STATMedEvac, 

A Service of the Center for Emergency tvfledicine of Western Pennsylvania Inc." 

April 12,2010 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

c5 

To Whom It May Concern: 

1 hereby request an extension of Exemption No. 9744, which was granted to 

STAT MedEvac by letter dated August 22, 2008, and expires August 31, 

2010. This exemption grants STAT MedEvac relief from the requirements of 

the following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations: Sections 

135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 135.225(a) (1), (a) (2), (f), and (g) of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine, d/b/a STAT MedEvac is an emergency 

medical services (EMS) operator, with over 25 years of experience in our 

operational area. This exemption authorizes the Center for Emergency Medicine to 

perform instrument flight rules (IFR) departures and IFR instrument approach 

procedures (lAP) at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather 

reporting source. 

I have enclosed copies of our original letter and petition dated July 18, 2008, and 

your letter granting the exemption dated August 22, 2008. If you require anything 

further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your 

consideration. Should you have any questions, I may be reached at (412) 460-3000, 

ext. 265. 

Sincerely, 

John Kermy 

Director of Operations 

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. 

STAT MedEvac 

Enclosures (2) 

^^Center for Emergency Medicine ^^8^C(liYY \ T Q 

^^^^ k OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, INC. T^9^ \^VV I I I' I' ^ 

^^^^^^^^ L CommueioH on AareditatioH ofMtdkal Thnuport Sysbms 

STATMedEvac EMERGENCY 412/647-7828 800/633-STAT 

10 Allegheny County Airport PHONE 412/460-3000 

West Mifflin, PA 15122 FAX 412/460-3220 
STATMedEvac 

July 18, 2008 

® 

A Service ol tlw Center for Emergency Medicine o1 Western Pennsylvania Inc.* 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomW12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To whom it may concern: 

Enclosed is a petition to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an 

exemption from: Sections 135,213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 135.225(a) (1), (a) 

(2), (0, and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine, d/b/a STAT MedEvac is an emergency 

medical services (EMS) operator, with ova: 25 years of e}q)erience in our operational 

area. This petition would autiiorize the Center for Emergency Medicine to poform 

instrument flight rules (IFR) depaitiures and IFR instrimient approach procedures 

(lAP) at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weatlier reporting source. 

This petition for exen^tion has been previously granted to otber EMS 

helicoptor operators, Eicemption 9490 and Exemption 9665.1 have used the 

same basic verbiage in h(^es that ttie petition for exemption will be gca&tcd to us 

based on appropriatraicss and precedence. 

Thank you in advance for your considoation. Should you have any 

questions, I may be readied at 412-460-3059. 

^ . 

Richard Gross 

Director of Operations 

Center for Emergency Medicine of Weston Pomsylvania, Inc. 

STAT Medevac 

Enclosure (1) 

M Center for Emergency Medicine ^^g^rnVVijr Q STATMedEvac BMERQENCY 4ia»47.7MB 600«33-STAT 

oF«vmiaNRNNsn.v*NiA.mc P^ ^ \A4>l l I'i' O 10 Allegheny County Aiiport PHONE 412/460-3000 

West Miffln, PA 16122 FAX 412/460-3220 
Center for Emergency Medicine 

d/b/a STAT IVIeclEvac 

Certificate #:E3MA774L 

10 Allegheny County Airport 

West Mifflin, PA 15122 

Contact: Richard Gross, Director of Operations 

Phone: 412-460-3059, Fax: 412-460-3220 

Petitions for an exemption from Sections 135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 

135.225(a)(1), 

(a)(2), (f), and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. 

i^*i|ci|c«<iti|cit:]|:*i|ci|i**4i4i4c4c*)|c4ci|t4c4:*4:i|E4t4>i|c 

This is a petition to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exen:q}tion from: Sections 

135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 135.225(a) (1), (a) (2), (f), and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine is an emergency medical services (EMS) operator, with 

over 25 years experience in our operational area. This petition would authorize Center for 

Emergency Medicine to perform instrument flight rules QFR) departures and IFR instrument 

approach procedures (lAP) at airports and heliports that do not have an approved weather 

reporting source. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine requests relief from the following sections: 

A. Section 135.213(a) states, in pertinent part, that whenever a pereon operating an aircraft 

under part 135 is required to use a weather report or forecast, that person shall use tiiat of 

the US National Weather Service (NWS), a sotuce approved by the NWS, or a source 

approved by the Administrator. However, for operations under visual flight rules (VFR), 

the pilot in command (PIC) may, if such a report is not available, use weather information 

based on that pilot's own observations or those of other persons competent to supply 

appropriate observations. 

B. Section 13S.213(b) states, in pertinent part, that for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this 

section, weather observations made and foinished to pilots to conduct IFR operations at an 

aiiport must be taken at the airport where those IFR operations are conducted, unless the 

Administrator issues operations specifications Operations Specifications allowing the use 

of weather observations taken at a location not at the airport where the IFR operations are 

conducted. The Administrator issues such Operations Specifications when, after 

investigation by the NWS and the FAA Flight Standards Disti-ict Office (FSDO) charged 

with the overall inspection of the certificate holdra:, it is foimd that the standards of safety 

for that operation would allow the deviation from this paragraph for a particular operation for 

which an air taxi/commercial operator (ATCO) operating certificate has been issued. 
C. Section 135.219 states that no person may take off an aircraft under IFR or begin an IFR or 

over-the-top operation unless the latest weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of 

them, indicate that weather conditions at the estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the next 

airport of intended landing will be at or above authorized IFR landing minimums. 

Section 135.225(a) states that no pilot may begin an LAP to an airport unless: 

1. That aiiport has a weather reporting facility operated by the NWS, a source 

approved by the NWS, or a source {^proved by tiie Administrator; and 

2. The latest weather report issued by that weatiier reporting facility indicates that 

weather conditions are at or above the authorized IFR landing nunimums for that aiiport. 

D. Section 135.225(f) states that if takeoff minimums are specified in part 97 of this chapter 

for die takeoff airport, no pilot may takeoff an aircraft under IFR when the weather 

conditions reported by the facility described in paragraph (a) (1) of this section are less 

than the takeoff minimums specified for the takeoff airport in part 97 or in the cratificate 

holder's Operations Specifications. 

E. Section 135.225(g) states that except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, iftakeoS 

minimums are not prescribed in part 97 of this ch^ter for the takeoff airport, no pilot may 

takeoff an aircraft under IFR when tbe weather conditions reported by the facility 

described in paragraph (a) (1) of this section are less than that prescribed in part 91 of this 

chapter or in tiie certificate holder's Operations Specifications. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine supports this request for exemption with the foUowing 

infoimation: 

During the early 90's the Weather Service was closing many Flight Service Stations 

through-out the United States, witii the promise that AWOS stations would fiilfill tiie needs 

for weather reporting. Of course, those AWOS/ASOS installations that were conqsleted 

were only at airports and none to si^jport ho^itals; unlike at aiiports, aiiport ini^nnvement 

funds (AIP) are not available to suf^tt the purchasing of AWOS systems at private hospital 

heliports. In the mid-90's, and with the introduction of GPS as a signal-in-space (SIS), 

the helicopter EMS industry was finally provided a SIS that supported Q>pter lAPs to 

hospital heliports. In addition to providing higher level healtii care to critic patents needing 

emergency transport to a higher level medical ^cility, increased safety for the EMS c^erator 

also became posdble by providing IFR cap^iUty above the CFIT threat during die enroute 

phase of flight. Even though there is still a need for more weather stations throughout the 

United States, to include within the Center for Emergency Medicine's operational area, the 

existing AWOS stations, and other weather sources located at airports, support The Center 

for Emergency Medicine's 60+ hospital-based Copter RNAV (GPS) procedures. 
All of these Copter lAPs would require weather reporting without die approval of this 

petition. It would cost an estimated $3,900,000 to purchase and install an AWOS-3 at each 

of these hospitals; a cost that neither tiie hospitals themselves, nor Center for Emergency 

Medicine, could justify, and which is roughly four-times the cost to estabUsh the lAPs 

themselves. 

During a recent seminar organized by the French aerospace institute to discuss 

Helicopter GPS approaches, Philippe Rollet, Eurocopter's manager of operational 

research stated, "Many hehcopter pilots choose to fly under VFR rules to avoid IFR 

constraints. They often fly in marginal weather conditions, which threaten safety. "U.S. 

statistics show that 99 percent of weather-related helicopter accidents affect VFR 

flights". 

The Center for Emergency Medicine believes that although many modem helicopters 

have Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) capabihty this has not been widely used because the 

NAS does not support helicopter IFR operations to the destination heliports. In the U.S., 

only an estimated 10 percent of helicopter flights are conducted imder EFR. Since the 

mid-to-late 90's, and with the introduction of GPS as a SIS for Copter lAPs, 

advancements have been realized and approximately 230 Copter RNAV (GPS) lAPs 

have been developed. Nearly all of these advancements have needed to be privately 

funded; although FAA has invested significantly in other segments of the aviation 

commimity. The U.S. Congress has given special attention to the EMS mission and 

hospital GPS-based lAPs in Section 103, Federal Aviation Administration Op«ations, (b) 

Authorized Expenditures - Section 106(k)(2), and thereby duly noted the benefits to 

society EMS operators provide, and tiie importance of supporting GPS-based approach 

procedures to hospitals. 

In a 2005 FAA Air Ambulance Task Force Recommendation Document #AER-10 it is stated 

that visibility is a causal factor in accidents; "It appears marginal visibility has been a 

significant factor in a number of helicopter medical evacuation accidents operating 

under VFR in tiie past several years." In addition, tiie recent FAA notice #8000.293 

identifies that night. Visual Flight Rules (VFR), and Inadvertent Instrumtmt 

Meteorological Conditions (INC), as primary areas of concem for HEMS operations. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine believes safety can be improved by operations in the IFR 

system. That is why the Center for Emergency Medicine was the first to implement helicopter 

GPS ap]Hx>aches in the EMS industry 

Today EMS helicopter operators are using helicopter GPS approaches and this industry 

has an over ten year history to show tiiat the ability to file mi fly IFR under Part 91 has 

a great safety advantage in the reduction of EMS helicopter accidente. Having the 

ability to conduct these GPS approaches under Part 135 would give the EMS industry 

not just an equivalent level of safety, but a far greater level of safety. In the ten plus year 

history thousands of Helicopter GPS approaches have been flown tln-oughout fbe United 

States with no accidents. TTie Center for Emergency Medicine only knows of two of 

over three hundred hospitals serviced by an lAP that have weather reporting stations. By 

granting this exemption, the FAA will open the safe use of Copter RNAV (GPS) lAPs at 

die hoqsitals within the Center for Emergency Medicine's IFR operations. To draiy tiiis 

petition will threaten relegating Center for Emergency Medicine to conducting its EMS 

missions under VFR, which both reduces safety with increased CFIT risks, and 

reduces the level of service and benefits to society by limiting Center for Emergency 

Medicine's ability to conduct its transports of critical patients from rural hospitals to level 

one trauma centers and other acute care facilities. 
In January 2006 the NTSB made recommendations that all legs of EMS operations be 

conducted under Part 135. The Center for Emergency Medicine believes the primary premise 

behind die NTSB recommendation for "all legs FAR 135" had to do with EMS accidents 

with respect to the VFR environment and not the IFR environment. 

This recommendation is siq)ported by the Center for Emergency Medicine and the EMS 

industry, but unless relief is granted from die cuirent rules requiring weather reporting at each 

airport or heliport, operators cannot continue to file and fly IFR to needed locations. 

The affected sections should be protecting EMS operators, but, instead are encouraging them to 

fly in marginal weather conditions under VFR because of the non availability of ^proved weather 

reporting sources. 

We believe diat it is safer to file an IFR flight plan and to operate under IFR than to conduct 

flight operations under VFR in marginal visual meteorological conditions (VMC). We believe 

operators are committed to the safo and successful completion of their EMS flints. We also 

believe that operating in marginal VMC weather conditions has been the single most frequent 

causal &ctor in EMS aircraft accidents. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine states that the proposed exemption would increase the 

level of safety that is now provided by giving operators the ability to operate in accordance with 

IFR more often. This would minimize the need for marginal VFR flight operations. We believe 

that a fully trained crew, following proper IFR procedures, in a properly equipped aircraft, can 

only enhance safety. 

We believe that granting the proposed exonption in regards to lAPs would not promote improper 

descent below minimums, because weather reporting is not needed once appropriate descent 

minimums are established for the ^ecific lAP being used. This has been proven throughout 

more than ten years of experimce by the helicopter industry. FAA's Standard Instrument 

Procedures (TERPS) criteria require establishing lAP minimums be increased when using a 

remote altimeter; therefore, aheady take into account the location of the nearest station for 

reporting barometric pressure readings when determining minimums. Each of Centcars for 

Emergmcy Medicine's lAPs ^iproved by FAA widK}ut bcal weather has been adjusted in 

accordance with TERPS and a Remote Altimeter Setting Source (RASS) adjustment made to 

dieMDA. 

Related to this petition, we note the FAA recently granted to fractional owners und«- 91.1039: 

A. No pilot may begin an instrument approach procedure to an airport or heliport unless: 
1. Either that airport or the alternate airport has a weather reporting facility operated by the U.S. 

National Weather Service, a source approved by the U.S. National Weather Service, or a source 

approved by the Administrator; and 

2. The latest weather report issued by the weather reporting facility includes a current local 

altimeter setting for the destination airport. If no local altimeter setting is available at the 

destination airport, the pilot must obtain the current local altimeter setting from a source provided 

by the facility designated on the approach chart for the destination airport. 

B. For flight planning purposes, if the destination airport does not have a weather reporting 

facility described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the pilot must designate as an alternate an 

airport or heliport that has a weather reporting facility meeting that criteria. 

C. The MDA or Decision Altitude and visibility landing minimums prescribed in part 97 of this 

chapter or Special lAPs' as granted by the Operations Specifications are increased by 1/2 mile 

respectively, but not to exceed the required minimums for that airport when used as an alternate 

airport, for each pilot in command of a turbine-powered helicopter in category and class who has 

not served at least 75 hours as pilot in command in that aircraft. 

We request the capability to operate all legs under Part 135 with a weather exemption, similar to that 

provided in Section 91.1039 and similar to the relief granted in FAR 135.225(b). 

We believe people place their lives into the arms of the EMS system without thought -only hope. 

We believe that the proposed exemption would be in the public interest by providing safer 

operations. It would provide safer operations and increased EMS operations to more than 900 

airports or heliports in the national airspace system that have approved lAPs, but do not have 

approved weather reporting sources. The proposed exemption would allow more patients to be 

moved safely and more efficiently within the parameters of the National Airspace and the Air 

Traffic Control System. 

When trying to save a critically injured child or adult at a scene, or when a desperately ill patient 

needs transport from a small outlying facility to a large, urban hospital with specialized 

medical services, time is as much a determinant of outcome as specific injury or illness. The 

best decision is often not merely placing a patient in the first available ground ambulance and 

racing to the closest hospital. A fully integrated ground and air EMS system is more concerned 

with access time to a trauma center, the quality of care delivered during transport, and reduction 

of "out of hospital time" to the most appropriate tertiary setting as a means to improving patient 

outcomes. 

We believe that the transportation of patients under the proposed exemption would be limited. 

The decision to transport would be made by medical personnel based on the patient's condition. 

If the patient is being transferred from one hospital to another. 
a physician is involved in the decision to transfer. For patients whose illness or injury occurs 

outside of a hospital, "on scene" medical personnel have a variety of tools to help them identify 

the appropriate method of transport. These include numerical evaluation systems which clearly 

identify when a total score indicates air or ground transport. 

The Center for Emergency Medicme proposes several conditions and limitations that would be 

included in the proposed exemption: 

A Authorization is limited to flight segments associated with an Air Ambulance mission to 

include the return to base leg of the mission. . 

B. Authorization is limited to IFR equipped and certified helicopters and pilots with a current 

135.297 check. 

C Each helicopter operated under this exen^tion must be fully eqidpped, certified and maintained 

to conduct IFR operations under part 135. Each helicopter operated under this exemption 

must be equipped with an approved and operable radar altimeter and either an approved and 

operable weadier radar or approved and operable lightning detection equipment or a 

data-uplink with capability for radar images. 

D. Authorization is limited to pilots who annually conplete an approved course on weadier 

observation and instrument operating {utjcedures for locations without weather reporting. 

The course will include, as a minimum, the following: 

Ground School Course Curriculum 

A. FAR Review. 

This section will include a review of parts 1,61,91, and 135 as they 

^ply to flight under IFR. 

1.5 hours 

B. Airmen Information Manual (AIM) Review. 

A review of the AIM with special onphasis placed on IFR operations as 

covered in Chtqster 5 and 10 (Special Instrument Operations) of the AIM. 

1.0 hours 

C. Interpreting Weather and Weather Reports/Forecasts. 

A review of weather phenomenon and systems, as well as weather 

services available to the pilot such as sequence reports, area and terminal 

forecasts, pilot reports, and in-flight advisories. 

2.0 hours 
D. Instrument Chart Review. 

Covers instrument flight planning, instrument procedures at both controlled and 

uncontrolled aiiports, and a review of instrument charts. 

2.0 hours 

E. Cockpit Resource Management (CRM). 

A review would be required of key CRM concepts such as decision making and judgment, 

situational awareness, and management flight resources. 

1.5 hours 

F. Methods for Detemuning Weather Observations by the Pilot 

Covers methods for determining present visibility (measured or estimated), methods 

for determining estimated ceihngs, and the methods for weather observation used by 

the NWS. 

2.0 Hours 

10.0 hours total 

The Center for Emergency Medicine also states that safety has always been the underlying 

cause for establishing regulations governing flight Throughout die regulatory inocess, the FAA, 

in accordance with the aviation industry, has developed a comprehensive set of regulations 

unparalleled throughout the world. Sound, effective rules are vdidated by thorough accident 

analysis. Where regulations are insufficient to provide appropriate levels of safety, these 

regulations are rewritten, until this goal is achieved. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine states that regulations are also reviewed and revised to 

take advantage of ever changing and advancing technologies. 80 years of industry growth has 

elapsed since the first regulations governing flight were enacted. The industry has matured from 

navigating by Hghted beacons to navigating by satellites. 

We believe that just as the FAA, aviation, and the industry has evolved, so has the NWS. 

The weather gathering and dissemination system originally estabtished was designated to 

support aiiplanes at airports providing commercial service to die public. We believe that the 

initial needs of airlines dictated that, with the resources available, the safest and most feasible 

locations for data collecting would be at the airport. These terminal r^orts were then collected 

and analyzed by a trained forecaster to develop an area forecast which could be used for 

terminals which did not have a weather observation station. The Center for Emergency 

Medicine believes that the safest and most practical weather. 
gathering and communications procedures available were established, and now form the basis 

for the current procedures. 

We state that once the initial regulatory framework was established, the problem was one of 

keeping up witii die rapid growft of die industry, and diis problem persists today. The Center 

for Emergency Medicine states that it was not, and still is not, within the FAA's budget to 

support weather observation stations for every new terminal, general aviation airport, or hospital 

heliport. Center for Emergency Medicine states that driven by cost and system limitations, the 

FAA has tried to keep pace with the growth of the industry by accepting modifications to 

the regulations to allow exceptions for weather reporting through Operations Specifications. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine states that by controlling flight operations 

through Operations Specifications, an equivalent level of safety is maintained, flexibility is 

provided for the operator, and an impossible burden is removed from the FAA. 

We believe that Operations Specifications approvals for deviation from the FARs are 

common practice within the industry. The Center for Emergency Medicine states that 

presently five of the largest helicopter operators are certified to operate under IFR without 

weather reporting at certain sites. This is permitted through their part 135 Operations 

Specifications. 

We state that presently, the FAA, through these Operations Specifications, issues approvals 

to conduct terminal IFR operations without weather observation facilities on the immediate 

site. Additionally, provisions exist which allow pilots operating in certain areas, to expand the 

service area report fix)m one station to include a block of air space 60 miles long by 80 miles 

wide. However, these procedures still do not provide enough flexibility to ensure the safest 

operations possible for the EMS industry. 

We believe that during the last 35 years, the NWS has upgraded and implemented new 

equipment as new technologies have emerged. The weadier commimity has gone from visual 

observations to radar siu^eillance, computer enhancement, computer gathermg and satellite 

observations. 

We state that the FAA has also taken advantage of technology innovations, as evidenced by 

reducing the number of Flight Service Stations and weather reporting manned facilities 

around the country. The installation of Automated Weather Observation Station 

(AWOS/ASOS) S3^stems, though good when available, cannot possibly provide coverage to 

every site. We believe that the method of collection of weather information and weadier 

forecasting has improved dramatically, but changes to operational procedures have not been 

implemented to take advantage of these improvements. To enhance the safety of IFR 

operations, particularly as it relates to EMS necessitates that operating procedures change to 

keep pace with system improvements. 

From the FAA's study, Rotorcraft Low Altitude IFR Benefit/Cost Analysis: Conclusions and 

Recommendations, published October 1993: 

"Effective EMS operations require that lAP c^abilities are available at both the hospital where 

the patient is picked up and the hospital where the patient is delivered... Hospital heliports 

provide tremendous benefits to the nation in terms of providing EMS helicopters with rapid 

access to hospitals. Using these heliports, helicopter EMS services save lives and reduce 

morbidity (faster recovery from injury, decrease in long term disability, etc.) These benefits 

could be increased through the installation of non-precision LAPs at hospital heliports. This 

analysis indicates that, at many hospitals heliports, the benefit/cost ratio of a non-precision 

r

roach is very large. In a number of cases it is larger than 1,000 to 1." The study also cites 

crux of the problem with IFR operations to these facilities, "Currently, a major constraint 

to die mission is the lack of available weather information. This is particularly true in rural areas 

where weather observations are often lacking," 
We believe that denying the utilization of helicoptCTs to their fullest c^abilities is killing people, 

both by forcing EMS operators to operate under VFR in marginal conditions and by denying safe 

IFR operations to move patients who tmly warrant rapid transport. We believe we are paying 

dearly for our limitations. 

The Center for Emergency Medicine notes that diere have been previous petitions for exemption 

that proposed similar relief to this request and that some of these petitions were denied. The 

Center for Emergency Medicine states that the major difficulty cited consistentiy in the FAA 

denials of exemption refer to a NTSB study based on data collected between 1964 and 1975. 

Center for Emergency Medicine states that this study reflects no helicopter IFR data. The 

Colter for Emergency Medicine states that before considering this exemption, it should be 

urged that criteria for judgment be based on appropriate hehcopter operations data. Again 

when this exemption was first requested no historical data existed. With over toi years of data 

with no accidents on GPS IFR approaches the findings of the NTSB of pilots descending below 

the MDA hold no credence. Also mentioned in the Conclusions and Recommendations of the 

1993 Rotorcraft Low Altitiide IFR Benefit/Cost Analysis: 

• The roton^aft has different flight ci^MbiUties and limitations than fixed-wing 

aircraft and often performs unique missions." 

• "When Rotorcraft conducts IFR approaches and departures, they have 

significantly more equability than fixed-wing aircraft." 

• "Rotorcraft approaches to heUports/vertipoits fi?ee approach slots to a runway." 

We are now in the 21st century: IFR hehcopter operations are being reconsidered 

and resh^ied. Projects like die Extremely Low VisibiUty IFR RotcMJcraft Approach 

(ELVIRA) woricshop are drawing the lines to this fixture. The Center for 

Emergency Medicine believes that die granting of this exemption request is 

clearly aligned with the FAA's Mission Statement: 'To provide the safest most 

efficient aerospace system in the world." The Center for Emergency Medicine 

states that firat and foremost, we must enable EMS HeUcopters to utilize die 

capabilities that have not been fiilly realized. 

Finally, we recognize and imderstand the FAA's position on this finding. We 

beheve if granted the operations under this exemption will always plan for and 

require an alternate airport with approved weather reporting. 
o 

US. Department 800 independence Ave.. S W 

Of Transportation Washington, D C 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

August 22, 2008 

Exemption No. 9744 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0811 

Mr. Richard Gross 

Director of Operations 

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc. 

d.b.a. STAT MedEvac 

10 Alleghany County Airport 

West Mifflin, PA 15122 

Dear Mr. Gross: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated July 18, 2008, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc., d.b.a. STAT 

MedEvac (STAT MedEvac), for an exemption from §§ 135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 

135.225(a)(1) and (2), (f), and (g) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That 

exemption, if granted, would allow STAT MedEvac to conduct instrument flight rules (IFR) 

departures and IFR approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an approved 

weather reporting source. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to STAT MedEvac. 

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Partial Grant of Exemption No. 6175, as amended, the 

FAA found that permitting only IFR departures at airports and/or heliports that do not have an 

AFS-08-376-E 
approved weather reporting source, subject to certain conditions and limitations, would not 

reduce the level of safety currently provided by the regulations. In Grant of Exemption 

No. 9490, the FAA found that operations under this exemption would be in the public interest 

only for those flights on which there is a patient who has a medical condition that requires, 

and is appropriate for, transportation by emergency medical service helicopter to an airport or 

heliport. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed grants 

of exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemptions also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, 

Inc., d.b.a. STAT MedEvac an exemption from §§ 135.213(a) and (b), 135.219, and 

135.225(a)(1) and (2), (f), and (g) to the extent necessary to allow STAT MedEvac to conduct 

IFR departures and IFR approach procedures at airports and heliports that do not have an 

approved weather reporting source, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The exemption is limited to helicopter emergency medical flights conducted by 

STAT MedEvac imder operating certificate No. E3MA774L in support of a 

medical transport operation; examples of this "support" include flights to pick up 

a patient whose medical condition is appropriate for helicopter emergency 

medical evacuation services (HEMS) transport or to position for pick-up and 

subsequently transport an organ. 

2. Use of this exemption is authorized only at airports or heliports with an 

instrument approach procedure (lAP) 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 Administrator. 

3. IFR departures made under provisions of this exemption are authorized only after 

the pilot in command (PIC) of the affected flight determines that the weather 

conditions at the departure point are at or above visual flight rules minimums. 

This may be determined by the PIC's own observation or that of another person 

competent to supply appropriate observations. 
4. The PIC may use area forecasts for information regarding the weather observed in 

the vicinity of the destination airport. In addition to the area forecast, the operator 

must use an approved weather reporting source located within 15 nautical miles 

from the destination airport/heliport. The PIC will obtain the altimeter settings 

with any applicable adjustments for the LAP from the weather facility specified on 

the instrument approach chart. 

5. Each PIC who conducts operations under this exemption must— 

a. Have a current § 135.297 PIC instrument proficiency check; 

b. Be certificated to conduct the IFR operations permitted; 

c. Be trained in accordance with the certificate holder's approved training 

program and annually complete an approved course on weather observation 

and instrument operating procedures for locations without weather 

reporting as described in condition No. 7 below; 

d. Be qualified in accordance with the requirements of part 135; 

e. Be current in all requirements to perform operations under IFR in the make 

or model of helicopter being used; 

f. Be tested and checked on EFR operations at imcontrolled airports. 

6. Each helicopter operated under this exemption must be— 

a. Fully equipped and certified to conduct IFR operations under part 135; 

b. Equipped with an approved and operable radar altimeter; 

c. Equipped with severe weather detection equipment, such as airborne 

weather radar or lightning detection. This equipment must be operating; 

d. Equipped with an operable autopilot if used in lieu of the second in 

command; and 

e. Equipped with an operable IFR certified global positioning system 

appropriate to the approach to be flown. 

7. Before conducting any operations under this exemption, STAT MedEvac must 

submit to and have approved by its FAA principal operations inspector an 

amendment to its approved training program that includes, as a minimum, the 

curriculum provided below. The course must be a minimum of 10.0 hours and 

include the following: 
Ground School Course Curriculum: 

a. Federal Aviation Regulation Review. This review must 

include parts 1, 61, 91, and 135 as they apply to flights 

under IFR minimum of 1.5 hours 

b. Aeronautical Information Manual Review (AIM). This review 

must include the AIM with special emphasis placed 

on the IFR operations as covered in chapters 5 and 10 

of the AIM minimum of 1.0 hours 

c. Interpreting Weather and Weather Reports/Forecasts. This 

review must include weather phenomenon and systems, as 

well as weather services available to the pilot such as sequence 

reports, area and terminal forecasts, pilot reports, and 

in-flight advisories minimum of 2.0 hours 

d. Instrument Chart Review. This review must include 

instrument flight planning, instrument procedures at both 

controlled and uncontrolled airports, and a review of 

instrument charts minimum of 2.0 hours 

e. Cockpit Resource Management (CRM). This review must 

include key CRM concepts such as decisionmaking and 

judgment, situational awareness, and management of flight 

resources minimum of 1.5 hours 

f. Methods for Determining Weather Observations by the Pilot. 

This review must include methods for determining present 

visibility (measured or estimated), methods for determining 

estimated ceilings, and methods for weather observation 

used by the NWS minimum of 2.0 hours 

8. STAT MedEvac must conduct special pilot training consistent with that required 

when special instrument approaches are established and issued to the operator. 

9. Flight planning for IFR flights conducted under this exemption must include 

selection of an alternate airport that meets the requirements of §§ 135.221 and 

135.223 and has an approved weather reporting source in accordance with 

§ 135.213. 

10. The aircraft must be equipped and the appropriate equipment must be operational 

to execute the lAP at both the destination and selected alternate airport. 
11. Helicopters must fly all approaches using Category A approach speeds or tiiose 

required for the type of approach being used. 

12. After completing a landing at the destination airport/heliport that does.not meet 

the weather requirements of the affected sections, the PIC is authorized to 

determine if the weather meets the takeoff requirements of part 97 or the 

certificate holder's operations specifications, as applicable. 

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2010, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James J. Ballough 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosures