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 Cent er Drive, Suite 470, Birmingham, Alabama 35242, petitioned the Federal Aviation Admi nistration (FAA) on behalf of AirMed for an exemption from § 135.364 of Title 14, Code o f 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 plan ned route that exceeds 180 minutes flying

time outside the continental United States.

The petitioner requests relief from the following r egulation:

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

United States. After August 13, 2008, no certificate holder may op erate 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 t he FAA in accordance with Appendix G of this part, Extended Operations (ETOPS ).2

The petitioner supports its request with the follow ing information:

AirMed states that it operates a fleet of 10 perman ently 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 perso ns 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 saf ely 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 co mply with regulations. The first option is to prove that the Hawker 800 has the necessary high sp eed single-engine performance (supported by data) to remain within 180 minutes of an accepta ble airport. The second option is to seek ETOPS approval for the Hawker 800 for legs that exc eeded 180 minutes from an acceptable airport.

The petitioner states that Hawker Beechcraft has no t produced data or charts that show high speed single-engine performance and, therefore, mus t 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 sing le-engine data from its performance testing. According to the petitioner, the data proved that t he Hawker 800, with Aviation Partners winglets installed, has the single-engine high spee d 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 Aviatio n Partners data to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) which did not accept the da ta as approved because it was not supplied by Hawker Beechcraft, the aircraft manufacturer. T he petitioner states that it contacted

Hawker Beechcraft and was informed that it would no t provide this information for the

Hawker 800A aircraft.

The petitioner states that it provides the Hawker 8 00-series aircraft to the medical transport community as a superior platform of patient care an d that it has transported patients between Hawaii and the U.S. mainland for over 20 years, wit h an impeccable safety record. The petitioner maintains that it has never conducted ov erwater operations when an emergency would result in its inability to land at a suitable airport.

This aircraft cannot comply with the ETOPS regulati on and the operator clearly acknowledges this fact in the letter requesting exe mption dated October 14, 2009.

A summary of the petition was published in the Fede ral 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 inter est and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulati ons.

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 pe rform an analysis of AirMed’s proposed operation and to determine the extent of t he ETOPs segment of the operation, during which the aircraft would be outside of 180 m inutes 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 Franc isco International Airport (SFO), the shortest routing from the State of Hawaii to the co ntiguous 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 A irMed’s petition. The FAA’s analysis, using the aircraft’s single-engine maximum speed, r esulted in an ETOPS segment of the flight of approximately 560 miles, or nearly 2 hour s of the proposed operation, during which

the aircraft would be outside 180 minutes from an a pproved airport. We also note that AirMed stated in its petition that its data show it s aircraft would not exceed the 180-minute limitation of § 135.364; however, based on the calc ulations above, the FAA disagrees with

AirMed’s contention.

AirMed’s aircraft is equipped with winglets but doe s 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 opera tion, contrary to AirMed’s assertion, during which its airplane is well outside of the 18 0-minute ETOPS circle.

The ETOPS rule was implemented to codify prevention strategies for the unique safety concerns associated with long-range operations, inc luding the critical loss of engine thrust, additional system failures during a diversion for a ny cause, the distance from an adequate airport used in a diversion, and the conditions enc ountered 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 ri sks associated with long-range operations.

Further, the FAA acknowledges that the submitted da ta 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 ET OPS portion of the flight is minimal, further compromising the safety of the operation.4

Therefore, since the operation of this aircraft ove r 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 author ity contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, th e petition of AirMed International, LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.364 is hereby de nied.

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

/s/ Bradley D. Pearson Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service .