAFT FLIGHT EXPERIENCE

Bell Helicopter: BH-205(Huey), BH-212(Huey), BH-222, BH-230, BH-206, BH209(Cobra) 

Eurocopter: EC-135, MBB-BK117, MBB-BO105, AS-350(A-Star) 

MD Helicopters: MD-900/902(Explorer), MD-500 

Boeing Helicopters: BV-107(CH-46) 

Schweizer Aircraft: SH-300C 

North American: T-2 Buckeye, OV-10 Bronco 

McDonnell Douglas: A-4 Skyhawk 
FLIGHT HOURS Over 8,500 accident free flight hours in various types of helicopters, 

airplanes, and missions. Military and civilian operating experience in Flight Instruction, 

Emergency Medical Services, Night Vision Goggles and Instrument Flight.

EXPERIENCE

1989-Present. Aviation-Aeromedical pilot, Flight Instructor and Part 135 Check 

Airman for MD-902, BHT-222 & BK-117. Currently employed by Mercy Air Services, 

Inc. Former Chief pilot for Mercy Air Services, Inc. Aeromedical pilot for Omniflight 

Helicopters, Inc. Chief Flight Instructor for Civic Helicopters Inc. FAA Aviation Safety 

Counselor, San Diego FSDO. Detailed involvement in safety and accident prevention 

during all of the above employments. 

1968-1988. Military-Career officer United States Marine Corps, holding numerous 

aviation leadership billets, including Command tours as Commanding Officer of Light 

Attack Helicopter Squadron and Executive Officer of Marine Aircraft Group. Additional 

positions include Maintenance Officer, Safety Officer, and Standardization pilot. 

Combat experience, Vietnam. 
Exhibit “5”
Visit Eurocopter at the ILA Berlin Air Show both in the HeliCenter (Hall 3, Booth 3636) and in the 

EADS Pavilion. For current news and pictures from the air show, go to:

About Med-Trans

Med-Trans Corporation, headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a leading provider of air ambulance programs 

throughout the United States. A proven solution to our partners, Med-Trans offers an array of customized air 

medical program designs including hybrid models, community based models or traditional hospital-based 

models. The company’s extensive fleet rapidly delivers teams of highly trained professionals to patients, 

striving to provide the patient with the best possible outcome. For more information, please visit: www.medtrans.net

Med-Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expanding 

Business Model 

Today, at an event during the ILA Berlin Airshow 2012, American Eurocopter announced that Med-Trans 

Corporation, an industry leading air medical provider, has signed an agreement to purchase up to 16 EC135® 

helicopters. The order includes 10 firm bookings and options for an additional six helicopters. The new EC135s 

will help Med-Trans sustain its market growth and expansion.

Berlin, 13 September 2012

“This selection of the EC135 as the base of its expansion exemplifies Med-Trans’ trust and commitment to 

our aircraft and our company,” said Marc Paganini, President and CEO of American Eurocopter. “Med-Trans 

has been a valued customer for many years and we are delighted to continue our long-standing relationship 

with it and look forward to supporting its continued growth.”

The EC135 has established itself as one of the premier helicopters in the U.S. air medical market. One of the 

highlights of this was Med-Trans’ selection of the EC135 as the platform for many of its life-saving air 

medical programs in 2007 with the purchase of eight EC135s and eight options. Med-Trans currently has 20 

EC135s in its fleet “We originally selected the EC135 because we wanted a fleet that was not only versatile 

and reliable, but one that also provided a flexible and adaptable platform that would meet current mission 

demands and grow with us to meet the needs of our expanding customer base,” explained Fred B. Buttrell, 

President and CEO of Med-Trans Corporation. “With the addition of these new EC135s we will be able to 

continue to provide economical aircraft solutions that maximize patient care and partner satisfaction 

throughout our wider service regions.”

The EC135 was designed to meet the demands of operators in variety of mission environments. The aircraft 

provides high performance, extended range, flexibility, and reliability.

"We know that HEMS operators especially appreciate the outstanding maneuverability and cabin size of the 

EC135. We are happy that this aircraft has become the twin-engine helicopter of choice in the air medical 

services industry in the United States and other countries", said Wolfgang Schoder, Eurocopter’s Executive 

Vice President, Programs. Worldwide, there are more than 1000 EC135s in service, and around 50% are in 

service for emergency medical services. In the U.S., there are over 260 EC135s in service, and over the last 

ten years, the EC135 has accounted for over 80% of the light twin helicopters delivered to the U.S. air 

medical industry.

press.eurocopter.com

EADS Global Website - Med-Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expandin... Page 1 of 2

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/press.20120913_ec_med-trans.html 10/2/2012
About American Eurocopter

American Eurocopter is the U.S. affiliate of Eurocopter, the largest helicopter manufacturer in the world, and 

a subsidiary of EADS North America Holdings, the North American operations of EADS, the second largest 

aerospace and defense company in the world. American Eurocopter is a helicopter manufacturer and 

markets, sells and supports the broadest range of civil and parapublic helicopters offered by any 

manufacturer. The product line represents the most costeffective, technologically-advanced helicopters, 

ranging from light single to heavy twin, serving all markets and missions. Company headquarters and main 

facility are in Grand Prairie, TX, with a large manufacturing and production facility in Columbus, MS.

About Eurocopter

Established in 1992, the Franco-German-Spanish Eurocopter Group is a division of EADS, a world leader in 

aerospace and defense-related services. The Eurocopter Group employs approximately 20,000 people. In 

2011, Eurocopter confirmed its position as the world’s number one helicopter manufacturer with a turnover of 

5.4 billion Euros, orders for 457 new helicopters and a 43 percent market share in the civil and parapublic 

sectors. Overall, the Group’s helicopters account for 33 percent of the worldwide civil and parapublic fleet.

Eurocopter’s strong international presence is ensured by its subsidiaries and participations in 21 countries. 

Eurocopter’s worldwide network of service centers, training facilities, distributors and certified agents 

supports some 2,900 customers. There are currently more than 11,300 Eurocopter helicopters in service in 

149 countries. Eurocopter offers the most comprehensive civil and military helicopter range in the world and 

is fully committed to safety as the most important aspect of its business.

For more information, please contact: 

Stéphane CHERY 

Head of International Media Relations

Eurocopter

Tel.: +33 4 42 85 60 51 

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70 

Pascale Fleury 

Media Relations France, Eastern 

Europe, Middle East & Africa

Eurocopter

Tel.: +33 4 42 85 62 38 

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70 

Cell: +33 6 32 54 05 02 

Gloria Illas 

Media Relations Latin America & 

Southern Europe

Eurocopter

Tel.: +33 4 42 85 58 89 

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70 

Julie Guerin 

Media Relations Northern Europe & 

North America

Eurocopter

Tel.: +33 4 42 85 59 64 

Fax: +33 4 42 85 89 70 

Priscilla Yip 

Media Relations Asia Pacific

Eurocopter

Tel.: + 65 6 59 27 217 

Fax: + 65 6 65 90 872 

EADS Global Website - Med-Trans Corporation Orders 16 EC135s to Support Expandin... Page 2 of 2

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/press.20120913_ec_med-trans.html 10/2/2012
Exhibit “6”

   
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE FAA APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL 500 

POUNDS OF GROSS WEIGHT FOR THE BELL 429 HELICOPTER 

PREPARED BY 

LOREN C. SCOTT & ASSOCIATES 

743 Woodview Court 

Baton Rouge, LA 70810 

(225) 751-1707 

www.lorencscottassociates.com

September 2012
ii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 Bell Helicopter recently applied for an exemption from the FAA that would allow 

the company's 429 helicopter to operate with 500 pounds more of gross weight, a waiver 

that would greatly improve the range and performance of this helicopter and result in 

additional sales of the 429 aircraft. It is Bell Helicopter's argument if the exemption is 

granted its additional sales of more than 425 additional units of the 429 over a 19-year 

period would be net new helicopters produced in the U.S., thereby creating new business 

sales, household earnings, and jobs in this country. The purpose of this report is to 

estimate the impact of these additional sales on the U.S. economy. Our findings can be 

summarized as follows: 

 Based on a sales price of $5.8 million a unit that increases 3% per year and has 

a 49% U.S. content, we estimate U.S revenues for Bell from the sales of these 

additional units will range from a low of $73.9 million in 2013 to a high of 

$121 million in 2031. 

 Using the RIMII Input/Output Table, we estimate the following impacts of 

these new sales on the U.S. economy: 

 New sales at businesses in the U.S. will range from a low of $206.1 

 million in 2013 to a high of $337.4 million in 2031. On the average over 

 the 19-year period, business sales should increase by $243.1 million a 

 year. Over the entire 19-year period business sales in the U.S. will 

 increase by over $4.6 billion. 

 Household earnings for workers in the U.S will rise over a range of $52.2 

 million in 2013 to a high of $85.6 million in 2031. On the average over the 

 19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a 

 year. Over the entire 19-year period, household earnings in the U.S. will 

 jump by almost $1.2 billion. 

 In 2013, the additional sales of the 429 helicopter will create a total of 926 

jobs in the U.S., a figure that will increase to a high of 1,527 jobs in 2031. 

 Over the entire 19-year time period, the job bump will average 1,100 a 

 year. The average annual wage of these jobs is $56,371, which is 7.1% 

 higher than the average annual wage in the U.S. private sector. The job 

 multiplier for this project is estimated at 3.1. 

 Considering only the year 2013, we found that the industry sector that 

 benefits the most from the new helicopter sales in the manufacturing 

 sector – the sector where Bell Helicopter is located. However, there are 

 five other sectors in the economy where job gains alone exceed 50 in that 

 year. 
iii 

 A cursory review of these findings suggests the economic benefits from granting 

an exemption of 500 pounds of gross weight for Bell's 429 Helicopter are significant 

enough for the FAA to reconsider its earlier denial.
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

II. Measuring the Direct Benefits ........................................................................................................2 

III. Measuring the Multiplier Effect .......................................................................................................3 

The Multiplier Effect .................................................................................................................4 

The Input-Output Table .............................................................................................................4 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Business Sales................................................................... ............5 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Household Earnings........................................................................6 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Jobs.................................................................................................8 

Estimated Impacts Across Industries.........................................................................................9 

IV. Summary & Conclusions ...............................................................................................................11 

 
I. Introduction 

Bell Helicopter recently applied to the FAA for an exemption that would permit 

the Bell 429 helicopter to operate with an additional 500 pounds of gross weight. The 

company asserts that this would greatly improve the range and performance of the 429 

and result in an increase in sales of the 429. 

In the marketplace for this type of helicopter, Bell's 429 is in direct competition 

with the Eurocopter Deutschland EC 135, the Agusta AW109, and the Eurocopter 

Deutschland EC 145. It is Bell's position that if this waiver is granted (1) sales of Bell's 

429 helicopter would increase by more than 425 additional units over 2013-31, and (2) 

absent the waiver these additional sales would be made by the European firms and the 

helicopters would be produced in Europe rather than by Bell in its U.S. and Canadian 

facilities. Bell's assertion that these helicopters would be produced in Europe absent the 

waiver is based on the fact that Bell has 10,000 employees in the U.S. and 2,000 in 

Canada, whereas Eurocopter employs only 876 in the U.S., 200 in Canada, and 12,500 in 

France and Germany. 

 It is the purpose of this report to estimate the impact on the U.S. economy of Bell 

obtaining the waiver from the FAA and being able to sell more than 425 additional 429s 

over 2013-31. It is not within the scope of this report to (1) analyze whether there is a 

demand for 425 or more Bell 429 helicopters or (2) whether or not Eurocopter would 

produce these helicopters solely in Europe if the waiver is not granted. We definitely do 

not dispute these two positions. We were just not tasked with testing them. 
2 

II. Measuring the Direct Effects 

 Analysts with Bell Helicopters have estimated the company's sales of the 429 

helicopter with and without the exemption by year from 2013 through 2031. The 

additional sales by year with the waiver are shown in Figure 1. 

16

20

24

28

32

36

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

26.0

32.0

25.0 25.0

24.0

26.0 26.0

24.0

22.0

20.0 20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0 23.0

19.0

18.0

25.0 25.0

Fig. 1: Increase in Bell 429 Sales With waiver

Number of 429s

Source: Bell Helicopters 

 Note that the boost in sales from the exemption range from a high of 32 in 2014 

to a low of 18 in 2029. Summing up the additional sales by year results in more than 425 

additional 429s sold over this 19-year period. 

 Each 429 will sell for approximately $5.8 million in 2013, assuming the current 

sales price of the model rises by 3%. The Bell 429 has a 49% U.S. content, so for each 

year, we used only 49% of total sales as the U.S. direct sales impact. Figure 2 illustrates 

the expected increase in Bell revenues in the U.S. from the additional sales of the 429s if 

the waiver is granted. These numbers are obviously non-trivial. Lowest revenues occur 
3 

in 2013 at $73.9 million and the highest are in 2031 at $121 million. Generally speaking, 

the bars in Figures 1 and 2 follow the same pattern over time. However, there will be a 

slight difference in the pattern of the bars in Figure 2 versus Figure 1 because in the 

former a 3% increase in sales price is built in each year. 

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

73.9

93.7

75.4

77.6 76.8

85.7

88.2

83.9

79.2

74.2

76.4

82.6

89.1

96.0

98.9

84.1

82.1

117.4

121.0

Fig. 2: Increase in Bell 429 U.S. Revenues With Waiver

Millions of Dollars

Source: Bell Helicopters & LCS Inc. 

III. Measuring the Multiplier Effect 

It is important to note that the direct impacts of the waiver as shown in Figure 2 

do not capture the full impact on the U.S. economy of granting the weight waiver. It is a 

well established principle that business decisions have both direct and indirect

(multiplier) impacts on the economy. Figure 2 only captures the direct effect of the 

waiver. 
4 

The Multiplier Effect 

However, these direct impacts alone would significantly understate the role of the 

Bell's additional revenues on the economy. The reason is that Bell also buys from, and 

sells to, many other firms in the economy. Too, when Bell employees are paid more 

earnings as a result of the additional sales they will spend that money at grocery stores, 

car dealerships, movie theaters, etc., which creates new earnings in those establishments, 

which are then spent, etc., etc. 

Thus, any change in the sales at Bell indirectly affects these other companies and 

their employees, which in turn affects firms that buy from and sell to these firms and 

employees, etc. For example, when a decision is made by a firm that creates a new job, a 

chain-reaction is started which works its way throughout the economy. This chainreaction (multiplier effect) causes even more jobs to be created. The analogy is of a rock 

being tossed into a pond. Not only is there an initial splash, but ripples are created that 

spread throughout the pond. 

The Input-Output Table 

The major difficulty lies in attempting to quantify these indirect impacts. 

Fortunately, a technique has been developed for precisely this purpose – an input-output 

(I/O) table. An I/O table is a matrix of numbers that describes the interactions between 

all industries in a geographical area. The I/O table provides a complete picture of the 

flows of products and services in an economy for a given year, illustrating the 

relationship between producers and consumers and the interdependencies of industries in 

a region. 
5 

An I/O table for the 48 contiguous states been constructed by the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce. The BEA is the 

government agency responsible for measuring the nation’s gross domestic product each 

quarter. This model is referred to as the RIMS II model, and is similar to IMPLAN or the 

REMI models. Essentially, data from Figure 2 on Bell's additional revenues are plugged 

into the RIMS II model to estimate separately three impacts on the country caused by 

these additional helicopter sales: (1) new sales for firms in the U.S.; (2) new household 

earnings for residents of the U.S.; and finally; (3) new jobs in the U.S. 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Business Sales 

Table 1 documents our I/O table estimates of the impact of Bell's additional 

revenues on business sales in the U.S. economy by year from 2013-31. Though in tabular 

form rather than a bar chart, it is clear that these business sales effects track the pattern 

shown back in Figure 2. 

 Businesses stand to gain substantially if the weight waiver is granted to Bell for 

its 429 helicopter. The smallest boost to business sales would be in the initial year – 

2013 – when we estimate sales will rise by $206.1 million, which is still a substantial 

number despite the fact that it is the lowest in Table 1. The largest sales benefits occur in 

year 2031, when sales would be up by about one-third of a billion dollars ($337.4 

million). On the average over the 19-year period, business sales should increase by 

$243.1 million a year. Over the entire period of 2013-31, business sales in the U.S. 

are forecast to jump a total of over $4.6 billion, clearly a worthy number for the FAA 

to consider in re-evaluating whether to grant the weight waiver. 
6 

Table 1 

Estimated Impact on Business Sales in the U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted 

(Millions of Dollars) 

Year Business Sales 

2013 $206.1 

2014 261.3 

2015 210.3 

2016 216.6 

2017 214.1 

2018 239.0 

2019 246.1 

2020 234.0 

2021 220.9 

2022 206.9 

2023 213.1 

2024 230.5 

2025 248.7 

2026 267.8 

2027 275.8 

2028 234.7 

2029 229.0 

2030 327.6 

2031 337.4 

Total $4,619.7 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Household Earnings 

While the numbers in Table 1 are impressive, the metric that is of greater concern 

to the general citizenry is the impact on household earnings. The new sales in Table 1 

can only be achieved by hiring more people and paying them. Table 2 presents the data 

on the I/O table estimates of the impact of Bell's additional 429 sales on household 

earnings in the U.S. 

 Note that even in the weakest performance year – 2013 – households in the U.S. 

still should see their pocketbooks improve by $52.2 million. The best year for 
7 

households would be 2031 when earnings are projected to rise by $85.6 million. On the 

average over the 19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a 

year. Over the entire 19-year period shown in Table 2, households in the U.S. are 

expected to see their earnings jump by almost $1.2 billion. 

Table 2 

Estimated Impact on Household Earnings in the U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted 

(Millions of Dollars) 

Year Household Earnings 

2013 $52.2 

2014 66.3 

2015 53.4 

2016 54.9 

2017 54.3 

2018 60.6 

2019 62.4 

2020 59.4 

2021 56.1 

2022 52.5 

2023 54.1 

2024 58.5 

2025 63.1 

2026 67.9 

2027 70.0 

2028 59.5 

2029 58.1 

2030 83.1 

2031 85.6 

Total $1,172.0 
8 

Total Impacts on the U.S.: Jobs 

Of course, there is a second metric of keen interest to U.S. citizens. How many 

new jobs would be added in the U.S. economy if the weight waiver is granted? I/O table 

estimates of the job impacts are shown in Table 3. Even in the smallest impact year of 

2013, the job creation is impressive at 926. The most jobs is expected to be created in 

2031, peaking at 1,527. Note that in 13 of the 19 years listed more than 1,000 jobs are 

expected to be created by the weight waiver. Indeed, the average annual number of 

jobs created over the 19-year period is an impressive 1,100 jobs. 

Table 3 

Estimated Impact on Jobs in the U.S. If Weight Waiver Granted 

Year Permanent Jobs 

2013 926 

2014 1,183 

2015 952 

2016 980 

2017 969 

2018 1,081 

2019 1,114 

2020 1,059 

2021 1,000 

2022 936 

2023 964 

2024 1,043 

2025 1,126 

2026 1,212 

2027 1,249 

2028 1,062 

2029 1,036 

2030 1,483 

2031 1,527 

Annual Average 1,100 
9 

 It is possible to use the data in Tables 2 and 3 to derive at least one indicator of 

the quality of the jobs created by the weight waiver. By dividing the number of jobs 

created in a given year by the amount of household earnings generated in that same year, 

we can derive an estimate of the average annual wage paid in the jobs created by the 

weight waiver. For example, in 2013 the I/O table estimates that the 926 people (Table 

3) working, due to the granting of the waiver, would earn a total of $52.2 million (Table 

2). That implies an annual average wage of $56,371. By way of reference, the average 

annual wage of all workers in the U.S. private sector in June 2012 was $52,640.1 Thus, 

the average annual wage in the jobs created by the weight waiver would be about 7.1% 

higher than the average wage in the U.S. private sector. That is at least one indicator that 

the jobs created by the waiver are relatively high-paying jobs. 

 There is another common job metric that is implied by the data generated in Table 

3 – the job multiplier. Bell executives have estimated that if the gross weight exemption 

is granted Bell would hire 300 more workers at its U.S. plants in order to meet the 

increased demand for 429 helicopters. If (from Table 3) the granting of the exemption 

will create a total of 926 jobs in the U.S. in 2013, that implies a job multiplier of 3.1 (926 

divided by 300). This is a relatively large job multiplier, which is common when being 

calculated for a manufacturing company as opposed to say a healthcare or retail trade 

company. 

Estimated Impacts Across Industries 

Readers may be interested in how the benefits we documented in Tables 1-3 are 

spread across various industries in the U.S. The I/O table allows for this segmentation. 

 

1

 www.bls.gov. 
10 

Industry breakdowns are shown for year 2013 in Table 4. Note that the numbers in the 

bottom line of Table 4 correspond to the 2013 numbers in Tables 1-3. Readers can scan 

Table 4 and peruse I/O estimates of the impact of the waiver in 2013 on business sales, 

household earnings, and jobs across various industry categories. 

 For example, we showed earlier in Tables 1-3 that in 2013 the waiver is estimated 

to create $206.1 million in business sales (Table 1), $52.2 million in household earnings 

(Table 2), and 926 jobs (Table 3). According to the data in Table 4, the largest 

beneficiaries of these benefits go to the manufacturing sector, which should see a bump 

in its sales of $118.5 million. Workers in manufacturing should see household earnings 

rise by $24.2 million, while jobs in that sector increase by 306. It should be no surprise 

that this sector is the greatest beneficiary of the waiver since this is the sector that houses 

the helicopter manufacturing facilities – the "rock that hits the economic pond" so to 

speak. 

 Note that the manufacturing sector is not the only one to benefit handily from 

granting of the weight waiver. Scanning down the jobs column, the reader will discover 

that there are five other sectors where employment is projected to rise by 50 or more. 

These include: (1) retail trade (+73 jobs), (2) healthcare and social assistance (+70 jobs), 

(3) administrative and management waste services (+65 jobs), (4) 

professional/scientific/technical services (+57 jobs) and (5) real estate/rental/leasing (+51 

jobs). It is important for the reader to note that the figures in Table 4 are for 2013 – the 

year of the smallest estimated benefit if one scans the data back in Tables 1-3. If we had 

calculated the numbers in Table 4 for 2031 – the year of the largest gains – all of the jobs 

numbers would have been about 65% higher. 
11 

Table 4 

Estimated Distribution of New Business Sales, Household Earnings and Jobs 

In 2013 Due to Waiver 

(Sales & Earnings in Millions of Dollars) 

Industry Sales Earnings Jobs 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, And Hunting $1.2 $0.2 6 

Mining $1.1 $0.2 3 

Utilities* $2.6 $0.5 5 

Construction $0.8 $0.3 7 

Manufacturing $118.5 $24.2 306 

Wholesale Trade $6.7 $2.2 32 

Retail Trade $5.6 $2.0 73 

Transportation And Warehousing* $4.8 $1.7 36 

Information $6.2 $1.5 23 

Finance And Insurance $9.6 $2.9 47 

Real Estate And Rental And Leasing $12.3 $1.0 51 

Professional, Scientific, And Technical Services $8.0 $3.8 57 

Management Of Companies And Enterprises $9.3 $3.9 39 

Administrative And Waste Management Services $3.6 $1.6 65 

Educational Services $0.8 $0.3 11 

Health Care And Social Assistance $6.7 $3.2 70 

Arts, Entertainment, And Recreation $1.1 $0.4 16 

Accommodation $0.9 $0.3 9 

Food Services And Drinking Places $2.5 $0.8 43 

Other Services $3.5 $1.1 27 

Total $206.1 $52.2 926 

IV. Summary & Conclusions 

 Bell Helicopter recently applied for an exemption from the FAA that would 

allow the company's 429 helicopter to operate with 500 pounds more of gross weight, a 

waiver that would greatly improve the range and performance of this helicopter and result 

in additional sales of the 429 aircraft. It is Bell Helicopter's argument if the exemption is 
12 

granted its additional sales of more than 425 additional units of the 429 over a 19-year 

period would be net new helicopters produced in the U.S., thereby creating new business 

sales, household earnings, and jobs in this country. The purpose of this report is to 

estimate the impact of these additional sales on the U.S. economy. Our findings can be 

summarized as follows: 

 Based on a sales price of $5.8 million a unit that increases 3% per year and has 

a 49% U.S. content, we estimate U.S revenues for Bell from the sales of these 

additional units will range from a low of $73.9 million in 2013 to a high of 

$121 million in 2031. 

 Using the RIMII Input/Output Table, we estimate the following impacts of 

these new sales on the U.S. economy: 

 New sales at businesses in the U.S. will range from a low of $206.1 

 million in 2013 to a high of $337.4 million in 2031. On the average over 

 the 19-year period, business sales should increase by $243.1 million a 

 year. Over the entire 19- year period business sales in the U.S. will 

 increase by over $4.6 billion. 

 Household earnings for workers in the U.S will rise over a range of $52.2 

 million in 2013 to a high of $85.6 million in 2031. On the average over 

 the 19-year period, household earnings should increase by $61.7 million a 

 year. Over the entire 19-year period, household earnings in the U.S. will 

 jump by almost $1.2 billion. 

 In 2013, the additional sales of the 429 helicopter will create a total of 926 

jobs in the U.S., a figure that will increase to a high of 1,527 jobs in 2031. 
13 

 Over the entire 19-year time period, the job bump will average 1,100 a 

 year. 

 Considering only the year 2013, we found that the industry sector that 

 benefits the most from the new helicopter sales in the manufacturing 

 sector – the sector where Bell Helicopter is located. However, there are 

 five other sectors in the economy where job gains alone exceed 50 in that 

 year. 

 A cursory review of these findings suggests the economic benefits from granting 

an exemption of 500 pounds of gross weight for Bell's 429 Helicopter are significant 

enough for the FAA to reconsider its earlier denial.
Page 1 

LOREN C. SCOTT

 

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Information

Home: 743 Woodview Court Phone: (225) 751-1707 

 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810 Fax: (225) 751-2350 

 Cell: 225-937-4283 

Title: President, Email Address: lorencscott@aol.com 

 

 Loren C. Scott & Associates, Inc. 

 743 Woodview Court 

 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810 Birth date: January 25, 1942 

Education

Permian High School, Odessa, TX--Graduated May, 1960 

Odessa Junior College, Odessa, TX--1960-1962: Associate in Applied Science 

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX--1962-1966: B.S., Economics--1965; M.A., 

Econ.--1966 

Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK-1966-1969: Ph.D.-Economics--1969 

Professional Teaching and Administrative Experience 

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, Baton Rouge, LA August, 1969 - Present 

Professor Emeritus, January, 1999 - present

Endowed Chair and Director of Division: 

Freeport-McMoRan Chair of Economics and Director of Division of Economic 

Development and Forecasting: June, 1996 - 1998. 

Endowed Chair/Professorship and Chairman of Economics Department: 

Freeport-McMoRan Chair of Economics and Chairman of Economics Dept.: January, 

1996 - June, 1996 
Page 2 

Thomas J. Singletary Business Partnership Professor & Chairman of Dept.: September, 

1990 - Jan., 1996 

Professor of Economics and Chairman of Economics Department: September, 1984 - 

August, 1990 

Professor of Economics and Acting Chairman of Economics Department: August, 1983 

- August, 1984 

Professor of Economics and Associate Director of Division of Research: 

Professor of Economics and Associate Director of Division of Research: July, 1977 - 

August, 1983 

Associate Professor and Associate Director of Division of Research: January, 

1975 - June, 1977 

Associate Professor and Acting Director of Division of Research: September, 1974 - 

December, 1974 

Other: 

Associate Professor: September, 1972-September, 1974 

Assistant Professor: Fall, 1969-September, 1972 

Graduate Teaching Assistant: Oklahoma State University; Teaching Principles of 

Economics for four semesters. 

Teaching responsibilities have included graduate courses in Labor Economics, 

Managerial Economics and Microeconomics. Also have taught Principles, a senior level 

course in Labor Theory, and a freshman course on The Economics of Social Issues. 

Other Appointments 

 Economics Editor, WBRZ-TV-Channel 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1985-1990 

Author, quarterly article for Louisiana Business, a publication of Bank One of Louisiana, 

1986-98. 

Governor Roemer's Task Force on Minority Set-Asides - 1989-90. 

Baton Rouge Visions--Think Tank of Baton Rouge Area Foundation. 

Governor Foster's Economic Development Transition Team - 1996. 
Page 3 

Economic Consultant: Judicial Compensation Commission - 1995-present. 

Governor Foster’s Economic Modeling & Diversification Task Force - Fall, 1997 

Governor Foster’s Interagency Work Group on Labor Market Information - Fall, 1997 

National Business Economic Issues Council: 2004-present 

Economic Advisory Committee, Council on Competitiveness, 2011 to present 

Publications 

Journal Articles and Proceedings: 

"The Economic Effectiveness of On-the-Job Training: The Experience of the BIA in 

Oklahoma," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 23 (January, 1970), pp. 220-236. 

"The Market, Productivity, and Training Effects of Retraining the Unemployed," The 

American Economist, (Fall, 1970), pp. 43-46. 

"The Economic Effectiveness of On-the-Job Training: The Experience of the BIA in 

Oklahoma: Reply," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, (January, 1971), pp. 268-269. 

"Some Evidence on the Economic Effectiveness of Institutional vs. On-the-Job Training," 

Social Science Quarterly, (March, 1971), pp. 910-924, with Paul Blume. 

"Minimum Wages and Black Employment in the Louisiana Sugar Cane Industry," 

Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, (1971), pp. 89-99, with 

Lamar Jones. 

"The U.S.D.A. and Wages in the Sugar Crop Industry," The Labor Law Journal (January, 

1974), pp. 18-30, with Lamar Jones. 

"On Moving the Poor: Subsidizing Relocation," Industrial Relations (February, 1975), pp. 

63-77, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon. 

"The Modification of Industry Performance Through the Use of Government Monopsony 

Power," Industrial Organizations Review (Number 1, 1975), pp. 28-36, with Sidney 

Carroll. 

"Job Search in Rural Labor Markets," Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research 

Association (December 1975), pp. 120-128, with B. Rungeling and L. Smith. Reprinted 

in Monthly Labor Review (April, 1976), pp. 27-30 and in B. Rungeling, L. Smith, V. 
Page 4 

Briggs, and J. Adams, Employment, Income, and Welfare in the Rural South (New York: 

Praeger Publishers, 1977), pp. 58-76. 

"On Moving the Poor: Subsidizing Relocation: Reply, “Industrial Relations (February, 

1977), pp. 111-113, with Black, Smith and Sirmon. 

"Labor Force Participation in Southern Rural Labor Markets, “American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics (May 1977), pp. 266-274, with L. Smith and B. Rungeling. 

Reprinted in B. Rungeling, L. Smith, V. Briggs, and J. Adams, Employment, Income, and 

Welfare in the Rural South (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977), pp. 51-57. 

"Training and Relocation in Areas of Labor Surplus," Social Science Quarterly 

(September 1977), pp. 312-320, with Black and Smith. 

"The Effect of the Inventory Tax on the Location Decision of Wholesalers," Akron 

Business Review (Winter 1977), pp. 31-35. 

"Projecting State Revenues in Louisiana with an Econometric Model," State and Local 

Government Review, (September 1978), pp. 92-99, with James Richardson. 

"Tax Rate Changes and the Specification of the Tax Equation," Public Finance Quarterly, 

(April 1979), pp. 238-247, with James Richardson. 

"Comment on Rural Labor Market Papers," Proceedings of the Industrial Relations 

Research Association (December 1977), pp. 243-245. 

"An Assessment of Subsidized Relocation of Worker Policy in Britain: Comment," Journal 

of Industrial Relations (March 1978), pp. 96-100, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon. 

"Income and Employment in a State Econometric Model: The Case of Louisiana," Journal 

of Economics Vol. 4 (1978), pp. 151-155, with James Richardson. 

"A Methodology for Improving 'Wastage Rates' in Relocation Programs," Scottish Journal 

of Political Economy (November 1978), pp. 301-309, with Black, Smith, and Sirmon. 

"A Short Run Regional Oil and Gas Model: The Case of Louisiana," Growth and Change 

(July 1979), pp. 19-24, with James Richardson. 

"The Impact of the Energy Shortages on Small Businesses in Region VI," Texas Business 

Review (July/August 1980), pp. 214-219, with James Richardson. 

"Louisiana's Energy Future," in 28th Annual Institute on Mineral Law, Pat Martin (editor), 

LSU Press, (March 1982), pp. 340-351. 
Page 5 

"Resource Location Patterns and State Severance Taxes: Some Empirical Evidence," 

Natural Resources Journal, (April 1983), pp. 351-364, with James Richardson. 

"Domestic and International Implications of Federal and State Policies Towards Heavy 

Oil," in Heavy Versus Light Oil: Technical Issues and Economic Considerations, R. El 

Mallakh (ed.), (Boulder: International Research Center for Energy and Economic 

Development), 1983, pp. 121-134, with James Richardson. 

"A Review of State Severance Taxes in the United States," Texas Business Review 

(July/August, 1982), pp. 179-182, with James Richardson. 

"Government Regulation and Market Distortions: The Case of the NGPA and the 

Louisiana Economy," Journal of Energy and Development (Autumn, 1982), pp. 59-72. 

"The Prospects for Growth in the Louisiana Economy," Energy in the Southwestern 

States, Proceedings of the 1985 Conference on Energy in the Southwest Economy Federal 

Reserve Bank of Dallas Conference, 1985, pp. 203-222. 

"Welfare Expenditures and the Decline of Unions," Review of Economics and Statistics, 

(August 1989), pp. 538-542, with William Moore and Robert Newman. 

"Total Effects of the Decline on the Louisiana Economy," Proceedings: Ninth Annual Gulf 

of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting, Minerals Management Service, U.S. 

Department of Interior, October 1988, pp. 336-338. 

"Forecasting the Louisiana Economy," Delta Business Review (Fall/Winter 1989), pp. 3-8. 

"A Targeting Strategy for Use of Incentives in Economic Development," Economic 

Development Review (Fall 1993), pp. 74-75. 

"Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update,” Economic 

Inquiry, (April 1996), pp. 378-400, with Mitias. 

Articles in Books: 

The following articles appear in Louisiana's Fiscal Alternatives: Finding Permanent 

Solutions to Recurring Budget Crises, edited by James A. Richardson (LSU Press: Baton 

Rouge, LA 1988). 

"The Structure of the Louisiana Economy," pp. 9-26. (Reprinted in Louisiana Since the 

Longs, Vol. 9 of Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Series, Center for Louisiana Studies, 

University of Southwestern Louisiana.) 

"Mineral Taxes and Revenues and Budgetary Stability," pp. 117-142 with James 

 Richardson. 
Page 6 

"The Economics of a State Lottery," pp. 315-328, with E. Ryan. 

"The Economics of Casino Gambling," pp. 329-340, with E. Ryan. 

"Louisiana in the 1990s: A Different Decade," The Southwest Economy in the 1990s: A 

Different Decade, edited by G.P.Driscoll and S.P.A. Brown (Norwell, Mass: Kluwer 

Publishers, 1991), pp. 139-146. 

Louisiana Business Review Articles: 

"Should Louisiana License Automobile Mechanics," Louisiana Business Review (January 

1975), pp. 2-5. 

"Revenue Projections for Louisiana State Government, Fiscal Years 1974-1975 - 

1979-1980", Louisiana Business Review (February 1975), with Thomas Beard. 

"The Petroleum Industry in Louisiana," Louisiana Business Review (March 1977). 

"Louisiana's Oil and Gas Severance Tax: An Historical Review, “Louisiana Business 

Review, (July 1978), with James Richardson. 

"The Changing Structure of the Louisiana Economy: 1940-1976," Louisiana Business 

Review, (September 1978). 

"The Prospects for 1979)," Louisiana Business Review (December 1978). 

"Demographic Shifts and the Economy of the 1980's," Louisiana Business Review (April 

1980). 

"The Louisiana Economy in the 1970's: A Decade of Growth and Internal Shifts," 

Louisiana Business Review (Spring 1981). (Reprinted in Louisiana Since the Longs, Vol. 

9 of Louisiana Purchase Bicentennial Series, Center for Louisiana Studies, University of 

Southwestern Louisiana.) 

"Louisiana Job Outlook: A Forecast of the State's Industrial and Occupational 

Employment to 1990," Louisiana Business Review (Spring 1982), pp. 6-11. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1983: Part I and II,” Louisiana Business Review 

(Spring 1983), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"Improvement Strategy? Louisiana's 1984 Economic Forecast," Louisiana Business 

Review (Fall 1983), with Richardson, Molina, and Jamal, pp.6-15. 
Page 7 

"Louisiana Economic Outlook to 1986," Louisiana Business Review (Fall 1984), with 

Richardson and Jamal. 

Louisiana Economic Outlooks: 

"The 1985 Louisiana Economic Outlook," Division of Research Publication, (December 

1985), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The 1986 Louisiana Economic Outlook," College of Business Administration, LSU 

(October 1986), with Richardson and Jamal. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1988 and 1989," College of Business 

Administration, LSU (October 1987), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook for 1989 and 1990," College of Business 

Administration, LSU (October 1988), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1990 and 1991," College of Business, LSU, (October 

1989), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1991 and 1992," College of Business, LSU, (October 

1990), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1992 and 1993," College of Business, LSU, (October 

1991), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1993 and 1994," College of Business, LSU, (October, 

1992), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1994 and 1995," College of Business, LSU, (October, 

1993), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1995 and 1996," College of Business, LSU, (October, 

1994), with Richardson and Jamal. 

"The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1996 and 1997," College of Business, LSU (October, 

1995), with Richardson and Jamal. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1997 and 1998”, College of Business, LSU (October 

1996), with Richardson and Jamal. 59 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1998 and 1999,” College of Business, LSU 

(September 1997), with Richardson and Jamal. 67 pages. 
Page 8 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 1999 and 2000”, College of Business, LSU 

(September 1998), with Richardson and Jamal. 84 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2000 and 2001”, College of Business, LSU 

(September 1999), with Richardson and Jamal. 87 pages 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2001-2002”, College of Business, LSU (September 

2000) with Jamal and Richardson. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2002-2003”, College of Business, LSU, (September 

2001), with Richardson and Jamal, 88 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2003-2004”, College of Business, LSU, (September 

2002), with Richardson and Jamal, 94 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2004-2005”, College of Business, LSU, (September 

2003), with Richardson and Jamal, 98 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2005-2006”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2004), with Richardson and Jamal, 99 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2006-2007”, College of Business, LSU, (November 

2005), with Richardson, 80 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2007-2008”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2006), with Richardson, 80 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2008-2009”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2007), with Richardson, 98 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2009-2010”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2008), with Richardson, 91 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2010-2011”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2009), with Richardson, 93 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2011-2012”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2010), with Richardson, 90 pages. 

“The Louisiana Economic Outlook: 2012-2013”, College of Business, LSU, (October 

2011), with Richardson, 104 pages. 
Page 9 

Technical Papers and Book Reviews: 

"An Economic Evaluation of On-the-Job Training Conducted under the Auspices of the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs in Oklahoma: Concepts and Preliminary Findings," Toward 

Economic Development for Native American Communities, Joint Economic Print, 91st 

Congress, January 1970, pp. 171-190, with David Stevens. 

"Economic Profiles, Personal Income and Earnings Data for Louisiana State Planning 

Districts, SMSA Parishes, and Non-SMSA Parishes: 1929-1968," Occasional Paper No. 

2, Division of Research, College of Business, Louisiana State University, with Thomas R. 

Beard and Jan W. Duggar, (February, 1971), 164 pages. Reprinted in Master Plan 

Supplement, State of Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1972, Baton 

Rouge. 

"Book Review: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Manpower Policies: Proceedings of a North 

American Conference, May, 1969, by G.G. Sommers and W.D. Wood in Industrial and 

Labor Relations Review (October, 1970), pp. 133-134. 

"Should Louisiana Adopt a State Lottery?" A Report Submitted to Governor Edwin 

Edwards by the Governor's Council on Economic Advisors, Louisiana State University, 

Division of Research (September, 1972), with Thomas Beard and William Silvia, Jr. 

"The Office Industry: A Potential Source of Economic Growth for Louisiana," Issue Paper 

No. 1, Louisiana Office of State Planning (December 1973), 20 pages, with Jan Duggar. 

"Economic Analysis of the Chemical Industry in Louisiana," Report for the Louisiana 

Chemical Association published by the Division of Research, Louisiana State University 

(November 1976), 49 pages, with G. Randolph Rice. 

An Econometric Analysis of Louisiana's Energy Sector: The First Step--Regional 

Production Analysis, for Center for Energy Studies, LSU (July 1983), 67 pages. 

Tax Compendium for State of Louisiana, for the Legislative Fiscal Office, Fall 1975, 393 

pages, with James Richardson. 

The Severance Tax: Its Long-Term Potential, for Department of Conservation, March 

1977, 155 pages, with James Richardson. 

The Energy Crisis and the Employment of Black CETA Participants in Louisiana in the 

1980's, for U.S. Department of Labor under a grant with Southern University (May 1981). 
Page 10 

The Taxation of Natural Resources by States (with Richardson), for U.S. Department of 

the Interior (Fall 1981), 154 pages. 

Models for Forecasting Hammond Sales Tax Revenues and for Estimating the Impact on 

Revenues of New Industry, for the City of Hammond (January 1982). 

Energy Impact analysis: Petrochemical Industry, report for Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources, December, 1983. 52 pages plus appendices. 

The Petroleum Industry in Louisiana, report prepared for The Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association, 1983, 29 pages. Reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Panama 

Canal/Outer Continental Shelf of Committee on 

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 2nd Session, 

March 9, 1984, Houma, Louisiana. Updated, December 1996, 47 pages. 

The Chemical Industry in Louisiana: Economic Profile, a report prepared for the Louisiana 

Chemical Association, September 1989, 44 pages. Revised, January 1991, April 1993, 

and August 1996 (50 pages). 

The Economic Impact of LSU on the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Area, Department of 

Economics, LSU, 

Summer 1990, 15 pages. 

It's Not Just Entertainment: The Impact of the LSU Athletic Department on the Baton 

Rouge Metropolitan Statistical Area, Department of Economics, LSU, May 1991, 30 

pages. Updated February 1998 with Jennifer Trinca, 31 pages. Revised, January 2002. 

An Economic Analysis of the Economic Expansion Program as Proposed by Texaco to the 

State of Louisiana, for the Louisiana Attorney General, November, 1993, 88 pages, with 

James Richardson. 

A Report on Judicial Salaries in Louisiana for Louisiana's Judicial Compensation 

Commission (December, 1995), 19 pages. Revised biannually. 

Estimating the Economic Impact of Constructing a 50-Year Wet Dam at Darlington, for 

Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District, May, 1997, with Robert 

Newman. 17 pages. 

Estimation of Recreational Benefits for the Proposed Darlington Reservoir: A Contingent 

Valuation Study, for the Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District, 

June, 1997, with Robert Newman. 54 pages. 
Page 11 

Establishing a Master Economic Development Plan for Louisiana: Targeting Industries for 

Recruitment, for the Louisiana Department of Economic Development, October 1997, 

135 pages, with W.J. Moore and Geoffrey Turnbull. 

Gambling in Louisiana: A Benefit/Cost Analysis, with Tim Ryan, Janet Speyrer, et al., 

prepared for the Louisiana Gaming Commission, April, 1999, 107 pages. 

Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Casino Industry on the Louisiana Economy 

prepared for the Casino Association of Louisiana, March 2005, 75 pages. 

Other Publications: 

"Peering into the Crystal Ball: How Will 1979 Turn Out?" Entree Magazine (September 

1979). 

"Focus on Louisiana", The Southern Banker (January 1982), with W.F. Staats. 

"Louisiana Energy," Economic Review of Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, (October 

1983), pp. 12-16. 

Special Editor, Louisiana Visions - 89, published goals statement of Governor Buddy 

Roemer's Administration. 

Our firm has prepared approximately 100 economic impact studies for various 

clients that are not listed in this resume because in most cases they are proprietary 

to the clients. 

Symposia

Lecturer for LSU Executive Program, approximately 30 years 

Lecturer for LSU Executive MBA Program, since inception, until 2002. 

Lecturer, Louisiana Bankers Association School of Banking, approximately 15 years. 

School now closed. 

Course co-coordinator and lecturer, Managerial Economics section of Graduate School of 

Banking of the South, approximately 36 years. 

50-70 speeches a year on the "State of the Economy" to various groups. 

Testimony

Testified frequently on state revenue estimates before Joint Legislative Budget Committee. 
Page 12 

Before Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C. on a comparison of the New 

England and Louisiana economies, September 1976. 

Before State Legislative Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs on the topic of the 

future of Louisiana State revenues, October 1976. 

Before Joint Committee on Health and Human Resources on Unemployment in Louisiana, 

January 1977. 

Before Joint Committee on Economies in State Government, March 1986. 

Before state legislative committee on the ethanol industry, Spring 1986. 

Before a state legislative committee on the repeal of the right-to-work law, Spring 1992. 

Before Public Service Commission on Agrielectric rate case, 1996. 

Before Judicial Compensation Committee, Spring, 1996. 

Before Public Service Commission on South Central Bell effort to move into the long 

distance market in Louisiana, Fall 1997. 

Before the Louisiana Legislature in 2001 on the Harrah’s Casino tax cut. 

Before the Louisiana Legislature in 2001 & 2002 on the sales below cost law on gasoline 

in Louisiana. 

Before the Legislature on the proposed Quality Jobs Act. 

Several other appearances before state legislative committees. 

Expert Witness on Louisiana Economy--state and federal courts. 

Contract Research at LSU (excluding LCS, Inc. contracts)

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- January 1975 to December 

1975--$75,000 contract with State Legislative Fiscal Office to build a model for 

forecasting state revenues. Includes a 393-page Tax Compendium for Louisiana. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- March 1976 to February 1977--$22,000 

contract with State Department of Conservation to build a long run model for forecasting 

oil and gas production in the state. The final 156-page document included not only the 

forecasting model but also a historical review of Louisiana severance tax laws, a 

comparison with severance tax laws in other states, and a theoretical discussion of optimal 

state severance tax strategy. 
Page 13 

Principal Investigator -- contract submitted jointly with UNO to establish a University 

Development Center for the LSU System. Total Contract of $137,000 for six months 

awarded by Economic Development Administration and State of Louisiana. Will continue 

over 4-5 year period. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- $4,500 contract with Small Business 

Administration to study effects of energy shortage on small businesses in Region VI. 

Principal Investigator -- $15,000 contract through Southern University with the U.S. 

Department of Labor to investigate optimal growth industries and occupations for CETA 

trainees. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- $72,510 contract with U.S. Department 

of the Interior to investigate the properties of an optimal severance tax. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- $65,000 contract with Louisiana Board 

of Regents to build an econometric model of the state. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- $17,500 contract with LSU's Center for 

Energy Studies to construct an econometric model of Louisiana's energy sector. 

Principal Investigator, with James Richardson -- $55,000 contract with Louisiana Board 

of Regents to expand the Louisiana econometric model. 

Principal Investigator -- $6540 grant with Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce to 

conduct an area wage survey, 1992. 

Principal Investigator -- $12,000 grant with Judicial Compensation Commission, 1995. 

Principal Investigator, with Robert Newman--$80,000 grant with Amite River Basin 

Drainage & Water Conservation District, July 1996-June, 1997. 

Principal Investigator--$12,500 project with Japan Foundation, Louisiana Department of 

Economic Development, JETRO, Port Of South Louisiana and Entergy Corporation to 

host and conduct a Symposium on Trade Between Japan and the U.S. held March 18, 

1997. 

Principal Investigator, with Geoffrey Turnbull, W. J. Moore and Elizabeth Woodside--

$81,696 project to conduct targeted industry study for the state of Louisiana for the 

Louisiana Department of Economic Development and Louisiana’s Investor-Owned 

Utilities, January, 1997 - June, 1997. 

Principal Investigator, with Geoffrey Turnbull, W. J. Moore and Elizabeth Woodside--

$45,951 grant to continue investigation of targeted industries for the Louisiana 
Page 14 

Department of Economic Development and Louisiana-owned utilities, July 1 - October 1, 

1997. 

Principal investigator, with Douglas McMillin, Dek Terrell, Robert Newman, W.J. Moore, 

and Daryl McKee--$228,480 grant with Louisiana Department of Labor to (a) generate 

occupational forecasts to 2006 and (b) construct a scorecard for evaluating various 

training programs, July 1, 1997 - August 30, 1998. 

Principal Investigator, with Carter Hill, Michael Hartline, and Ed Holton--$117,615 grant 

the Baton Rouge Community College to forecast enrollments and develop curriculum for 

the junior college, November 1, 1997 - August 31, 1998. 

Principal Investigator, with David Johnson---$77,956 grant with the Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development (through UNO) to develop a model for 

determining the rate of return on various projects in the State’s intermodal transportation 

plan. May, 1998-February, 1999. 

Principal Investigator with Nick Apostolou and Abe Biswas. $65,000 grant through the 

Board of Regents with support from Hibernia Bank to provide consulting services to inner 

city businesses using second year graduate assistants. This is a 3-year, continuing 

grant...started in July, 1998... to be maintained at $65,000 a year. It provides six MBAs 

$2,500 a semester to work on the projects. 

Principal investigator with Dek Terrell and Doug McMillin. Grant with Louisiana 

Department of Labor (through UNO) to generate industry employment forecasts to 2008. 

 Approximately $100,000. 

Principal investigator with Dek Terrell and Doug McMillin. Grant with Louisiana 

Department of Labor (through UNO) to generate industry employment forecasts to 2010. 

 Approximately $100,000. 

Have raised approximately $9,000 a year for Department through sales of Louisiana 

Economic Outlook. This amount raised an extra $10,000 due to getting a corporate 

sponsorship from a bank. 

University Committees 

Search Committee - Policy Director, Center for Energy Studies 1988-89. 

Search Committee - Chancellor, LSU-Baton Rouge, 1989. 

Selection Committee-LSU Alumni Hall of Distinction, 1990-95. 

LSU Long-Range Planning Committee, 1989-1995. 

Athletic Council, 1991-1996 

University Steering Committee - United Way, 1991-1994. 

Institutional Effectiveness Committee of SAC's Review, 1992-1995. 

 Committee to Review Declaration of Financial Exigency Guidelines - 1994-1996. 
Page 15 

 University Program Review Council, 1996 - 98. 

 College Executive Committee, 1983 - 1998. 

Participation in Professional Meetings 

Have presented papers, served as discussant and chaired sessions at meetings of the 

Southern Economic Association, Western Economic Association, Southwest Social 

Science Association, Industrial Relations Research Association, Mid-Continent Regional 

Science Association, Mid-South Economics Association, Academy of Louisiana 

Economists, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 

Association of University Bureaus of Economic Research, and Southern Regional Science 

Association. 

Awards and Scholarships 

Recipient of Odessa College Tuition Scholarship 

Recipient of two scholarships at Texas Tech University--1964 and 1965 

National Science Foundation Summer Research Traineeship--1968 

 Dissertation Fellowship--Oklahoma State University Research Foundation 

Junior Division College, Master Teacher Award, Spring 1986. 

MBA Association, Professor of the Year, 1988. 

 Outstanding Teacher of MBAs, 1988-89, chosen by Business Administration Leadership 

Council. 

Student Government Association Award for Outstanding In-Class Teaching, 1989. 

 Erich Sternberg Foundation Excellence in Teaching Award, College of Business, 1990-91. 

Outstanding MBA Teacher, 1993-94. 

Excellence on Teaching Award, Department of Economics, 1994-95. 

Professional and Scholastic Organizations 

Phi Kappa Phi American Economic Association 

Phi Theta Kappa Southern Economic Association 

Omicron Delta Epsilon Regional Science Association 

Consulting Activities

Coordinating Council for Higher Education--State of Louisiana 

Gulf South Research Institute 

Mississippi Labor Mobility Project--Star, Inc., Hattiesburg, Miss. 

Office of State Planning--State of Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources--State of Louisiana 

U.S. Employment and Training Administration 

Attorney General's Office--State of Louisiana 
Page 16 

Manpower Advisory Council--East Baton Rouge Parish 

Applications for new Savings and Loan Associations 

Applications for new Banks 

City of Hammond 

Capital Area United Way 

City of Baton Rouge 

Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association 

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Association 

Process Services, Inc. 

Goudchaux's Department Stores 

Louisiana Department of Labor 

Exxon Corporation 

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry 

South Central Bell 

Charlyn Enterprises 

Louisiana Chemical Association 

Premier Bancorp 

Louisiana League of Savings Institutions 

Louisiana Department of Economic Development 

Associated Grocers 

Placid Oil Refinery 

Waste Management of North America 

Borden, Inc. 

Lake Charles Memorial Hospital 

John H. Carter, Inc. 

Louisiana Lottery Corporation 

Cajun Electric Power Cooperative 

Louisiana Department of Labor 

Shell Chemical Company 

Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates 

Hancock Bank 

Hibernia National Bank 

Louisiana Gaming Commission 

Coushatta Indian Tribe 

Jazz Holding Company 

Baton Rouge Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 

Jack Rome, Jr. & Associates 

Louisiana Press Association 

Louisiana Home Builders Association 

Harrah’s Land Based Casino 

Murphy Oil 

Louisiana Nurses Association 

Transwestern Properties

LSU Athletic Department 

The Governor’s Military Advisory Board 
Page 17 

Ascension Parish Government 

Louisiana Industrial Development Executives Association 

Office of Addictive Disorders-Department of Health & Hospitals 

Louisiana Racing Commission 

PSI Engineers 

Louisiana Airport Authority 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Casino Association of Louisiana 

Lamar-Dixon Expo Center 

Penn National Gaming 

Cleco Corporation 

R.W. Day Associates 

Emerald Bayou Studios 

Crescent City Towers, LLC 

Capitol One Financial 

Red River Waterway Commission 

City of Baton Rouge 

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

Minerals Management Service 

Wampold Companies 

One Call of Louisiana 

Gulf Coast Coca Cola Bottling Company 

Louisiana Department of Economic Development 

Tenaska Corporation 

Lake Forest Mall, LLC 

Offshore Marine Services Association 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 

Louisiana Workforce Commission 

CITGO Corporation 

R. W. Day 

Gramercy Alumina 

Alexandria Airport Commission 

Riverplace Consulting 

Hartex Corporation 

Entergy Corporation 

River Birch Corporation 

Beer League of Louisiana 

Port Fourchon 

Ranger Gas 

Team Honda 

Saint Gabriel Downs Corporation 

Port of Shreveport 

Leucadia LLC 

Elliott Management, LLC 

Michoud Assembly Facility 
Page 18 

Lake Forest, LLC 

Port of Caddo-Bossier 

College of Engineering - LSU 

Chesapeake Energy 

Nucor 

Sundrop Fuels 

U. L. Coleman Companies 

Sasol Corporation 

Ochsner Hospitals 
Exhibit “7”