AFS

- 15

- 1934

- E Exemption No. 13133

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

CALIFORNIA SHOCK TRAUMA Regulatory Docket No. F AA

- 201 5

- 186 8

AIR RESCUE

for an exemption from § 135.611(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated May 18, 2 015, Mr. Scott Tish, Director of Operations, California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (CALSTAR), 4933 Bailey Loop, McClellan, California, 95652, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of CALSTAR for an exemption from § 135.611(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow CALSTAR to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and IFR approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting

sour ce in h elicopter a ir a mbulance (HAA) aircraft and without functioning severe weather detection equipment (airborne radar or lightning strike detection equipment) when there is no reasonable expectation of severe weather at the destination, the alternate, o r along the route of flight.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.611(b) prescribes that certificate holders authorized to conduct IFR helicopter air ambulance operations at airports with an instrument approach proced ure and at which a weather report is not available from the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS), a source approved by the NWS, or a source approved by the FAA, must be equipped with functioning severe weather detection equipment.

The petitioner supports i ts request with the following information:2

CALSTAR petitions for an exemption from § 135.611(b) in order to conduct IFR operations at locations without weather reporting in helicopters without functioning severe weather detection equipment. It seeks to ex ercise this relief in its HAA operations with helicopters

that have a pass enger seating configuration of nine seats or less.

CALSTAR emphasizes that the exemption would apply only when current weather reports

indic ate that thunderstorms or other potentia lly hazardous weather conditions are not reasonably expected to exist at the destination or at the alternate airport at the estimated time of arrival (ETA). The petitioner states that its pilots will use all available weather products during preflight plan ning (i.e.

, RotorWatch

, Direct User Access Terminal

, Aviation Digital

Data Service , and any other NWS data) to determine that severe weather does not ex ist and is

not forecast to exist at the destination or at the alternate at the ETA. In addition, CALSTAR highlights that its Flight Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT) will be structured to identify any IFR operation to a destination and alternate where the potential for severe weather exists. The petitioner adds that c onstant monitoring and continued risk mitigatio n with the certificate

holder or the CALSTAR Operational Control Center (OCC) will be required prior to and during fl ight if that risk is identified and, if the risk cannot be mitigated, t he flight will be

declined or aborted.

CALSTAR believes that a gran t of exemption will maintain an equivalent level of safety to § 135.611(b). The petitioner states that, if allowed, the exemption will help avoid the potential for c ontro lled f light i nto t errain (CFIT) accidents caused by pilots trying to remain

in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) when the weather is clearly instru ment meteorological conditions ( IMC). CALSTAR asserts that the purpose of § 135.611 is to facilitate IFR operations and result in more aircraft operating in a positively controlled

environme nt, thereby increasing safety for HAA operations. CALSTAR contends that a grant of exemption would be consistent with the safety goal of § 135.611 because preflight planning and risk assessment , weather interpretation training for its pilots and Operations Control Specialists (OCS), and constant operational control oversight and flight monitoring would mitigate the risk of operations in areas of severe weather.

CALSTAR maintains it is in the public's best interest to utiliz e the IFR infrastructure to the

fullest extent poss ible by allowing access to all Intrument Approach Procedures (IAP) in

accordance with § 135.611(a), (c), and (d)

, regardless of the weather reporting capabilities at the landing site

. The petitioner contends that it is safer to file an I FR flight plan and to operate under IFR than to conduct operations under marginal visual flight rule (MVFR) conditions

. CALSTAR believes that the exemption sought would allow IFR operations more often

, thereby minimizing MVFR operations and increasing safe ty

.

In addition, CALSTAR maintains that a grant of exemption would serve the public interest by allowing greater access to HAA assets that can expedite the air transportation of patient s directly to a specialty care facility. CALSTAR states that it opera tes in an environment challenged by the visibility and ceiling limitations of stratus and marine layer cloud cover on3

a consistent basis. Further, the petitioner explains that d enial of a patient's access to specialty

care in the necessary timeframe by re s tricting IFR operations in weather that generally does not include any severe or convective activity, such as these stratus or marine layers, is

contrary to the public's best interest. The petitioner concludes that a grant of exemption will avoid the delay of transporting patients through ground transportation by allowing flight in

weather conditions that would benefit from an IFR flight plan , while still avoiding flight in

severe weather conditions.

In its petition, CALSTAR states that it will mitigate th e risk of flight into severe weather by training and evaluating its pilots and OCSs on the following subjects on an annual basis :

1. IFR f light p lanning

2. Use and interpretation of NWS weather charts

3. Interpretation of live radar feeds

4. Significant Mete o rologica l Information ( SIGMET s ) and Airm e n’s Mete o rological

Informat i on ( AIRMET s )

5. METARS and Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts ( TAFs )

6. Interpretation and appropriate use of available cockpit weather displays

7. The applicability and use of this exemption

The petitioner em phasizes that its General Operations Manual (GOM) clearly restricts flight

into thunderstorms or other hazardous weather conditions with aircraft that do not have

thunderstorm detection equipment or airborne weather radar installed.

The FAA found the peti tion, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, to allow for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 ( 80 FR 32432 ). No comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as fol lows:

One of the FAA’s intentions in authorizing HAA IFR operations is to ensure that these operations are not conducted unless reliable weather information for the destination airport is available to the pilot. Generally, this has meant that current weat her from a source approved by the FAA is available at the airport where an IFR approach is conducted. When the FAA

authorized HAA IFR operations into airports without weather reporting, it required aircraft to be equipped with onboard severe weather detect ion equipment. In both cases , the pilot has a reliable severe weather information source available, either through the airport weather report

or through onboard severe weather detection equipment.

Section 135.173 requires, in part, thunderstorm detection equipment in helicopters with a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 seats or more in passenger

carrying operations, under IFR or night visual flight rules ( VFR ) when current weather reports

indicate that thunderstorms or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be4

detected with airborne thunderstorm detection equipment “may reasonably be expected along

the route to be flown

. ” Section 135.175 states, in pertinent part, “No person may begin a flight under IFR or nig ht VFR conditions when current weather reports indicate that thunderstorms, or other potentially hazardous weather conditions that can be detected with airborne weather radar equipment, may reasonably be expected along the route to be flown, unless the air borne weather radar equipment required by paragraph (a) of this section is in satisfactory operating

condition.” Both §§ 135.173 and 135.175 allow flight under IFR to be conducted without functioning severe weather detection equipment as long as the pilot determines there is no reasonable expectation of thunderstorms or other potentially hazardous weather along the

route.

Although §§ 135.173 and 135.175 allow IFR operations without functioning severe weather detection equipment, the IFR operating limitat ions and weather requirements of §§ 135.213, 135.219, and 135.225 require the certificate holder to obtain a weather report from a weather reporting facility operated by the NWS , a source approved by the NWS , or a source approved by the FAA

. The FAA previo usly grant ed exemption s from applicable paragraphs of §§ 135.213, 135.219, and 135.225 ( i.e., E xemption s No. 9490 and No. 9665) to permit helicopter medical transport operations to conduct IFR approach procedures and departure procedures at airports withou t weather reporting. The conditions and limitations listed i n E xemption s No.

9490 and No. 9665 required that each helicopter operated under th e exemption must be “equipped with severe weather detection equipment, such as airborne weather radar or lightning detection. This equipment must be operating.” Unlike past exemptions which required functioning severe weather detection equipment for instrument approach procedures and instrument departure procedures at airports without weather reporting, CALSTAR seeks relief to conduct IFR operations at locations without weather reporting and without this equipment, but with other pre

- takeoff planning, risk analysis and flight monitoring measures.

Since issuance of previous exemptions, the FAA published the Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter Operations final rule (79 FR 9932; February 21, 2014)

. This rule r equires certificate holders with 10 or more helicopt er air ambulances to

establish an OCC staffed with OCSs (§ 135.619 ) by April 22, 2016

. The OCS communicate s with pilots, provide s weather information, monitor s flights and assist s with preflight risk

assessments

, providing an additional measure of safety for complex operations. Section 135.617 requires HAA operators, regardless of size, to have an FAA approved and documented Risk Analysis Program that includes procedures for elevating the final post mitigation risk to a higher management level for approval when the total risk exceeds a predetermined threshold. A preflight risk analy sis provides certificate holders with the me ans to assess and mitigate risk and make determinations regarding the flight’s safety before

launch. For HAA operators with OCCs, the pilot in command (PIC) will be required to complete a risk analysis worksheet and the OCS will be required to review and concur with the pilot’s risk analysis worksheet. This overlap is intended to provide larger operations with an additional measure of review over the flight’s risk analysis.5

The compliance date for the requiremen t for larger HAA operators, such as CALSTAR , to establish an OCC is April 22, 2016. The FAA has previously granted exemption from § 135.611(b) in circumstances where the petitioner has already established an OCC that meets the requirements of § 135.619 ( Ex emption No. 12556)

. The FAA finds that CALSTAR’s

circumstances are different because it is still in the process of establishing an OCC that fully meets the requirements of § 135.619.

The agency has , however, considered that smaller operators and operator s that are required to implement an OCC but that have not yet done so may use similar appropriately scaled methods and techniques to achieve the same functionality as an OCC. The FAA finds that smaller operators and operators that have not yet established an OCC can establish flight monitoring capabilities utilizing personnel trained on availablility of severe weather reporting and forecasting products and appropriate methods of communicating observed real

- time location and rate of development of severe wea ther

.

The FAA finds that granting an exemption from the requirement for onboard severe weather detection equipment would not adversely affect safet y if CALSTAR provid es appropriate training in conveying thunderstorm reporting and forecasting to flight cr ew and OCS or personnel assigned to monitor operations to ensure that this exemption is utilized only when there is no reasonable expectation of thunderstorms or other potentially hazardous weather

that could otherwise be detected along the route with onbo ard weather radar or lightning detection equipment . The application of appropriate analysis of the risk of encountering severe weather and the availability and application of real

- time ground based weather radar feeds and other approved weather information sources can provide the pilot timely forewarning of an IFR HAA flight operation that may be threatened by severe weather

, further enhancing safety.

CALSTAR states that its FRAT will be structured to identify any IFR operation to a

destination and alternat e where the potential for severe weather exists. The petitioner adds that

c onstant monitoring and continued risk mitigation will be required prior to and during flight if

that risk is identified and that t he flight will be declined or aborted if the risk c annot be mitigated. In this regard, the FAA finds that the OCS or trained personnel assigned to monitor

th e flight support the HAA pilot in monitoring factors that may affect the flight and serves as a ground

- based continuing verification of the pilot’s ri sk analysis.

The limitation of this exemption to circumstances when there is no reasonable expectation of thunderstorms or other potentially hazardous weather along the route , the provision of training in weather reporting and forecasting to HAA pilots a nd OCS s or trained personnel assigned to monitor the flight , the completion of required risk assessments by the pilot and the OCS or personnel assigned to monitor the flight , and the ability of the OCS or other trained personnel to continuously monitor the flight and provide current weather information to the pilot factor

into the FAA’s determination that a grant of exemption would provide an equivalent level of safety. The FAA emphasizes that if a reasonable expectation of severe weather exists during

the flight and in the vicinity of the planned route, the helicopter must be equipped with operable severe weather detection equipment or the flight must be declined or aborted.6

The FAA finds, when conducted in accordance with the conditions and limitations pr ovided

below

, the safety of CALSTAR HAA operations would not be adversely affected when conducting IFR departures and IFR approach procedures in HAA aircraft without functioning severe weather detection equipment at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather reporting source. The public interest would be served by granting an exemption from § 135.611(b) by increasing the opportunity for additional access to critical care patient flights

when weather conditions are below those required for VFR operations. In addition, t he FAA finds that it is safer and in the public interest to encourage the utilization of the IFR infrastructure to the fullest extent possible

, thereby avoiding the potential for CFIT accidents during flights conducted under M VFR conditions.

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to t he a u t ho r it y c on t a i n e d i n 49 U. S

. C

. §§ 106(f), 40113 a nd
44701, delegated to me by the Ad mi n i s t ra t or, California Shock Trauma Air Rescue is granted a n e x e m p ti on fr om 14 C F R § 135.611 (b ) t o t he e x t e nt n ece ss ar y t o c ondu c t I F R

d e p ar t u re s a nd I F R a pp r o ac h p r o ce du re s a t a i r po r t s a nd h e li po r t s t h a t do not h a ve a n

a pp r ov e d w ea t h e r re po r ti ng sou rce
, sub j ec t t o t he c ond iti ons a nd limit a ti ons d e s cr i b e d

b e l ow.

Co ndi t i o n s a n d Li m i t a t i o n s

1. Th is exemption is limited to IFR HAA operations conducted by CALSTAR (operating certificate STRA290 I ) in accordance with § 135.601 in helicopters with a passenger seating c onfiguration of nine seats or less (excluding any pilot seat).

2. Use of t h i s e x e m p ti on i s a u t ho r i z e d on l y a t a i r po r t s or h e li po r t s w it h a n i ns t r u m e nt

a pp r o ac h p r o ce du r e a nd a t wh i c h a w ea t h e r re po r t i s not a v a il a b l e fr om t he N W S

, a

sou rc e a pp r ov e d by t he N W S

, or a sou rc e a pp r ov e d by t he Ad mi n i s t ra t o r

.

3. When conducting operations under the provisions of this exemption, CALSTAR and

the P I C must comply with § § 135.611(a), (c), and (d) as applicable.

4. The PIC and either a CALSTAR OCS o r other CALSTAR personnel w ho satisfy the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 8 of this exemption m ust participate in the IFR pre

- flight planning and risk analysis requi r ed by § 135.617 for the purpose of

assess ing the probability of severe weather. If the PIC or either the OCS or personnel

who satisfies the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 8

, determines that there

is a reasonable expectation of thunderstorms at the destination airport or heliport

, at
the alternate airport or heliport, or along the route to be fl own for the period of time planned for the flight , the flight must be declined.7

5. Each PIC who conducts operations under this exemption must u se current weather

observations and forecast information obtained from the NWS or from a source approved by the FAA

, to determine that there is no reasonable expectation of

thunderstorms at the destination airport or heliport

, at the alternate airport or heliport, or along the route to be flown for the period of time planned for the flight . Sources

include all of the f ollowing: AIRMET, SIGMET, C onvective SIGMET, METAR,

R egional NEXRAD, NOTAM, PIREP, and TAF or other aviation weather forecast, as appropriate and available.

6. All flights conducted under this grant of exemption must be continuously monitored by

a CALSTAR OC S or other CALSTAR personnel who satisfy the requirements of

Condition and Limitation No. 8 of this ex emption

. Any information concerning thunderstorms and severe weather must be provided directly to the PIC via two

- way communication system or by relay thr ough a communications center.

7. F li g ht p l a nn i ng f or I F R f li g h t s c ondu c t e d und e r t h i s e x e m p ti on must include s e l ec ti on of a n a lt er n a t e a i r po r t t h a t m ee t s t he re qu i re m e n t s of §§ 135.221 a nd 135.223 a nd h a s

a n a pp r ov e d w ea t h e r re po r ti ng sou rc e i n acc o r d a n c e w it h § 135.213.

8. CALSTAR m ust amend its FAA

- approved t raining p rogram as provided in § 135.325 to

ensure all pilots conducting IFR operations under this exemption and all CALSTAR OCS s

or other CALSTAR personnel monitoring flights satisfactorily complete additional initial

and recurrent training, checking and testing on the subjects identified in paragraphs a. through f

. of this Condition and Limitation prior to operating under the provisions of this exemption

. The pilot recurrent training, testing and che cking on the subjects identified in paragraphs a. through f

. of this c ondition and l imitation must take place within 12 calendar months before service as a pilot operating in compliance with this exemption . The OCS or other personnel monitoring the flight must complete this additional recurrent training and testing every 12 calendar months after completion of initial training and testing. The training, testing, and checking, as applicable to the pilot and the OCS or other personnel monitoring the flight mus t include the following subjects :

a. The applicability and use of this exemption ;

b. IFR op era ti ng p r o ce du re s f or l o ca ti ons w it hout w ea t h e r re po r ti ng ;

c. IFR f light p lanning considerations for thunderstorms and convective activity ;

d. Use and i nterpretation of NWS c h arts

, w ea t her r epor t s , and f orecas t product s that depict current or forecast thunderstorm activity as we l l as wea t her serv i ces, such as p il ot repor t s, AIRMET s , SIGMET s , live radar feeds, and i n

- f li ght

severe weather advisories ;8

e. Interpretation and appropria te use of available cockpit weather displays including the significant limitations of NEXRAD or similar mosaic weather displays and that such in

- flight graphic weather depictions may not be used for penetration of areas of thunderstorms or navigation aroun d thunderstorms ; and

f. M e t hods f or d e t er mi n i ng w ea t h e r conditions including the presence of severe weather precursors during o bs er v a ti ons by t he p il o t . Th i s m ust i n c l ude m e t hods

f

or d e t er mi n i ng p re s e nt v i s i b ilit y ( m ea su re d or e s tim a t e d )

, m e t hods f or d e t er mi n i ng e s tim a t e d ce ili n g s, a nd m e t hods f or w ea t h e r obs er v a ti on us e d by

t he NWS

.

Th i s e x e m p ti on t er mi n a t e s on October 31, 2017

, un l e ss soon e r sup er s e d e d or re s c i nd e d.

Issued in Washington, DC on October 8, 2015.

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service