AFS-10-027-E 

 Exemption No. 10101 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AIRMED INTERNATIONAL, LLC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0968 

for an exemption from § 135.364 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated October 14, 2009, Mr. Brandon Darby Wix, Director of Operations, 

AirMed International, LLC (AirMed), 1000 Urban Center Drive, Suite 470, Birmingham, 

Alabama 35242, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AirMed 

for an exemption from § 135.364 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow AirMed to receive extended operations (ETOPS) 

approval to operate its Hawker Beechcraft on a planned route that exceeds 180 minutes flying 

time outside the continental United States. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.364 prescribes, in pertinent part, the maximum flying time outside the 

United States. After August 13, 2008, no certificate holder may operate an airplane, 

other than an all-cargo airplane with more than two engines, on a planned route that 

exceeds 180 minutes flying time (at the one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under 

standard conditions in still air) from an Adequate Airport outside the continental 

United States unless the operation is approved by the FAA in accordance with 

Appendix G of this part, Extended Operations (ETOPS). 
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

AirMed states that it operates a fleet of 10 permanently equipped air ambulance aircraft. The 

petitioner states that three of these aircraft are Hawker 800s which it operates internationally 

for the sole purpose of moving critically ill persons to locations where the best medical care 

can be provided. Two of AirMed’s Hawker 800s were modified with winglets provided by 

Aviation Partners. AirMed contends that it has safely provided this service for over 20 years, 

reaching over 300 foreign cities in 160 countries, and exceeding over 16,000 patient 

transports. 

The petitioner states that it has two options to comply with regulations. The first option is to 

prove that the Hawker 800 has the necessary high speed single-engine performance (supported 

by data) to remain within 180 minutes of an acceptable airport. The second option is to seek 

ETOPS approval for the Hawker 800 for legs that exceeded 180 minutes from an acceptable 

airport. 

The petitioner states that Hawker Beechcraft has not produced data or charts that show high 

speed single-engine performance and, therefore, must request an exemption from the ETOPS 

requirements. The petitioner requested high speed single-engine data from Aviation Partners, 

the winglet provider, regarding the high speed single-engine data from its performance testing. 

According to the petitioner, the data proved that the Hawker 800, with Aviation Partners 

winglets installed, has the single-engine high speed performance to remain within 180 minutes 

of the two closest airports between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland. 

The petitioner states that it submitted the Aviation Partners data to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) which did not accept the data as approved because it was not supplied 

by Hawker Beechcraft, the aircraft manufacturer. The petitioner states that it contacted 

Hawker Beechcraft and was informed that it would not provide this information for the 

Hawker 800A aircraft. 

The petitioner states that it provides the Hawker 800-series aircraft to the medical transport 

community as a superior platform of patient care and that it has transported patients between 

Hawaii and the U.S. mainland for over 20 years, with an impeccable safety record. The 

petitioner maintains that it has never conducted overwater operations when an emergency 

would result in its inability to land at a suitable airport. 

This aircraft cannot comply with the ETOPS regulation and the operator clearly 

acknowledges this fact in the letter requesting exemption dated October 14, 2009. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2010 

(75 FR 19672). No comments were received. 
3

The FAAs analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials and finds that a 

grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety 

equivalent to that provided by the current regulations.

The FAA finds that the data submitted in support of the exemption do not demonstrate that 

AirMed could perform its proposed operations with a level of safety equivalent to that 

provided by § 135.364. The FAA used the data to perform an analysis of AirMed’s 

proposed operation and to determine the extent of the ETOPs segment of the operation, 

during which the aircraft would be outside of 180 minutes from an approved airport at oneengine inoperative cruise speed. Consistent with § 135.364, the supplied data use a zero 

wind (still air) scenario. The FAA calculated the aircraft’s fuel requirements along the route 

from Hilo International Airport (PHTO) to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), the 

shortest routing from the State of Hawaii to the contiguous United States. We note that the 

distance between these airports is identical to the pure distance between PHTO and 

Monterey Peninsula Airport, the airports cited in AirMed’s petition. The FAA’s analysis, 

using the aircraft’s single-engine maximum speed, resulted in an ETOPS segment of the 

flight of approximately 560 miles, or nearly 2 hours of the proposed operation, during which 

the aircraft would be outside 180 minutes from an approved airport. We also note that 

AirMed stated in its petition that its data show its aircraft would not exceed the 180-minute 

limitation of § 135.364; however, based on the calculations above, the FAA disagrees with 

AirMed’s contention. 

AirMed’s aircraft is equipped with winglets but does not have FAA-approved performance 

data for these winglets. While AirMed’s unapproved data may show that its winglets do 

provide some measure of mitigation by extending the range of the aircraft, there would still 

be a significant portion of AirMed’s proposed operation, contrary to AirMed’s assertion, 

during which its airplane is well outside of the 180-minute ETOPS circle. 

The ETOPS rule was implemented to codify prevention strategies for the unique safety 

concerns associated with long-range operations, including the critical loss of engine thrust, 

additional system failures during a diversion for any cause, the distance from an adequate 

airport used in a diversion, and the conditions encountered upon arrival at the diversion 

airport. See 72 FR 1808, 1809 (Jan. 16, 2007). AirMed did not submit any information that 

would demonstrate how it planned to mitigate the risks associated with long-range 

operations. 

Further, the FAA acknowledges that the submitted data do show that AirMed’s Hawker 

800A, equipped with winglets, has the range to fly between PHTO and SFO. However, the 

AirMed supplied data show the aircraft has minimal excess capability to operate over a 

greater range than the PHTO to SFO route indicating that the margin for safety in the event 

of engine loss or cabin decompression during the ETOPS portion of the flight is minimal, 

further compromising the safety of the operation. 
4

Therefore, since the operation of this aircraft over this route would not provide an 

equivalent level of safety to operations conducted in compliance with § 135.364, the 

request for exemption is denied. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of AirMed International, LLC 

for an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.364 is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on Jul 19, 2010. 

/s/ 

Bradley D. Pearson 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service .