AFS

- 13

- 534

- E Exemption No. 10960

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

BRIM EQUIPMENT LEASING. INC Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0761

dba BRIM AVIATION

for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 23, 2013

, and supplemental information dated October 31, 2013, Mr. Burl Brim Jr.

, President

, Brim Equipment Leasing, Inc. dba Brim

Aviation , ( Brim Aviation ), 455 Dead Indian Memorial Road, Ashland, Oregon 97520, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Brim Aviation for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Brim Aviation to conduct Class D rotorcraft

load combination operations for maritime pilot transfer s and search and rescue with an MD900 (902 Configuration) helicopter certificated in the normal category under part 27

.

Th e petitioner requests relief from the following regula tion :

Section 133.45(e)(1) prescribe s, in pertinent part, that the rotorcraft

- load combination of Class D may be conducted only in a rotorcraft type certificated under transport Category A for the operating weight and provi de hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating weight and altitude.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that § 133.45 was last amended in 1986, ten years before the FAA adopted Categ ory A standards for normal category rotorcraft in part 27 Appendix C. An applicant is required to show compliance with numerous transport category airworthiness standards to obtain Category A certification under part 27. The petitioner claims that an

exe mption should not be necessary to conduct the proposed operations. The petitioner acknowledges that § 133.45(e) (1) requires a transport c ategory aircraft for Class D operations and that the FAA might conclude that an exemption is necessary

. If an exempti on is2

necessary, the petitioner states that a grant would serve the public interest by enhancing safety, protecting the environment, fac ilitating maritime commerce, and reducing or eliminating threat to human life

.

The pe titioner states the MD900 (902 C onfiguration) helicopter would be used to not only transport maritime pilots to and from ships located at United States ( U.S. ) ports

, but also serve as an aerial hoist platform to perform rescues in remote wilderness and other locations that would be otherwise inaccessible in a timely manner.

T he petitioner states that by permitting helicopter transfers, as granted in Exemption No.

10 456, the safety of maritime pilots, environment, and maritime vessels is increased. In permitting rescu e operations in the MD900 (902 C onfiguration), t he petitioner states public interest would be met in permitting the availability of a hoist

- equipped air craft to em ergency response agencies that would provide an invaluable, timely, and previously unavailable asset that can be utilized for rescue personnel and victims in remote areas or difficult terrain that may be otherwise inaccessible.

The petitioner a sserts that the aircraft offers improved one

- engine inoperative (OEI) performance and fully complies with Category A certification requirements in part 27,

A ppendix C, which requires compliance with numerous sections of part 29. The petitioner

states that each flight plan would be initiated with a weight and balance determination to ensure the aircraft and hoisting operation are appropriate for the proposed flight in accordance with the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) and applicable limitations in the RFM a ppendices regarding weight and balance and OEI performance

. All hoisting operations would be conducted in accordance with the RFM supplement entitled “Rescue Hoist.”

The petitioner states that for nearly twenty years Brim Aviation has been providing airc raft, as well as trained rescue personnel

, to the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office in support of search

and rescue operations. As a result, the petitioner states that Brim Aviation’s aircraft are frequently called into service to perform rescues within Jackson County and throughout Oregon and neighboring states on a mutual aid basis. The petitioner described the vast mountainous wilderness regions that do not easily lend themselves t o search and rescue operations and often challenge and hamper the abilities of even the most experi enced and

will

- equipped rescue teams.

According to the petitioner, there are currently relatively few rescue hoist equipped helicopters in the western regio n of the United States that can meet the multi

- engine and OEI performance requirements. The petitioner states that even fewer conduct civil aircraft operations. The petitioner states that the single engine performance and capabili ties offered by the MD90 0 (902 C onfiguration) make it most beneficial to the rescue crews and members of the public that it would serve.

The petitioner states that availability of a helicopter equipped with a rescue hoist is a monumental benefit and vastly improves Brim Aviation ’s abilities to rapidly rescue, medically treat, and evacuate victims who become injured or ill while in the treacherous3

expanses of the Oregon wilderness. Such operations can greatly reduce the time spent reaching and retrieving people who require emerge ncy evacuation from remote locations that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to access by conventional ground

- based rescue

crews. The petitioner points out that the FAA has granted an exemption (No.7118) to support search and rescue operations in a part 27 aircraft

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Brim Aviation

.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds that an exemption would be necessary to conduct Class D rotorcraft

- load combination operations in an aircraft type certificated under other than transport Category A. Without an exemption, a regulatory change would be necessary to conduct these operations in a normal category rotorcraft. Consideration for a regulatory change is outside the scope of the exemption process.

Accordingly, r egarding the request to transfer maritime pilots to and from ships in U.S. ports with a normal category aircraft certified for Category A operations, the FAA issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition.

In Grants of Exe mption Nos. 6400 and 10456, t he FAA determined that if specific conditions were implemented, the level of safety would be equivalent to that provided under the regulation and it would be in the public interest to improve safety of maritime pilot transfers.

The F AA concurs that the MD900 (902 C onfiguration) has been certificated under part 27

, Appendix C for Category A operation s.

Having reviewed reasons for requesting an exemption for maritime pilot transfers, the FAA

finds that they are similar in all m aterial respects to relief previously re quested

. T he reasons stated by t he FAA for granting Grants of Exemption Nos. 6400 and 10456 apply to the situation you presen t, and a grant of exemption to conduct maritime pil ot transfers in the MD900 (902 C onfigur ation) is in the public interest.

The FAA has also carefully reviewed the request and supporting documentation for conducting Class D rotorcraft

- load combination rescu e operations in the MD900 (902

C onfiguration), which is available with two different types of engine with different performance data for each. The petitioner did not state the engine configuration on the Brim Aviation aircraft or whether the aircraft, generally equipped for high

- altitude search and

rescue o perations, would be able to perform as needed and still provide one engine inoperative capability at the required elevations in excess of 5,000 feet as stated for the vast

expanses of wilderness described in the petition.

The FAA finds that a grant of ex emption for rescue operations wou ld not be in the public

interest. The petitioner references previous Grant of Exemption No. 7118 to Intermountain Life Flight as precedent for allowing rescue operations in a normal category rotorcraft. T he4

basis for publ ic interest in Exemption No. 7118

, was in part

, the determination that there were no military or public aircraft operators conducting hoist rescue operations within a reasonable distance or response time to conduct life

- saving rescue requests in Intermount ain Life Flight’s area of operation. While the FAA agreed that the life

- saving nature of the rescue operations were in the public interest, the FAA also verified, to the extent possible, the lack of other available public or civil aircraft operators capab le of conducting similar rescue operations within Intermountain Life Flight’s operational range.

The petitioner’s public interest reason for allowing Class D rescue operations in the MD900 (902 Configuration), as stated, is that the availability of a hoist

- equipped aircraft to emergency response agencies would provide an invaluable, timely and previou sly unavailable asset that can be utilized to not only insert trained rescue and medical personnel into, but a victim removed from, remote areas or difficult terrain that may be otherwise inaccessible.

The FAA has determined that hoist

- equipped aircraft t hat can perform the operations described by the petitioner

, are currently available. There are several military and public aircraft operators available to conduct hoist rescue operations within Brim Aviation’s area of operation and within reasonable dista nce. In June 2013, for example, Oregon Army National Guard helicopters conducted search and rescue hoist operations for a missing Mount Hood

climber. A National Guard CH

- 47 Chinook helicopter was utilized to insert a rescue team at the 11,239

- foot summit of Mount Hood to effectively and efficiently reduce the search time by as much as half, according to the local sheriff’s office. This and other helicopter hoist rescue resources can be coordinated through the respective local 911 dispatch center,

accordi ng to interagency guidelines and information on emergency helicopter hoist extraction ordering for the P acific N orthwest encompassing the state of Oregon and Brim Aviation’s operational range.

With available helicopter hoist resources already in place and their capabilities recently proven for search and rescue operations in the remote wilderness described by the petitioner,

the FAA does not consider this a reason to grant an exemption to Brim Aviation to conduct Class D rescue operations in a helicopter that is not certificated in the transport category as required by § 133.45(e)(1).

The FAA’s Decision

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

, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Brim Equipment Leasing, Inc. dba Brim

Aviation is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 133.45(e)(1) to the extent necessary to allow

Brim Aviation to conduct Class D ro torcraft

- load combination operations for maritime pilot

transfers with an MDHI MD900 (902 Configuration) helicopter certificated in the normal category under part 27 , subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.5

Conditions and Limitations

1. In ac cordance with § 133.37, Brim Aviation must conduc t training in accordance with

its approved Class D rotorcraft

- load combination training program prior to conducting Class D operations. The training program must include initial and recurrent training for p ilots and other operations personnel, as appropriate.

2. The certificate

- holding district office (CHDO) for Brim Aviation must approve the Class D training program.

3. Brim Aviation must maintain a current CHDO

- approved rotorcraft

- load combination flight manua l, which meets the requirements of § 133.47.

4. Brim Aviation may utilize the provisions of this exemption only when operating the MDHI MD900 (902 Configuration) helicopter in the transport of maritime pilots to and from ships in United States ports.

5. This e xemption does not relieve Brim Aviation from complying with the portion of § 133.45(e)(1) which states, “...and provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating weight and altitude.”

6. Prior to each flight, the pilot in command must confirm that the weight and balance and performance of the rotorcraft are within the MD900 (902 Configuration) Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) and RFM supplement limitations, as necessary to comply with Condition No. 5 of this exemption.

7. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States.

Exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) to conduct Class D rotorcraft

- load combination rescue operations in remote wilderness and other locations with an MDHI MD900 (902 Configuration) helicopter certificated in t he normal category under part 27 is denied.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2016 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1 9 , 2014

.

/s/

John Barbagallo Acting Dep uty Director, Flight Standards Service