Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 35 February 21, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 120, and 135 

Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter 

Operations; Final Rule 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9932 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 120, and 135 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0982; Amdt. Nos. 

91–330; 120–2; 135–129] 

RIN 2120–AJ53 

Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial 

Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter 

Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses 

helicopter air ambulance, commercial 

helicopter, and general aviation 

helicopter operations. To address an 

increase in fatal helicopter air 

ambulance accidents, the FAA is 

implementing new operational 

procedures and additional equipment 

requirements for helicopter air 

ambulance operations. This final rule 

also increases safety for commercial 

helicopter operations by revising 

requirements for equipment, pilot 

testing, and alternate airports. It 

increases weather minimums for all 

general aviation helicopter operations. 

Many of these requirements address 

National Transportation Safety Board 

safety recommendations, and are 

already found in FAA guidance. Today’s 

changes are intended to provide 

certificate holders and pilots with 

additional tools and procedures that 

will aid in preventing accidents. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 22, 

2014. Affected parties, however, do not 

have to comply with the information 

collection requirements in §§ 120.105(i), 

120.215(a)(9), 135.615, 135.617, 

135.619, and 135.621 until the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approves the collection and assigns a 

control number under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The FAA will 

publish in the Federal Register a notice 

of the control number assigned by OMB 

for these information collection 

requirements. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in §§ 135.168 

and 135.605 is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this action 

contact Andy Pierce, Aviation Safety 

Inspector, Flight Standards Service, 135 

Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS– 

250, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–8238; email andy.pierce@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this action 

contact Dean E. Griffith, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, AGC–220, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–3073; 

email dean.griffith@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.). This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

106(f) and 44701(a), and the specific 

authority set forth in section 306 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (Pub. L. 112–95), which is now 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 44730. 

Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44730 requires 

that part 135 certificate holders 

providing air ambulance services 

comply with part 135 regulations 

pertaining to weather minimums and 

flight and duty time when medical 

personnel are onboard the aircraft. The 

statute also directs the FAA to conduct 

rulemaking on helicopter air ambulance 

operations to address: (1) Flight request 

and dispatch procedures; (2) pilot 

training standards for preventing 

controlled flight into terrain and 

recovery from IIMC; and (3) safetyenhancing technology and equipment, 

including, HTAWS, radio altimeters, 

and, to the extent feasible, devices that 

perform the function of flight data 

recorders and cockpit voice recorders. 

Further, section 44730 requires the 

rulemaking to address: (1) Flight risk 

evaluation programs; and (2) operational 

control centers for helicopter air 

ambulance services with 10 or more 

helicopters. In addition, the statute 

directs the FAA to issue a final rule by 

June 1, 2012 with respect to the NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 12, 2010 (75 FR 62640). 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Used in This Document 

AC—Advisory Circular 

ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

AWOS—Automated Weather Observation 

System 

CFIT—Controlled Flight into Terrain 

CVR—Cockpit Voice Recorder 

ELT—Emergency Locator Transmitter 

EMS—Emergency Medical Service 

FDR—Flight Data Recorder 

FDMS—Flight Data Monitoring System 

FOQA—Flight Operational Quality 

Assurance 

GPS—Global Positioning System 

HEMS—Helicopter Emergency Medical 

Services 

HTAWS—Helicopter Terrain Awareness and 

Warning System 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

IFR—Instrument Flight Rules 

IMC—Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

LARS—Light-weight Aircraft Recording 

System 

MHz—Megahertz 

MEL—Minimum Equipment List 

MOU—Memorandum of Understanding 

NM—Nautical Mile 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board 

NVG—Night Vision Goggles 

NVIS—Night-Vision Imaging System 

OCC—Operations Control Center 

OCS—Operations Control Specialist 

OpSpec—Operations Specification 

PinS—Point-in-Space Approach 

PV—Present Value 

SAFO—Safety Alert for Operators 

TAWS—Terrain Avoidance and Warning 

System 

TSO—Technical Standard Order 

VFR—Visual Flight Rules 

VMC—Visual Meteorological Conditions 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

B. Related Actions 

C. NTSB Recommendations 

D. Congressional Action 

E. Summary of the NPRM 

F. General Overview of Comments 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final 

Rule 

A. Weather Minimums for Helicopters 

Flying Under Visual Flight Rules in 

Class G Airspace (§ 91.155) 

B. Load Manifest Requirement for All 

Aircraft Operating Under Part 135 

(§ 135.63) 

C. Rules Applicable to All Part 135 

Helicopter Operations 

1. Radio Altimeter (§ 135.160) 

2. Safety Equipment for Overwater 

Operations (§§ 1.1, 135.117, 135.167, and 

135.168) 

3. Pilot Testing for Recovery From IIMC, 

Whiteout, Brownout, and Flat-Light 

Conditions (§ 135.293) 

4. IFR Alternate Airport Weather 

Minimums (§ 135.221) 

D. Rules Applicable to Helicopter Air 

Ambulance Operations 

1. Applicability of Part 135 Rules to 

Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations 

(§§ 135.1, 135.267, 135.271, 135.601) 

2. Weather Minimums (§ 135.609) 

3. IFR Operations at Airports Without 

Weather Reporting (§ 135.611) 

4. Approach/Departure IFR Transitions 

(§ 135.613) 

5. VFR Flight Planning (§ 135.615) 

6. Pre-Flight Risk Analysis (§ 135.617) 

7. Operations Control Centers (§§ 135.619, 

120.105, and 120.215) 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9933 

8. Briefing of Medical Personnel 

(§§ 135.117, 135.621) 

9. Helicopter Terrain Awareness and 

Warning Systems (HTAWS) (§ 135.605) 

10. Flight Data Monitoring System 

(§ 135.607) 

11. Pilot Instrument Ratings (§ 135.603) 

E. General Comments 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

D. International Trade Impact Assessment 

E. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

G. International Compatibility 

H. Environmental Analysis 

I. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation 

in Alaska 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

Table 1 Affected Entities 

Table 2 Comparison of Benefits and Costs 

Over 10 Years by Population 

Table 3 Costs Over 10 Years by Rule 

Provision 

Table 4 VFR Minimum Altitudes and 

Visibility Requirements 

Table 5 SBA Size Standards 

Table 6 Cost and Present Value (PV) Costs 

for Small Air Ambulance Operators That 

Apply to the Paperwork Provision 

I. Executive Summary 

The provisions of this rule are 

directed primarily toward helicopter air 

ambulance operations and all 

commercial helicopter operations 

conducted under part 135. This rule 

also establishes new weather minimums 

for helicopters operating under part 91 

in Class G airspace. 

For helicopter air ambulances, this 

rule requires operations with medical 

personnel on board to be conducted 

under part 135 operating rules and 

introduces new weather minimums and 

visibility requirements for part 135 

operations. It mandates flight planning, 

preflight risk analyses, safety briefings 

for medical personnel, and the 

establishment of operations control 

centers (OCC) for certain operators to 

help with risk management and flight 

monitoring. The rule also includes 

provisions to encourage instrument 

flight rules (IFR) operations. It requires 

helicopter air ambulances to be 

equipped with both helicopter terrain 

awareness and warning systems 

(HTAWS) (the HTAWS will warn pilots 

about obstacles in their flight path), and 

flight data monitoring systems. Finally, 

helicopter air ambulance pilots will be 

required to hold instrument ratings. 

For all helicopters operated under 

part 135, these rules require that 

operators carry more survival 

equipment for operations over water. 

Alternate airports named in flight plans 

must have higher weather minimums 

than are currently required. These 

helicopters must be equipped with radio 

altimeters and pilots must be able to 

demonstrate that they can maneuver the 

aircraft during an inadvertent encounter 

with instrument meteorological 

conditions (IMC) to get out of those 

conditions safely. 

Additionally, this rule contains a 

provision affecting part 91 helicopter 

operations. The rule assigns new 

weather minimums to part 91 helicopter 

operations in Class G airspace. 

Below, Table 1 shows those affected 

by today’s new rules and how existing 

rules are being changed; Table 2 shows 

the costs and benefits of the rule by 

affected population; and Table 3 shows 

the cost of the rule by rule provision. 

TABLE 1—AFFECTED ENTITIES

Affected entities Requirements established by this rule 

Part 91—All Helicopter Operators ....................... Revises § 91.155 Class G airspace weather minimums for part 91 helicopter operations. This 

rule provides a greater margin of safety for operators because pilots are required to maintain a fixed amount of visibility and would be less likely to suddenly encounter instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC). 

Part 135—All Rotorcraft Operators ..................... • Requires each rotorcraft to be equipped with a radio altimeter (§ 135.160). Radio altimeters 

can greatly improve a pilot’s awareness of height above the ground during hover, landing in 

unimproved landing zones, and landings in confined areas where a more vertical approach 

may be required. Additionally, radio altimeters help increase situational awareness during inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions (IIMC), night operations, and flatlight, whiteout, and brownout conditions. 

• Adds § 135.168 equipment requirements for rotorcraft operated over water. Helicopter operations conducted over water will be required to carry additional safety equipment to assist 

passengers and crew in the event an accident occurs over water. 

• Revises alternate airport weather minimums for rotorcraft in § 135.221. This rule improves 

the likelihood of being able to land at the alternate airport if weather conditions in the area 

deteriorate while the helicopter is en route. 

• Revises § 135.293 to require pilot testing of rotorcraft handling in flat-light, whiteout, and 

brownout conditions and demonstration of competency in recovery from an IIMC. This rule 

improves safety by increasing a pilot’s likelihood of escaping and handling IIMC and other 

hazards. 

Part 135—Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators. • Requires helicopter air ambulance flights with medical personnel on board to be conducted 

under part 135 (§§ 135.1, 135.601). The safety of helicopter air ambulance flights, including 

the welfare of the medical personnel and patients on board, will be increased when complying with the more stringent part 135 rules rather than part 91 rules. 

• Requires certificate holders with 10 or more helicopter air ambulances to establish operations control centers (OCC) (§ 135.619) and requires drug and alcohol testing for operations control specialists (§§ 120.105 and 120.215). OCC personnel will communicate with 

pilots, provide weather information, monitor flights and assist with preflight risk assessments 

providing an additional measure of safety for complex operations. Operations control specialists perform safety-sensitive functions, similar to an aircraft dispatcher, and therefore 

must be subject to the restrictions on drug and alcohol use. 

• Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with HTAWS (§ 135.605). HTAWS will 

assist helicopter air ambulance pilots in maintaining situational awareness of surrounding 

terrain and obstacles, and therefore help prevent accidents. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9934 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—AFFECTED ENTITIES—Continued 

Affected entities Requirements established by this rule 

• Requires helicopter air ambulances to be equipped with a flight data monitoring system 

(§ 135.607). This will promote operational safety and can provide critical information to investigators in the event of an accident. 

• Requires each helicopter air ambulance operator to establish and document, in its operations manual, an FAA-approved preflight risk analysis (§ 135.617). A preflight risk analysis 

provides certificate holders with the means to assess and mitigate risk, and make determinations regarding the flight’s safety before launch. 

• Requires pilots to identify and document the highest obstacle along the planned route 

(§ 135.615). This rule will prevent obstacle collisions by requiring pilots to be aware of the 

terrain and obstacles along their route. 

• Requires safety briefings or training for helicopter air ambulance medical personnel 

(§ 135.621). Medical personnel will be less likely to inadvertently introduce risk to an operation because of increased familiarity with the aircraft and emergency procedures. 

• Establishes visual flight rules (VFR) weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations (§ 135.609). More stringent VFR weather minimums for helicopter air ambulances operations in uncontrolled airspace will have the effect of ensuring that these operations are 

not conducted in marginal weather conditions. 

• Permits instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at airports without weather reporting 

(§ 135.611). This rule is intended to facilitate IFR operations by helicopter air ambulance operators and result in more aircraft operating in a positively controlled environment, thereby 

increasing safety. 

• Establishes procedures for transitioning between IFR and VFR on approach to, and departure from, heliports or landing areas (§ 135.613). This rule benefits pilots by enabling them 

to access more destinations by flying within the IFR structure and its associated safety benefits. 

• Requires pilots in command to hold an instrument rating (§ 135.603). Having the skills to 

navigate by instruments will assist helicopter air ambulance pilots to extract themselves 

from dangerous situations such as inadvertent flight into IMC. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9935 

1 GAO, Aviation Safety: Potential Strategies to 

Address Air Ambulance Safety Concerns (2009). 

2Flat light is the diffused lighting that occurs 

under cloudy skies, especially when the ground is 

snow-covered, greatly impairing the pilot’s ability 

to perceive depth, distance, altitude, or 

topographical features when operating under VFR. 

See NTSB Safety Recommendation A–02–33. 

Whiteout occurs when parallel rays of the sun are 

broken up and diffused when passing through the 

cloud layer so that they strike a snow-covered 

surface from many angles. The diffused light then 

reflects back and forth countless times between the 

snow and the cloud, eliminating all shadows, 

resulting in loss of depth perception. See FAA AC 

00–6A, Aviation Weather for Pilots and Flight 

Operations Personnel. Brownout conditions occur 

when sand or other particles restrict visibility and 

depth perception. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Helicopter air ambulance accidents 

reached historic levels during the years 

from 2003 through 2008.1 The year 2008 

was the deadliest. In 2008, five air 

ambulance accidents killed 21 people, 

including pilots, patients, and medical 

personnel. This rule addresses the 

causes of 62 helicopter air ambulance 

accidents that occurred during the 

period from 1991 through 2010. One 

hundred twenty-five people died in 

those accidents. The FAA identified 

four common factors in those 

accidents—inadvertent flight into IMC, 

loss of control, controlled flight into 

terrain (which includes mountains, 

ground, water, and man-made 

obstacles), and night conditions. 

Helicopter air ambulances operate 

under unique conditions. Their flights 

are often time sensitive, which puts 

pressure on the pilots. Helicopter air 

ambulances fly at low altitudes and 

under varied weather conditions. They 

must often land at unfamiliar, remote, or 

unimproved sites with hazards like 

trees, buildings, towers, wires, and 

uneven terrain. In an emergency, many 

patients will not have a choice of 

whether they want to be transported in 

a helicopter or not. They may be in a 

medical condition that prevents them 

from making decisions about 

transportation or indicating what they 

want. They cannot choose between 

competing carriers because the company 

that responds to the scene may be either 

the first one called or the only one in 

the area. For these reasons, the FAA is 

establishing more stringent safety 

regulations to protect patients, medical 

personnel, flightcrew members, and 

other passengers onboard helicopter air 

ambulances. 

The FAA also identified an increase 

in accidents in other commercial 

helicopter operations. This rule 

addresses the causes of 20 commercial 

helicopter accidents that occurred from 

1991 through 2010. Thirty-nine people 

died in those accidents. Also from 1991 

to 2010, there were 49 accidents that 

occurred while the helicopter was 

operating under basic VFR weather 

minimums and those accidents caused 

63 fatalities. The FAA has determined 

that these accidents may have been 

prevented if pilots and helicopters were 

better equipped for IIMC, flat-light, 

whiteout, and brownout conditions, and 

for flights over water.2

In addition to addressing the causal 

factors of these accidents, this rule also 

addresses National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) safety 

recommendations and 

recommendations made by the Part 125/ 

135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC). 

B. Related Actions 

The FAA has taken actions to address 

the problem of helicopter accidents, 

such as developing standards and 

issuing guidance, which were discussed 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) (published October 12, 2010). 

In addition to the actions noted there, 

the FAA has revised its guidance 

materials to align with the provisions of 

this new rule. 

ARC Recommendations 

On April 8, 2003, the FAA formed the 

Part 125/135 ARC. This group was 

tasked to perform a comprehensive 

review of parts 125 and 135 and provide 

recommendations on rule changes. The 

ARC had close to 200 participants, 

representing a broad range of interests, 

and included members of the operator 

community, unions, trade associations, 

government, and manufacturers. The 

ARC worked for 2 years—from 2003 to 

2005—and had eight working groups 

studying a wide range of subjects. They 

made the recommendations for 

helicopter air ambulance operations and 

other commercial helicopter operations 

that form the basis of several of the 

provisions in this final rule. ARC 

proposals addressed in this rulemaking 

include equipping helicopters with 

radio altimeters, increasing weather 

minimums for helicopter air ambulance 

operations, requiring additional safety 

equipment for overwater operations, 

requiring pilot testing on recovery from 

IIMC, and revising alternate airport 

weather requirements for instrument 

flight rules. 

C. NTSB Recommendations for 

Helicopter Operations 

Many of the requirements in this rule 

were developed, in part, in response to 

safety recommendations from the NTSB. 

The following is a list of those 

recommendations, what they required, 

and how they relate to the rules being 

codified today. 

Recommendations on Helicopter Air 

Ambulance Operations 

A–06–12—Recommends that the FAA 

require all emergency medical services 

(EMS) operators to comply with 14 CFR 

part 135 operations specifications 

during the conduct of flights with 

medical personnel on board. The FAA 

has addressed this recommendation in 

§ 135.1, which requires helicopter air 

ambulance operations to be conducted 

under part 135 rules. 

A–06–13—Recommends that the FAA 

require all EMS operators to develop 

and implement flight-risk evaluation 

programs that include training for all 

employees involved in the operation, 

procedures that support the systematic 

evaluation of flight risks, and 

consultation with others in emergency 

medical service flight operations if the 

risks reach a predefined level. The FAA 

has partially addressed this 

recommendation in § 135.617, which 

requires a preflight risk analysis prior to 

helicopter air ambulance operations. 

A–06–14—Recommends that the FAA 

require EMS operators to use formalized 

dispatch and flight-monitoring 

procedures that include up-to-date 

weather information and assistance in 

flight risk assessment decisions. The 

FAA has partially addressed this 

recommendation in § 135.619, which 

requires OCCs for certificate holders 

with 10 or more helicopter air 

ambulances. 

A–06–15—Recommends that the FAA 

require EMS operators to install terrain 

awareness and warning systems on their 

aircraft and to provide adequate training 

to ensure that flightcrews are capable of 

using those systems to safely conduct 

EMS operations. The FAA addressed 

this recommendation in § 135.605, 

which requires equipping helicopter air 

ambulances with HTAWS. 

A–09–87—Recommends that the FAA 

develop criteria for scenario-based 

helicopter EMS pilot training that 

includes IIMC and hazards unique to 

helicopter emergency medical services 

(HEMS), and determine how frequently 

this training is required to ensure 

proficiency. The FAA has addressed 

this recommendation by revising 

§ 135.293, which would require that 

pilots be tested on recognizing and 

avoiding flat-light, whiteout, and 

brownout conditions, and that they 

demonstrate recovery from IIMC. 

A–09–89—Recommends that the FAA 

require helicopter air ambulance 

operators to implement a safety 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9936 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

management system program that 

includes sound risk management 

practices. The FAA partially addressed 

this recommendation by requiring 

elements of a safety management system 

program for helicopter air ambulance 

operators. Section 135.607 requires 

equipping helicopter air ambulances 

with flight data monitoring systems, 

which can be used to identify risk. 

§ 135.617 requires a preflight risk 

analysis for helicopter air ambulance 

operations, and § 135.619 requires OCCs 

for certificate holders with 10 or more 

helicopter air ambulances. 

A–09–90—Recommends that the FAA 

require helicopter air ambulance 

operators to install flight data recording 

devices and establish a structured flight 

data monitoring program that reviews 

all available data sources to identify 

deviations from established norms and 

procedures and other potential safety 

issues. The FAA has partially addressed 

this recommendation in § 135.607, 

which requires equipping helicopter air 

ambulances with flight data monitoring 

devices. 

Recommendations for Commercial 

Helicopter Operations 

A–02–33—Recommends that the FAA 

require all helicopter pilots who 

conduct commercial passenger-carrying 

flights in areas where flat-light or 

whiteout conditions routinely occur to 

possess a helicopter-specific instrument 

rating and to demonstrate their 

competency during initial and recurrent 

14 CFR 135.293 evaluation check rides. 

The FAA has addressed this 

recommendation by revising § 135.293, 

which requires testing pilots for 

recognition and avoidance of flat-light, 

whiteout, and brownout conditions, and 

a demonstration of recovery from IIMC. 

Also § 135.603, which requires an 

instrument rating for helicopter air 

ambulance pilots, addresses this 

recommendation. 

A–02–34—Recommends that the FAA 

require all commercial helicopter 

operators conducting passenger-carrying 

flights in areas where flat-light or 

whiteout conditions routinely occur to 

include safe practices for operating in 

those conditions in their approved 

training programs. The FAA has 

partially addressed this 

recommendation in § 135.293, which 

requires pilot testing on recognizing and 

avoiding flat-light, whiteout, and 

brownout conditions, and a 

demonstration of recovery from IIMC. 

A–02–35—Recommends that the FAA 

require installation of radio altimeters in 

all helicopters conducting commercial, 

passenger-carrying operations in areas 

where flat-light or whiteout conditions 

routinely occur. The FAA has addressed 

this recommendation in § 135.160, 

which requires installation of a radio 

altimeter in every helicopter operated 

under part 135. 

A–06–17—Recommends that the FAA 

require all rotorcraft operating under 14 

CFR parts 91 and 135 with a transportcategory certification to be equipped 

with a cockpit voice recorder and a 

flight data recorder. The FAA has 

partially addressed this 

recommendation in § 135.607, which 

requires equipping helicopter air 

ambulances with a flight data 

monitoring system. 

A–07–87—Recommends that the FAA 

require all existing and new turbinepowered helicopters operating in the 

Gulf of Mexico and certificated with five 

or more seats to be equipped with 

externally-mounted life rafts large 

enough to accommodate all occupants. 

As discussed below this 

recommendation is not addressed by 

this final rule. 

A–07–88—Recommends that the FAA 

require all off-shore helicopter operators 

in the Gulf of Mexico to provide their 

flightcrews with personal flotation 

devices equipped with a waterproof 

global-positioning-system-enabled 406 

megahertz (MHz) personal locater 

beacon, as well as one other signaling 

device, such as a signaling mirror or 

strobe light. The FAA partially 

addresses this recommendation in 

§ 135.168, which requires that 

helicopters used in operations beyond 

autorotational distance from the 

shoreline be equipped with a 406 MHz 

locator beacon with a 121.5 MHz 

homing capability and that passengers 

wear life preservers when over water. 

A–99–61—Recommends that the FAA 

amend record-keeping requirements in 

§ 135.63(c) to apply to single-engine as 

well as multiengine aircraft. As 

discussed below this recommendation is 

not addressed by this final rule. 

D. Congressional Action 

On February 14, 2012, President 

Obama signed into law the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95). Section 306 of the Act 

requires that part 135 certificate holders 

providing air ambulance services to 

comply with part 135 regulations 

pertaining to weather minimums and 

flight and duty time when medical 

personnel are onboard the aircraft. 

Section 306 also directs the FAA to 

conduct rulemaking on helicopter air 

ambulance operations which will 

address: (1) Flight request and dispatch 

procedures; (2) pilot training standards 

for preventing controlled flight into 

terrain and recovery from IIMC; and (3) 

safety-enhancing technology and 

equipment including, HTAWS, radio 

altimeters, and, to the extent feasible, 

devices that perform the function of 

flight data recorders and cockpit voice 

recorders. Additionally, the Act requires 

the rulemaking to address: (1) Flight risk 

evaluation programs; and (2) operational 

control centers for helicopter air 

ambulance services with 10 or more 

helicopters. 

The FAA is also directed to conduct 

a subsequent rulemaking addressing 

pilot training standards, and the use of 

safety equipment that should be worn or 

used by flight crewmembers and 

medical personnel on helicopter air 

ambulance flights. 

Section 318 of the Act requires the 

FAA to study the ‘‘feasibility of 

requiring pilots of helicopters providing 

air ambulance services under part 135 

. . . to use NVGs during nighttime 

operations.’’ 

E. Summary of the NPRM 

An NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on October 12, 2010 

(75 FR 62640). That notice proposed— 

• Revised weather minimums for all 

helicopter operations under part 91. 

• New load manifest requirements for 

all aircraft operations under part 135. 

• New operations, training, and 

equipment requirements for all 

helicopter operations under part 135. 

• New operations, training, 

equipment, and flightcrew requirements 

for helicopter air ambulance operations 

under part 135. 

The comment period for that NPRM 

closed on January 10, 2011. 

F. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received 179 comments 

about the proposal for this rulemaking. 

Among those commenting were 32 

operators, 11 manufacturers, and 13 

associations. Almost all of the 

commenters expressed support for the 

intent of the proposal but many 

suggested changes to individual 

requirements. Almost all of the 

provisions of the rule received some 

comment. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

This final rule affects three categories 

of operators—part 91 helicopter 

operators, part 135 helicopter operators, 

and helicopter air ambulance operators 

in part 135. Although addressed in the 

NPRM, the final rule does not contain 

a load manifest requirement for all 

aircraft operations under part 135. 

Following is a discussion of the current 

standards, each new rule as it was 

proposed, the public comments that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9937 

were received about that rule, and the 

final rule as it is adopted today. 

A. Weather Minimums for Helicopters 

Flying Under Visual Flight Rules in 

Class G Airspace (§ 91.155) 

Currently, helicopters operating in 

Class G airspace, under VFR and less 

than 1,200 feet above the surface, are 

required by § 91.155(b)(1) to remain 

clear of clouds and to operate at a speed 

that gives the pilot adequate 

opportunity to see any air traffic or 

obstruction in time to avoid a collision. 

The FAA proposed to revise § 91.155 to 

establish a minimum 1⁄2 statute mile 

visibility by day and one statute mile 

visibility at night. The FAA received 

comments expressing support for the 

proposal from the Air Medical 

Operators Association (AMOA), PHI Air 

Medical (PHI), NTSB, the National EMS 

Pilots Association (NEMSPA), members 

of the Association of Critical Care 

Transport (ACCT), LifeFlight of Maine, 

and REACH Air Medical Services, LLC 

(REACH). Other commenters expressed 

opposition based on the FAA’s accident 

analysis and concern over operational 

limitations that are discussed below. 

Accident Analysis 

The Experimental Aircraft 

Association (EAA) commented that the 

FAA failed to provide documentation to 

support a change to § 91.155 for all 

general aviation and commercial 

helicopter operators. Kestrel Air 

commented that the FAA did not 

correlate the air ambulance accident rate 

with whether the helicopter was 

operating under part 91 or part 135. It 

noted that in the NPRM, the FAA cited 

emotional pressure on pilots to fly if 

they believed their flight could save 

lives, and said that this was considered 

a significant factor in the air ambulance 

industry’s higher accident rate. Kestrel 

said that this factor is lacking in other 

part 91 operations, so there is no basis 

to presume the proposed change would 

have any positive impact on these other 

operators. The FAA notes that many 

operations under part 91, such as 

firefighting, police work, crop spraying, 

pipeline patrol, and power line repair 

can put pressure on a pilot and may be 

a contributing factor in their industry’s 

accident rate. 

Air Shasta Rotor and Wing, LLC (Air 

Shasta) commented that in a review of 

the last 5 years of NTSB non-EMS part 

91 helicopter accident data, it was 

‘‘unable to find a particular accident 

that could have been avoided if the pilot 

did not have the proposed requirement’’ 

of 1⁄2 mile visibility and clear of clouds. 

Likewise, Westlog, Inc. (Westlog) 

claimed that it could not find any 

accidents in the last 5 years of NTSB 

data that could have been avoided 

under this change. 

The FAA acknowledges that the 

NPRM did not contain accident data 

relating to this proposed change. 

However, in response to these 

comments, the FAA conducted a review 

of accidents to determine whether NTSB 

accident data supports the proposal. A 

review of the accident history for the 

period from 1991 to 2010, the same time 

period used for the other provisions of 

this rule, showed that there were 49 

helicopter accidents resulting in 63 

deaths that may have been prevented 

had this rule been in place. The FAA 

determined that these accidents, which 

occurred when visibility was less than 

1⁄2 mile during the day or 1 mile at 

night, and for which controlled flight 

into terrain, fog, rain, or other adverse 

weather were contributing factors, may 

have been prevented had the rule been 

in effect. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined that the accident history 

supports this change. 

Operational Limitations 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed change 

would prevent operations that are 

currently being conducted safely. EAA 

stated that § 91.155 has been in effect 

since the early 1970s and has been 

safely used since that time. It noted that 

many helicopter operations such as 

firefighting, wildlife surveys, logging 

operations, off-shore fish sighting 

surveys, herding, crop spraying, and 

power line/high tension wire 

maintenance/surveys occur from remote 

field bases, with the majority of 

operations occurring close to those 

bases. Further, EAA stated that pilots, 

based on their experience, are the best 

judge of what speed and visibility are 

acceptable for safe operation in those 

circumstances and that ‘‘to impose a 

visibility limit shows the FAA does not 

truly understand the entire scope of 

what commercial and private helicopter 

missions are and their combined effect 

on the national economy.’’ 

Commenters from EGLI Air Haul also 

believe that part 91 should remain 

unchanged so that the pilot can decide 

whether visibility is adequate. In 

support of leaving the regulation 

unchanged, they cited an instance when 

an EGLI pilot made a decision to fly in 

conditions below those proposed in the 

NPRM to aid survivors of an airplane 

crash who were trapped on a 

mountainside. They contend that the 

proposed change to § 91.155 would have 

prevented this pilot from reaching the 

survivors. 

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

department wrote that public safety 

agencies must be able to make ‘‘go/no 

go’’ decisions based on the higher 

experience level of their pilots and 

knowledge of the local flying areas. The 

commenter stated that weather 

restrictions would limit its ability to 

perform numerous search and rescue 

missions. Air Shasta also stated that a 

‘‘detrimental consequence of these 

proposed limitations would be 

cancelling or delaying of search and 

rescue missions’’ it occasionally 

performs. 

Westlog stated that the current 

requirement is safe for helicopters 

operating clear of clouds because they 

can stop and land at zero airspeed and 

commented that this helicopter 

operation is safer than an airplane 

operating clear of clouds at night with 

one mile of visibility when within 1⁄2

mile of the runway under § 91.155(b)(2). 

Additionally, Westlog noted that it 

operates in coastal Oregon and Northern 

California and frequents uncontrolled 

airports served by automated weather 

observation systems (AWOS). Because 

coastal advection fog is common in this 

area, the commenter explained, an 

AWOS will often report 1⁄4 mile 

visibility when over half the airport is 

clear, with 15 miles visibility or more. 

Westlog claimed that, even with a 

reported 1⁄4 mile visibility, a helicopter 

can take off safely under visual flight 

rules by simply departing into the nonfoggy area. Air Shasta similarly 

commented that it has performed 

numerous searches when conditions at 

the departure airport were below what 

was proposed in the NPRM, but where 

it could find a point at the airport that 

was clear enough to depart safely. 

One commenter, Safety and Flight 

Evaluations, International stated that the 

proposed rule would have an 

insufficient impact on safety because 

the proposed weather minimums are 

equivalent to § 135.205(b) and that the 

visibility requirements should be 

doubled to 1 statute mile during the day 

and 2 statute miles at night. 

The FAA has determined that the 

change proposed in the NPRM is 

warranted. As discussed above, the FAA 

has identified numerous accidents that 

may have been prevented had the 

changes been in place. In response to 

Westlog’s comments about foggy 

conditions and readings by an AWOS, 

the FAA is aware that visibility at some 

parts of an airport may be sufficiently 

clear to conduct operations even though 

the AWOS is reporting minimum 

visibility. Section 91.155 establishes 

flight visibility requirements for part 91 

VFR operations. Therefore, if the pilot 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3See 14 CFR 1.1. 

determines that flight visibility 3 meets 

the requirements of § 91.155 at the 

takeoff location, despite the weather 

reported by the AWOS, the pilot may 

take off. 

The FAA recognizes that this change 

will prohibit operations that are 

currently conducted in very low 

visibility conditions in Class G airspace, 

including civil and public aircraft 

operations. However, the FAA has 

determined that the increased safety 

justifies any prohibitions that would 

result. Under current regulations, an 

operator may apply for a certificate of 

waiver from § 91.155. The 

Administrator may issue a certificate of 

waiver if a proposed operation can be 

safely conducted. See 14 CFR 91.903– 

91.905. The FAA has determined that 

this existing waiver authority will 

provide sufficient flexibility to operators 

that can safely conduct operations when 

visibility is below the requirements 

established in this rule. 

In response to the comment by Safety 

and Flight Evaluations, International 

that the visibility requirements should 

be doubled, implementing more 

restrictive visibility minimums than 

those proposed would be outside of the 

scope of the proposed rule. 

Final Rule 

Based on the comments received and 

an additional review of the NPRM, the 

FAA is adopting the rule as proposed 

with two changes. First, the agency has 

changed proposed § 91.155(b)(1) to 

allow helicopters to operate clear of 

clouds in an airport or heliport traffic 

pattern within 1⁄2 mile of the runway or 

helipad of intended landing if the flight 

visibility is 1⁄2 statute mile or more. The 

agency finds that this revision will 

provide an additional measure of 

flexibility when operating at night in an 

airport environment similar to that 

afforded to airplanes under the current 

rule. Second, for consistency with the 

existing regulation, the final rule 

incorporates the visibility minimums 

into § 91.155(a), instead of § 91.155(b)(1) 

as proposed in the NPRM. 

B. Load Manifest Requirement for All 

Aircraft Operating Under Part 135 

(§ 135.63) 

Currently, § 135.63 requires operators 

of multiengine aircraft to complete a 

load manifest in duplicate and carry one 

copy aboard the aircraft. No specific 

action is required for the second copy, 

but certificate holders must retain a 

copy of the completed load manifest for 

at least 30 days. Single engine aircraft 

currently have no requirement to 

prepare a load manifest. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

apply the rule to all airplanes and 

helicopters, single engine and 

multiengine, operating under part 135, 

and to clarify the requirements for 

preparation and transmission of the load 

manifest. The proposal required that the 

load manifest be sent to the certificate 

holder’s principal base of operations or 

to another location approved by the 

Administrator, where it must be 

received before takeoff. The proposal 

allowed for the load manifest to be 

provided electronically. It required that 

if the load manifest is not received by 

the certificate holder’s principal base of 

operations before takeoff, the pilot must 

prepare two copies and carry one copy 

on the aircraft to its destination and 

arrange, at the takeoff location, for the 

second copy to be sent to the certificate 

holder or retained until the flight is 

complete at a location approved by the 

Administrator. 

The FAA estimated this provision 

would impose costs of $82 million 

(present value) over 10 years while the 

benefits were estimated at $20 million 

(present value) over 10 years. The FAA 

requested comments on the cost of the 

load manifest provision. 

The NTSB supported this revision 

and commented that it responds to 

NTSB Safety Recommendation A–99– 

61. The Association of Air Medical 

Services (AAMS), NEMSPA, Helicopter 

Association International (HAI), and 

Angel One Transport supported the 

intent to maintain accurate load 

manifest records, but they, and many 

other commenters, expressed concerns 

about the cost, justification, and 

operational impact of this requirement. 

Commenters noted the high cost of this 

requirement and questioned how this 

provision would prevent accidents. 

Based on the comments received and 

additional review of the NPRM, the 

FAA is withdrawing the load manifest 

requirement proposed in the NRPM 

because of the excessive cost of this 

provision. Therefore, the current rule 

language in § 135.63 remains 

unchanged. 

The FAA notes that other regulations 

currently in place require pilots to 

comply with the operating limitations of 

the aircraft and to be familiar with all 

information concerning a flight, which 

would include the type of information 

included on a load manifest. See 

§§ 91.9(a) and 91.103. Additionally, the 

FAA will consider issuing guidance 

material in order to clarify the 

requirements for preparation and 

transmission of the load manifest. 

C. Rules Applicable to All Part 135 

Helicopter Operations 

1. Radio Altimeters (§ 135.160) 

The FAA proposed a new requirement 

for all rotorcraft operated under part 135 

to be equipped with a radio altimeter. 

Commenters, including AAMS and 

various ACCT members, supported this 

proposal. The NTSB supported it as 

well and emphasized that, if adopted, 

this proposal would respond to NTSB 

Safety Recommendation A–02–35. 

Other commenters, however, objected 

to this provision on grounds that radio 

altimeters are not effective in all 

situations, that the rule would not be 

cost beneficial, and that not all 

helicopters can incorporate radio 

altimeters. These comments are 

discussed in detail below. 

Effectiveness 

PHI claimed radio altimeters have 

minimal impact on pilots flying by 

visual reference in daytime and that the 

accident record shows that radio 

altimeters have not prevented 

controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents. 

NorthStar Trekking, an Alaskan 

operator, commented that radio 

altimeters are unreliable, give erroneous 

information over snow-covered surfaces, 

and realistically create nothing more 

than a distraction in a day VFR 

environment. One commenter stated 

that TAWS is a better investment 

because radio altimeters ‘‘tell distance 

to where the aircraft has already been 

not where it’s going to impact.’’ 

Finally, FreeFlight Systems, an 

avionics manufacturer, commented that 

the radio altimeter should have the 

‘‘performance guarantees of [Technical 

Standard Order] TSO–C87 and be 

designated in accordance with DO–178B 

and DO–254 with at least a Level C 

design assurance.’’ It further stated that 

some radio altimeters with ‘‘only a 

PMA—lacking a TSO’’ are less accurate 

at low altitudes which could impact the 

ability to gauge altitude in critical 

conditions. 

The FAA determined that radio 

altimeters are an important safety device 

designed to inform the pilot of the 

aircraft’s actual height above the 

surface. Although it is true that a radio 

altimeter may have minimal impact on 

daytime visual reference flight, this 

device gives pilots an additional tool to 

maintain situational awareness in an 

inadvertent encounter with IMC, where 

vision is suddenly limited due to 

brownout or whiteout, or other 

situations where pilots lose their 

reference to the horizon and the ground. 

Additionally, as stated in the NPRM, a 

radio altimeter can aid a pilot’s 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9939 

awareness of height above the ground 

during hover, when landing in 

unimproved landing zones, or where a 

more vertical approach is required. All 

of these scenarios can occur during the 

day. 

In response to the comments that a 

radio altimeter may not prevent a 

controlled-flight-into-terrain accident, 

as discussed in the NPRM, NTSB safety 

recommendation A–02–35 noted that 

radio altimeters might aid pilots in 

recognizing proximity to the ground in 

flat-light and whiteout conditions. 

Additionally, the FAA cites 29 

accidents in the final regulatory 

evaluation that may have been 

prevented by a radio altimeter. Of the 29 

accidents, 19 were classified as 

controlled flight into terrain by the 

NTSB. A radio altimeter could have 

provided the pilot with a low altitude 

warning, enabling the pilot to take 

corrective action. 

In response to NorthStar Trekking, the 

FAA acknowledges that, in limited 

circumstances, such as when operating 

over dry snow or still water, a radio 

altimeter may provide inaccurate 

altitude readings. Improper installation 

of a radio altimeter may exacerbate this 

problem. The FAA has determined that 

these infrequent inaccurate readings do 

not outweigh the safety benefits that 

will be obtained by requiring 

installation of radio altimeters in the 

commercial helicopter fleet. 

In response to the comment that this 

device only tells where the aircraft has 

been, meaning that it cannot detect 

obstacles in the flight path, a 

descending altitude read-out on the 

radio altimeter could alert a pilot to 

rising terrain or decreasing altitude over 

level terrain. Accordingly, although the 

radio altimeter does not reveal obstacles 

in the flight path, it does provide 

valuable information to maintain 

situational awareness. The FAA agrees 

with the commenter that TAWS or 

HTAWS are valuable tools, but is not 

going to extend the requirement to 

equip with one of these devices to the 

entire part 135 helicopter population at 

this time. Rather, as discussed later in 

this document and in the NPRM, the 

FAA is requiring HTAWS for helicopter 

air ambulance operations because they 

are often conducted at night and into 

unimproved landing sites. 

Finally, the FAA is not requiring a 

radio altimeter that meets Technical 

Standard Order TSO–C87. The FAA 

determined that an FAA-approved radio 

altimeter is sufficient because the 

intended function is demonstrated 

regardless of the type of FAA approval. 

A radio altimeter may be approved in 

one of four ways: Under a Parts 

Manufacturer Approval; under a TSO 

authorization; in conjunction with type 

certification procedures for a product; or 

approved in any other manner by the 

Administrator. See 14 CFR 21.303. The 

minimum performance of a TSO or a 

parts-manufacturer-approved radio 

altimeter must be demonstrated to meet 

the intended function. 

Cost 

NorthStar Trekking commented that 

contrary to the FAA’s assertion that the 

cost of radio altimeters is negligible, an 

altimeter costs roughly $6,000, with an 

additional $500 in maintenance 

annually—money that could be better 

spent on training, early retirement of 

parts, extra pilots, and appropriate 

avionics that ‘‘truly have an effect on 

our overall safety. . . .’’ It further stated 

that the accident cited in the NPRM 

would not have been prevented by a 

radio altimeter. It noted that the 

accident may have been far worse had 

a radio altimeter been installed on the 

helicopter because of snow and fog, and 

had the pilot tried to maintain a higher 

altitude by use of a radio altimeter he 

may have flown into IMC conditions. 

Westlog claimed that requiring a nonair ambulance operator to have a radio 

altimeter installed is simply too onerous 

with very little documented benefit. 

Westlog based this comment on its 

review of NTSB accident data for the 

non-air ambulance part 135 helicopter 

industry. It noted that the only non-air 

ambulance accident cited in the NPRM 

occurred in Alaska and maintained that 

a radio altimeter requirement is not 

justified for all geographic locations. In 

response to Westlog’s comment, the 

FAA notes that it identified 11 non-air 

ambulance commercial helicopter 

accidents in the final Regulatory 

Evaluation that might have been 

prevented if an operational radio 

altimeter had been installed in the 

aircraft. These accidents were also cited 

in the initial Regulatory Evaluation 

published in the docket with the NPRM. 

With respect to the comment on the 

cost of a radio altimeter, in the initial 

regulatory evaluation, the FAA 

estimated the cost of a radio altimeter to 

be $5,250 (including installation), plus 

revenue losses for downtime during 

installation. For the final regulatory 

evaluation, the FAA revised this cost 

estimate to a $9,000 cost for the device, 

which was the highest estimate given by 

commenters, plus $500 annually for 

maintenance. 

Need for Flexibility 

Westlog and Air Shasta expressed 

concern that their helicopters cannot 

accommodate additional equipment. 

Both commenters said that if they are 

forced to install a radio altimeter, they 

would have to remove vital equipment, 

such as the artificial horizon, because 

there is no room to fit anything more on 

the instrument panel. Several 

commenters, including REACH, 

supported the rule, provided they were 

able to continue operation without a 

radio altimeter within a limited period 

and with acceptable alternative 

procedures as prescribed under 

minimum equipment lists (MELs). 

The final rule states that an operator 

must have an ‘‘FAA-approved radio 

altimeter, or an FAA-approved device 

that incorporates a radio altimeter. . . .’’ The FAA recognizes that 

limited numbers of older helicopters 

used in part 135 operations (e.g. Bell– 

47, Robinson R–22) may not have 

adequate room on the flight deck to 

install a radio altimeter. In response to 

these comments, the FAA is including 

the ability for a certificate holder to 

obtain a deviation from the rule for 

circumstances when a radio altimeter 

cannot physically be located on the 

flight deck. However, we also note that 

an HTAWS or other device such as a 

multi-function display that incorporates 

a radio altimeter would be permitted 

under this rule. Deviation authority may 

not be warranted for helicopters in 

which a radio altimeter can be 

incorporated into the flight deck’s 

existing configuration. Additionally, the 

operator may not use information 

derived from a global positioning 

system (GPS) as a substitute for a radio 

altimeter. 

Finally, the FAA notes that the rule 

language proposed in the NPRM 

exempting operators from the radio 

altimeter requirement when ‘‘authorized 

in the certificate holder’s approved’’ 

MEL is adopted in the final rule. The 

particular requirements relating to 

operations with inoperable radio 

altimeters would be developed by 

FAA’s Flight Standards Service in 

accordance with its existing master 

minimum equipment list (MMEL) 

process. 

Compliance Date 

The FAA asked for comments on the 

proposed 3-year compliance period for 

the radio altimeter provision. The NTSB 

responded that the compliance period 

for this requirement should be reduced 

to 1 year because radio altimeters are 

readily available for helicopter 

installation. FreeFlight Systems 

encouraged adoption as soon as 

possible, but commented that a 3-year 

time frame ‘‘seems reasonable since 

affordable, light-weight equipment is 

already available.’’ The FAA also notes 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9940 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4Section 306(c)(3) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires the 

FAA to conduct a rulemaking that addresses use of 

radio altimeters in helicopter air ambulance 

operations. 

comments discussed above regarding 

concerns about the time it takes to 

obtain FAA approval for equipment 

installations. 

The FAA is implementing the 3-year 

compliance period proposed in the 

NPRM. We have determined, based on 

the comments, that part 135 helicopter 

operators will be able to comply with 

the rule in that time period. The FAA 

also does not anticipate undue delay in 

approving radio altimeter installations 

because they are readily available on the 

market and installation procedures are 

well established. 

Requirement for Helicopter Air 

Ambulances To Be Equipped With 

Radio Altimeters and HTAWS 

The FAA proposed that helicopters 

used in air ambulance operations be 

equipped with both a radio altimeter 

and an HTAWS unit and asked for 

comments on the safety benefits of 

installing both devices. The FAA is 

requiring in the final rule that helicopter 

air ambulances be equipped with both 

a radio altimeter and HTAWS. Aviation 

Solutions Group, LLC, a member of 

ACCT, agreed with the proposal to 

require both technologies to ‘‘provide 

optimal situational awareness.’’ This 

comment was echoed by other ACCT 

members. LifeFlight of Maine 

commented that use of a radio altimeter 

and HTAWS provides multiple sources 

of low-altitude warnings to pilots. 

We reiterate the statements in the 

NPRM that an HTAWS that incorporates 

or works in conjunction with a radio 

altimeter function would meet the 

requirements of § 135.160 because those 

units measure altitude by actively 

sending radio signals to the surface. 

They do not rely on a preprogrammed 

database to derive altitude information. 

Therefore an HTAWS without a radio 

altimeter function would not meet the 

requirements of § 135.160. 

The rule is adopted as proposed.4

2. Safety Equipment for Overwater 

Operations (§§ 1.1, 135.117, 135.167, 

and 135.168) 

Currently, aircraft operating in 

extended overwater operations must 

comply with the equipment 

requirements in § 135.167. Current § 1.1 

defines extended overwater operations 

for helicopters as an operation at a 

horizontal distance of more than 50 

nautical miles (NM) from the nearest 

shoreline and 50 NM from an off-shore 

heliport structure. Additionally, 

operators must comply with overwater 

equipment requirements in 

§ 91.205(b)(12) and performance 

requirements for aircraft in § 135.183 

when conducting overwater operations. 

In the NPRM, the requirements for 

helicopter overwater operations were 

contained in a new section, § 135.168. 

Additionally, the NPRM proposed 

removing the reference to off-shore 

heliports from § 1.1 to define extended 

overwater operations as operations more 

than 50 NM from the nearest shoreline. 

The FAA proposed to amend § 135.167 

to exclude rotorcraft. The FAA received 

comments on the framework of the 

proposed rule and the equipment 

requirements. Based on these comments 

and further review of the NPRM, the 

FAA has made significant revisions to 

this rule. 

Primarily, the FAA has removed the 

requirement for helicopters to equip 

with life rafts when beyond 

autorotational distance from the 

shoreline. The FAA is removing the life 

raft requirement proposed in the NPRM 

because the cost of equipping with life 

rafts would not be justified by an 

increase in the survivability of 

accidents. The FAA reviewed accidents 

to ascertain the cost and benefit of each 

piece of equipment proposed in the 

NPRM and determined that benefits 

from the accidents cited in the NPRM 

do not justify the costs of imposing the 

life raft requirement. This is for two 

reasons. First, there are relatively few 

accidents beyond autorotational 

distance from the shoreline. Second, 

among the accidents identified, few 

qualify as survivable and, of the 

survivable accidents, the requirement to 

wear life preservers would generate the 

greatest likelihood of surviving in the 

water. Accordingly, the proposed life 

raft requirement is not being 

implemented in the final rule. 

The FAA is also not implementing the 

proposed revision to the definition of 

‘‘extended over-water operation’’ in 

§ 1.1. That definition would have been 

revised so that the equipment 

requirements for extended over-water 

operations would take effect at the same 

distance from shore for helicopters and 

airplanes. Currently, helicopters are 

allowed more flexibility. However, we 

are withdrawing this revision because it 

was tied to the life raft proposal. 

Additionally, the final rule does not 

adopt the changes proposed to § 135.167 

which would have made that section 

applicable only to airplanes. The 

removal of the proposed life raft 

requirement makes it necessary to leave 

§ 135.167 as it is so that the existing 

equipage rules, which include a life raft 

requirement, apply to helicopters 

engaged in extended overwater 

operations. 

Nevertheless, as discussed below, the 

FAA is retaining the requirements that 

life preservers be worn when the aircraft 

is operated beyond autorotational 

distance from the shoreline and for 

helicopters to be equipped with a 406 

MHz ELT. The FAA believes it is 

important to provide passengers with 

this base level of equipment to increase 

the odds of surviving a crash into the 

water. As discussed above, when 

conducting the accident analysis, the 

FAA reviewed each piece of equipment 

proposed in this provision and found 

that, of the proposed equipment, life 

preservers would generate the most 

benefits. 

The FAA is not adopting the proposed 

pyrotechnic signaling device 

requirement because § 91.205(b)(12) 

currently requires aircraft operated 

overwater to be equipped with ‘‘at least 

one pyrotechnic signaling device.’’ 

406 MHz Emergency Locator 

Transmitters 

This final rule requires that each 

helicopter have an approved emergency 

locator transmitter (ELT)—ELT 406/

121.5MHz. The NPRM proposed a TSO– 

C126a approved 406 MHz ELT that only 

needed to be carried on the rafts. The 

final rule language has been changed to 

require that single and multiengine 

helicopters, not the raft, be equipped 

with an ELT. This will ensure that all 

helicopters that conduct operations 

beyond autorotational distance from the 

shoreline will have the added safety 

benefit of a rescue locating and 

signaling device. This final rule requires 

an ELT that transmits on the 406 MHz 

frequency but also includes a low-power 

121.5 MHz homing device. The 121.5 

MHz frequency remains allocated to 

aviation emergencies and continues to 

be monitored by air traffic control, flight 

service stations, other emergency 

organizations, and aircraft. We also note 

that since publication of the NPRM the 

FAA published TSO–C126b, dated 

November 26, 2012, which does not 

allow using hook and loop fasteners to 

secure the ELT in the aircraft. 

Operators required to comply with 

this rule can find ELT minimum 

performance standards in FAA TSO– 

C126b ‘‘406 MHz Emergency Locator 

Transmitter,’’ dated November 26, 2012. 

The FAA notes that the prior versions 

of the TSO, TSO–C126a dated December 

17, 2008, and TSO–C126 December 23, 

1992, provide minimum performance 

specifications for 406 and 121.5 MHz 

ELTs that are similar to those found in 

TSO–C126b. FAA TSO–C126 refers to 

RTCA DO–204 ‘‘Minimum Operational 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9941 

Performance Standards for 406 MHz 

Emergency Locator Transmitters,’’ dated 

December 23, 1992, and FAA TSO– 

C126b and TSO–C126a refer to RTCA 

DO–204a ‘‘Minimum Operational 

Performance Standards for 406 MHz 

Emergency Locator Transmitters,’’ dated 

December 6, 2007. Accordingly, the 

FAA has changed the rule language to 

allow TSO–C126, TSO–C126a, and 

TSO–C126b approved ELTs. 

RTCA DO–204 and DO–204a include 

minimum performance standards for 

both 406 and 121.5 MHz ELTs. When 

beneficial to the operator, the FAA will 

consider approving installations of a 

stand-alone 406 MHz ELT to augment 

an existing 121.5 MHz ELT installation. 

Life Preservers 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

include a requirement in § 135.168 that 

occupants in overwater operations wear 

life preservers equipped with a survivor 

locator light from takeoff until the flight 

is no longer over water. 

PHI asked the FAA to strike the words 

‘‘from takeoff until the flight is no 

longer over water’’ from the overwater 

life preserver requirement of § 135.168 

and replace them with ‘‘during the 

overwater portion of the flight.’’ AMOA 

asserted that the rule should not require 

passengers to wear life preservers, but 

rather the life preservers should ‘‘be 

easily accessible’’ during overwater 

operations. Med-Trans proposed a 

change that would exempt the patients 

on board medical helicopters from life 

preserver and briefing requirements. 

Many commenters recommended that 

the FAA exclude patients from life 

preserver requirements because wearing 

a life preserver could interfere with the 

patient’s medical care. These comments 

mirrored a part 125/135 ARC 

recommendation. The FAA did not 

intend to require transported patients to 

wear life preservers if doing so would 

impede the ability of medical personnel 

to treat that patient or if it would be 

inadvisable for medical reasons, such as 

a need to keep the patient still. 

Accordingly the FAA has revised 

§ 135.168(b)(1) to reflect this intent. 

The FAA agrees with commenters that 

passengers should be able to don life 

preservers only for the overwater 

portion of the flight. After reviewing the 

proposal, the FAA recognizes that a 

flight may spend significant time over 

land before it travels over water. The 

FAA has amended the final rule to 

require that occupants wear life 

preservers while the helicopter is 

beyond autorotational distance from the 

shoreline. 

Applicability 

As proposed in the NPRM and 

adopted in this final rule, § 135.168 

contains an operational solution that 

addresses commenters’ concerns about 

flights that only cross narrow bodies of 

inland water or bays. A helicopter does 

not need to be equipped with a 406 

MHz ELT and life preservers if it crosses 

the water at an altitude within 

autorotational glide distance of the 

shore. Autorotational distance refers to 

the forward distance a helicopter can 

glide without engine power. During 

autorotation the rotors continue turning 

because of the air moving through the 

rotor as the helicopter loses altitude. 

Thus, an operator can avoid the need for 

the additional safety equipment by 

flying close to the shoreline or at a 

higher altitude. For example, for a 

helicopter that has a glide ratio of 3 feet 

forward to 1 foot of descent, a pilot 

flying at an altitude of 1,000 feet would 

be able to operate at least 1⁄2 mile from 

a shoreline without needing overwater 

equipment. This provides flexibility for 

operators that fly over narrow bodies of 

water while still providing the 

additional level of safety for overwater 

and extended overwater operations. 

This standard is consistent with current 

requirements under § 135.183. 

Final Rule 

Based on the comments received and 

additional review of the NPRM, the 

FAA has adopted § 135.168 with 

revisions. The most significant changes 

are to the requirements for helicopter 

overwater operations in § 135.168. The 

FAA has not adopted the proposed 

requirements for life-rafts and 

pyrotechnic signaling devices or the 

proposed changes to the definition of 

extended overwater operations in § 1.1. 

The proposed amendment to § 135.167 

is not adopted. 

The final rule requires helicopters to 

be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT and 

occupants to wear life preservers on 

helicopter flights operated beyond 

autorotational distance from shoreline. 

The FAA also notes that passenger 

briefing requirements proposed in the 

NPRM as § 135.168(d) have been moved 

to § 135.117, Briefing of passengers 

before flight. No substantive changes 

were made to the briefing requirements. 

These changes will take effect 3 years 

after this rule’s publication. 

3. Pilot Testing for Recovery From IIMC, 

Whiteout, Brownout, and Flat-Light 

Conditions (§ 135.293) 

The FAA proposed adding new 

requirements to § 135.293 to require 

helicopter pilots to demonstrate 

recovery from an IIMC on an annual 

basis and to understand procedures for 

aircraft handling in flat-light, whiteout, 

and brownout conditions. Twelve 

commenters, including AAMS, Air 

Methods Corporation (Air Methods), 

AMOA, REACH, and the NTSB 

supported the proposed change. 

Twenty-one commenters, including PHI, 

did not agree with the proposal as 

written. 

Some commenters stated that the 

testing requirements should be tailored 

to the certificate holder’s operating 

environment. NorthStar Trekking, an 

Alaskan operator, noted that it trains its 

pilots for flat-light and whiteout 

conditions, but not for brownout 

conditions. Jack Harter Helicopters 

stated that because it does not operate 

in areas where whiteout or brownout are 

likely, it should not be required to 

include those conditions in its training 

program. PHI stated that a majority of its 

operations rarely encounter flat-light or 

whiteout conditions, and mandating 

training for those conditions for all 

operators would be an onerous 

requirement. 

PHI also stated that this regulation 

would be redundant with 

§ 135.329(e)(1), which requires training 

specific to a certificate holder’s type of 

operation. The NTSB commented that 

the FAA should require operators to 

incorporate safe practices for operations 

in flat-light and whiteout conditions in 

their training programs. 

LifeFlight of Maine and other ACCT 

members commented that the IIMC 

recovery training should be 

demonstrated semi-annually. Several 

individual commenters recommended 

quarterly training for pilots to maintain 

proficiency. 

AAMS, AMOA, and Air EVAC EMS 

commented that pilots should be able to 

use simulators and flight training 

devices to complete this training. The 

NTSB also supported increased use of 

simulators for helicopter pilot training. 

The FAA finds that helicopter pilots 

would benefit from annual testing on all 

three conditions—whiteout, flat light, 

and brownout. Although some 

conditions may be more prevalent in 

certain areas, such as whiteout 

conditions in Alaska or brownout 

conditions in desert environments, 

these conditions may occur year-round 

in many places. This testing will help 

ensure that pilots have a base-level 

knowledge should they encounter these 

conditions. To clarify, the rule requires 

that pilots, on the annual written or oral 

test required by § 135.293(a), 

demonstrate knowledge of procedures 

for aircraft handling in flat-light, 

whiteout, and brownout conditions, and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9942 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5Section 306(c)(2) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires the 

FAA to conduct a rulemaking that addresses pilot 

training standards in preventing controlled flight 

into terrain and recovery from IIMC. 

methods for recognizing and avoiding 

these conditions. They would be 

required to demonstrate a realistic 

course of action to escape IIMC during 

the § 135.293(b) competency check. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the FAA 

intends for this demonstration to be 

appropriate to the aircraft, equipment, 

and facilities available to the pilot 

during the competency check. The FAA 

finds that an annual check is sufficient 

because it can be incorporated into a 

certificate holder’s existing competency 

check schedule. 

This new requirement does not 

duplicate the crewmember training 

requirements of § 135.329(e)(1). That 

section requires, in part, crewmember 

training, instruction, and practice to 

ensure that each crewmember remains 

adequately trained and proficient for 

each type of operation in which that 

crewmember serves. While operators 

may include training on flat-light, 

whiteout, brownout, and IIMC recovery 

in training programs, this rule’s 

amendments ensure that these topics 

will be tested during a pilot’s annual 

competency check. The FAA anticipates 

that such training will be incorporated 

into training programs so that pilots will 

be adequately prepared for their annual 

competency checks. 

We note that the IMC recovery portion 

of the competency check could be 

performed in a simulator or flight 

training device, provided that it is 

consistent with that device’s specific 

approval. 

Final Rule 

This rule is adopted as proposed and 

will take effect 60 days after publication 

of the final rule.5 Section 135.293 

requires individuals to complete testing 

in the 12 calendar months prior to 

serving as a pilot in part 135 operation. 

The FAA does not intend for pilots to 

be retested before the new testing 

requirements take effect. Rather, pilots 

must comply with the new requirement 

during their next § 135.293 test. 

4. IFR Alternate Airport Weather 

Minimums (§ 135.221) 

Current rules, as provided for in 

§ 135.221, require that to designate an 

alternate airport for an IFR operation, 

weather reports or forecasts for that 

airport must be at or above the alternate 

airport landing minimums for that 

airport at the estimated time of arrival. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require a more stringent alternate airport 

weather requirement for rotorcraft, 

based on minimums established in 

Operations Specification (OpSpec) 

H105. Several commenters, including 

the NTSB, ACCT members, PHI, and 

AAMS supported the proposed change. 

Kestrel Air commented that the FAA 

proposed this requirement without 

establishing a connection between 

existing standards and accidents 

involving part 135 helicopter operators 

and that there is no accident history to 

support this proposal. 

Safety and Flight Evaluations, 

International agreed that increased 

weather minimums would increase the 

likelihood of being able to land at the 

alternate if weather deteriorates. 

However, it also stated that because it is 

often more difficult for a helicopter to 

fly out of a weather system to an 

alternate airport, as noted in the NPRM, 

that ‘‘there is little likelihood that an 

alternate airfield exists that would have 

significantly different weather 

conditions than at the primary airfield.’’ 

Accordingly, Safety and Flight 

Evaluations, International stated that the 

rule would discourage pilots from flying 

IFR. 

Kestrel Air is correct that the FAA did 

not cite any accidents to support this 

proposal. However, as noted in the 

NPRM, this proposal is based on 

OpSpec H105, which is issued to all 

part 135 helicopter operators that 

conduct IFR operations. Accordingly, 

this rule change will not require 

operational changes for these certificate 

holders, so no additional costs will be 

incurred. OpSpec H105 has established 

these minimums and the FAA does not 

anticipate a change in IFR usage. 

This rule is adopted as proposed. 

D. Rules Applicable to Helicopter Air 

Ambulance Operations 

This final rule establishes several new 

requirements for certificate holders 

conducting helicopter air ambulance 

operations. It changes the applicability 

section of part 135 (§ 135.1) to require 

some operations that have been 

conducted under part 91 to be 

conducted under part 135. Additionally, 

this rule establishes new equipment, 

operations, and training rules for 

certificate holders conducting air 

ambulance operations which are 

codified in new subpart L, §§ 135.601– 

135.621. 

1. Applicability of Part 135 Rules to 

Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations 

(§§ 135.1, 135.267, 135.271, 135.601) 

The FAA proposed requiring that all 

helicopter air ambulance operations 

with medical personnel on board be 

conducted under part 135 operating 

rules. Flights to pick up a patient, the 

patient transport leg, and the flight 

returning to base after the patient is 

dropped off, or other flights with a 

patient or medical personnel on board 

would be conducted under part 135. 

The FAA received many comments from 

organizations and individuals 

supporting and opposing this proposal. 

Comments addressed the FAA’s 

accident analysis which formed the 

basis of the regulatory evaluation; 

whether part 135 is the appropriate part 

of the regulations for this change and 

whether repositioning flights should 

continue to be operated under part 91; 

potential limitations on operations; 

flight and duty questions; and how the 

FAA defined flights to be conducted 

under part 135. These comments are 

addressed in detail below. 

Definition of Medical Personnel 

The NPRM defined ‘‘medical 

personnel’’ as ‘‘persons with medical 

training, including, but not limited to a 

flight physician, a flight nurse, or a 

flight paramedic, who are carried aboard 

a helicopter during helicopter air 

ambulance operations in order to 

provide medical care.’’ With this rule, 

any flights for medical transportation 

that carry a patient or medical personnel 

must now be conducted under part 135 

rules. 

NEMSPA suggested a change in the 

definition of medical personnel to 

‘‘medical personnel means persons 

approved by State or Federal EMS 

regulations who are carried aboard a 

helicopter during helicopter air 

ambulance operations in order to 

provide onboard medical care.’’ AMOA 

requested a change in the proposed 

definition of medical personnel to 

‘‘persons who are carried aboard a 

helicopter during helicopter air 

ambulance operations in order to 

provide onboard medical care’’ because 

the rule would limit the types of 

medical professionals often transported 

and could confuse the rule. 

The FAA clarifies that this definition 

is intended to be applied broadly to 

individuals who might be carried 

aboard to provide care. Requiring 

medical personnel to be approved under 

State or Federal EMS regulations may 

result in preventing people currently 

performing these functions from 

performing them any longer, because 

they may be licensed medical 

professionals but not certified under 

state or federal EMS regulation. For 

example, a nurse might be certified to 

practice by the State board of nursing, 

but not under a State’s EMS regulations. 

Limiting the definition to this 

certification could also have the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9943 

6The remaining sixteen accidents originally 

identified as part 91 operations were flying above 

the weather minimums established in this rule and 

are therefore no longer being used to support 

§ 135.609. However, 10 of these accidents were 

cited in the NPRM in support of other proposed 

rule provisions. The FAA finds that these accidents 

are still applicable to those provisions. Six 

accidents were removed from the final rule’s 

accident analysis. See the Final Regulatory 

Evaluation for a full explanation of the accident 

analysis, and methodology used to review the 

accidents. 

unintentional result of allowing 

operators to use medical caregivers who 

are not specifically certified under State 

or Federal EMS regulations. As a result, 

these individuals would not be included 

in the definition and thus the operator 

could avoid the part 135 requirements. 

Additionally, we note that the 

definition of medical personnel 

proposed in the NPRM referenced 

‘‘persons with medical training, 

including but not limited to a flight 

physician, a flight nurse, or a flight 

paramedic. . . .’’ (See 75 FR 62621) 

(emphasis added). Accordingly, the 

definition does not apply to those 

persons only. Any person with medical 

training who is ‘‘carried aboard a 

helicopter during helicopter air 

ambulance operations in order to 

provide medical care’’ would fall into 

the definition of medical personnel. The 

FAA notes that it made a nonsubstantive change to the definition of 

‘‘medical personnel’’ to clarify that the 

definition could apply to a single person 

as well as to a group. 

Accident Analysis 

AMOA and PHI contended that the 

FAA’s accident analysis used to justify 

placing more operations under part 135 

was flawed because it categorized flights 

as occurring under part 91 when, in fact, 

many were conducted under part 135 

rules. Both organizations cited a 1992 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between the NTSB and the FAA that 

established how air ambulance 

accidents would be categorized. 

Pursuant to the MOU, the NTSB 

categorized accidents involving air 

medical flights without a patient on 

board as part 91 accidents. These 

commenters maintained that many of 

the accidents categorized as occurring 

under part 91 actually happened when 

the helicopter was operating under part 

135 rules even though no patient was on 

board. HAI commented that its members 

that conduct air medical operations 

‘‘currently operate to the requirements 

of OpSpec A021, which are higher than 

current part 135 weather minimums, on 

any leg of a patient transport flight 

whenever medical personnel are on 

board. . . .’’ 

The NTSB noted in its comment that, 

as detailed in its Special Investigation 

Report on Emergency Medical Services 

Operations, 32 of the 41 helicopter air 

ambulance accidents investigated by the 

NTSB occurred while the aircraft was 

operating under the flight rules 

specified in part 91. 

The FAA acknowledges that the 

commenters correctly described the way 

accidents are categorized under the 

MOU. In light of the information 

received from the commenters, the FAA 

reviewed the accidents cited in the 

NPRM to determine whether the 

accidents categorized as part 91 

accidents were properly used to justify 

changes to the rule. The NPRM 

categorized 33 accidents (out of the 135 

helicopter air ambulance accidents 

cited) as occurring during part 91 

operations which were given as support 

for including those operations in part 

135. 

The FAA determined that 17 of those 

33 accidents occurred while the 

helicopters were flying in weather 

minimums below those proposed and 

that will be required under § 135.609, 

accounting for 42 deaths. Although 

some operations were conducted under 

part 135, these flights were operated 

below the weather minimums for 

helicopter air ambulance operations 

proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, the 

accidents may have been prevented had 

these helicopters been operating under 

the stricter rules adopted here and are 

properly included in justifying this 

rule.6

Relationship Between Parts 91 and 135 

AMOA, Air Evac EMS Inc. (Air Evac 

EMS), AAMS, NEMSPA, and PHI were 

among commenters that said that 

applying part 135 regulations to 

operations traditionally considered to be 

under part 91 is inconsistent with the 

current regulatory framework and could 

introduce confusion. Instead, these 

commenters said changes to enhance 

safety requirements for these operations 

should be made by amending part 91, 

not part 135. This would ensure the 

continuity and applicability of the 

current rules. 

The NTSB supported the proposal 

and stated that it would likely meet the 

intent of Safety Recommendation A–06– 

12. However, it also stated that the list 

of flights conducted under part 135 

must be as complete as possible and 

should include maintenance flights, 

training flights, helicopter positioning 

flights performed without medical 

crewmembers on board, and other 

operations that would not be required to 

be conducted under part 135 under this 

rule. 

The commenters are correct that, as 

discussed in the NPRM, currently nonpatient-carrying legs of helicopter air 

ambulance operations may be 

conducted under part 91. The FAA, 

through this rule, is requiring legs with 

medical personnel onboard to be 

conducted under part 135. The primary 

reason for this change is to protect 

medical personnel by ensuring that 

those flights are conducted under the 

more stringent operating rules of part 

135. As noted by the NTSB, medical 

personnel ‘‘cannot be expected to 

meaningfully participate in the 

decision-making process to enhance 

flight safety or to significantly 

contribute to operational control of the 

flight.’’ Accordingly, the FAA 

determined that medical personnel 

deserve the same safety protections that 

part 135 provides to patients on 

helicopter air ambulance flights. 

Additionally, the FAA is not changing 

the rule language to provide a more 

extensive list of flights that must be 

conducted under part 135. As discussed 

above, the rule is clear that if medical 

personnel or a patient are on board the 

aircraft and the flight is conducted for 

medical transportation, then it must be 

conducted under part 135. The nonexclusive list is intended to emphasize 

that the traditional three-legged 

helicopter air ambulance flight (base to 

pick-up site, pick-up site to drop-off 

site, drop-off site to base) must now be 

conducted under part 135. 

Further, the FAA does not anticipate 

that the placement of these rules in part 

135 rather than in part 91 will cause 

confusion for certificate holders. It is 

clear that these rules only apply to part 

119 certificate holders authorized to 

conduct helicopter air ambulance 

operations under part 135. Part 135 is a 

logical place for the regulations affecting 

this population. 

The FAA received several comments 

about this rule’s impact on helicopter 

air ambulance operations. First, AMOA, 

Air Evac EMS, AAMS, NEMSPA, and 

PHI commented on the need for 

flexibility from the part 135 

requirements during the repositioning 

leg for training purposes. They have 

traditionally used this leg for training 

newly hired second pilots on 

instrument approach procedures and 

stated that they cannot do the same kind 

of training when operating under part 

135 rules as they can when operating 

under part 91 rules because the pilot in 

training would not be able to 

manipulate the controls. Commenters 

were concerned this proposal could 

significantly inhibit IFR operations by 

helicopter air ambulance operators. 

Second, HAI commented that a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9944 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires 

helicopter air ambulance operations to comply with 

requirement to conduct helicopter air 

ambulance operations under part 135 

would prevent operators from using 

GPS approaches certified for part 91 

operations. 

The FAA has determined that 

applying part 135 rules will have only 

a limited effect on training. Operators 

may continue training pilots on 

instrument approaches during flights 

with no passengers, medical personnel, 

or patients on board. The FAA has 

determined that the safety benefits of 

this rule outweigh the fact that 

certificate holders may need to conduct 

additional training flights. 

The FAA finds HAI’s concern about 

limitations on GPS approaches to be 

unwarranted. All instrument 

approaches are designed and certified to 

part 97 Terminal Instrument Procedures 

(TERPS) requirements. Use of these 

approaches is not restricted to flights 

conducted under certain operating 

rules. They can be used by an operator 

conducting flights under part 91, 121, or 

135. 

The NTSB also stated that although 

part 91 may provide additional 

‘‘operational flexibilities due to 

decreased visual flight rules (VFR) 

weather minimums and no flight crew 

rest requirements’’ it believes that these 

benefits ‘‘are greatly overshadowed by 

the increased risk that such operations 

have historically posed.’’ 

Additionally, the FAA acknowledges 

that certificate holders may not be able 

to conduct certain operations because of 

the more stringent part 135 

requirements. For example, the weather 

minimums may be below part 135 

standards, but would have been 

acceptable for a part 91 operation. 

Similarly, additional part 135 flights 

may mean that a flightcrew member 

reaches flight time limitations more 

quickly. Nevertheless, the FAA has 

determined that these restrictions are 

appropriate given the increased safety of 

operations that are expected as a result 

of this regulation. However, the FAA is 

not extending this regulation to flights 

conducted without medical personnel 

onboard. The FAA has determined that 

such an extension would go beyond the 

stated rationale of providing additional 

protections to the medical personnel 

and passengers onboard the helicopter. 

Air Methods commented that 

operators should follow the weather 

minimums specified in A021, which are 

more stringent than the baseline part 

135 weather minimums. The FAA 

agrees and, as discussed later, is 

adopting those weather minimums into 

part 135 regulations applicable to 

helicopter air ambulance operations. 

Flight and Duty Time Limitations 

(Proposed §§ 135.267 and 135.271) 

As discussed in the NPRM, one 

impact of requiring flights traditionally 

conducted under part 91 to be 

conducted under part 135 is that these 

flights will now count toward a pilot’s 

flight time limitations. In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed adding language to 

§§ 135.267 and 135.271 to clarify that 

helicopter air ambulance operations 

conducted under part 135 must be 

included in a pilot’s flight time. 

Members of ACCT support including 

pilot duty time limitations in the change 

to require more helicopter air 

ambulance flights to be conducted 

under part 135. The Advanced Life 

Support and Emergency Response Team 

agreed with requiring flight time for a 

part 135 operation when medical 

personnel are on board to count toward 

a pilot’s daily flight time limitations and 

stated it already operates under this 

policy. 

PHI, AMOA, and Air Evac EMS 

commented that the current flight time 

and duty limitations in § 135.267 should 

not be altered. PHI believes the proposal 

is inconsistent with FAA regulatory 

structure and discriminates against the 

helicopter air ambulance industry 

without justification. AMOA does not 

agree with adoption of § 135.267(g). 

PHI also commented that there 

currently are no part 135 regulations 

that prevent a pilot from flying while 

fatigued. The commenter said that the 

pertinent regulation resides in part 91, 

part 135 operators must comply with 

part 91, and that current rest and duty 

requirements do not guarantee that a 

pilot will not be fatigued, even if 

complying with the regulations. Air 

Evac EMS commented that §§ 91.13 and 

135.69(a) afford sufficient protection 

and claimed that the best measure 

against pilot fatigue is the pilot knowing 

when to decline a flight request and 

appropriate oversight. 

AMOA and Air Methods claimed that 

no accidents as a result of crew rest 

issues were cited to support this 

proposal and its change is a profound 

shift in the agency’s regulatory structure 

that would cause pilots to rush to stay 

within the prescribed duty period. PHI 

and AMOA recommended retaining the 

current requirements until the FAA has 

reviewed all part 135 pilot rest 

requirements. 

PHI and numerous other commenters 

requested flexibility for pilot rest 

requirements under circumstances 

beyond the control of the pilot or 

operator. 

The FAA did not propose any 

substantive changes to §§ 135.267 and 

135.271 flight time and rest 

requirements but instead added 

language to those sections to clarify 

‘‘flight time’’ as a term that includes any 

helicopter air ambulance operation as 

defined in § 135.601. As established by 

this rule, all helicopter air ambulance 

operations with medical personnel or 

patients on board must be conducted 

under part 135. The provisions of 

§§ 135.267 and 135.271 would therefore 

apply to the helicopter air ambulance 

operations previously conducted under 

part 91. 

In the final rule, the FAA did not add 

the proposed references to helicopter air 

ambulance operations in §§ 135.267 and 

135.271 because they are redundant 

with the amendments to § 135.1. Any 

operation that must be completed under 

part 135 must comply with the 

applicable flight and duty time 

limitations of part 135, and this action 

does not eliminate this requirement. As 

commenters noted, §§ 91.13 and 135.69 

provide some safeguards, but the FAA 

has determined that the flight time 

limitations and rest requirements of part 

135, subpart F, are the rules to follow 

to prevent pilot fatigue. 

The FAA also notes that it received 

several comments about whether 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

certificate holder would permit 

exceeding the flight time limitations in 

§ 135.267. The FAA believes that these 

comments mirror those submitted to the 

FAA in response to a draft legal 

interpretation published for comment 

that addresses this issue. See Docket No. 

FAA–2010–1259 (Dec. 23, 2010). The 

FAA advises commenters that it issued 

a withdrawal of the referenced 

interpretation in the same docket on 

November 7, 2013 (79 FR 66865) and is 

not taking any action in this rule. To do 

so would be outside the scope of the 

rule because the issue presented in the 

draft legal interpretation is one that was 

not addressed in the NPRM. 

Final Rule 

Upon review of the NPRM, the FAA 

made changes to the rule text in 

§§ 135.1 and 135.601. The FAA did not 

adopt the proposed changes to 

§§ 135.267 and 135.271. The 

applicability statement in § 135.1 was 

revised for clarity. In § 135.601, the FAA 

removed the definition of helicopter air 

ambulance because it was unnecessary 

and revised the definitions of helicopter 

air ambulance operation and medical 

personnel for clarity. All of these 

changes are non-substantive.7


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9945 

part 135 weather minimums and flight and duty time rules whenever medical personnel are onboard 

the aircraft. 

2. Weather Minimums (§ 135.609— 

Proposed § 135.607) 

Currently, part 135 regulations require 

visibility of at least 1⁄2 statute mile 

during the day and 1 statute mile at 

night for VFR helicopter operations at 

an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above 

the surface in Class G airspace. In the 

NPRM, the FAA proposed to add more 

stringent weather minimums for 

helicopter air ambulance operations. As 

stated in the NPRM, this rule codifies 

the weather requirements of OpSpec 

A021. See Table 4 below. The proposed 

weather minimums for uncontrolled 

airspace are determined by whether the 

helicopter is flying in a mountainous or 

non-mountainous area and whether, 

within those classifications, the flight is 

taking place in a certificate holder’s 

local flying area or is a cross-country 

flight. The NPRM defined a local flying 

area as 50 NM in any direction from an 

operator’s base of operation. A crosscountry flying area is an area other than 

a local flying area. Weather minimums 

are less stringent in local flying areas 

because of pilots’ increased familiarity 

with obstacles and the operating 

environment. Based on the NPRM, in all 

flying areas, helicopter pilots using an 

FAA-approved night vision imaging 

system or FAA-approved HTAWS can 

fly in lower weather minimums during 

night operations because those systems 

provide benefits for avoidance of 

obstacles and controlled flight into 

terrain avoidance. 

TABLE 4—VFR CEILING AND FLIGHT VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Location 

Day Night Night using an approved NVIS or 

HTAWS 

Ceiling Flight visibility Ceiling Flight visibility Ceiling Flight visibility 

Nonmountainous 

local flying areas.

800-feet ............... 2 statute miles ..... 1,000-feet ............ 3 statute miles ..... 800-feet ............... 3 statute miles. 

Nonmountainous 

non-local flying 

areas.

800-feet ............... 3 statute miles ..... 1,000-feet ............ 5 statute miles ..... 1,000-feet ............ 3 statute miles. 

Mountainous local 

flying areas.

800-feet ............... 3 statute miles ..... 1,500-feet ............ 3 statute miles ..... 1,000-feet ............ 3 statute miles. 

Mountainous nonlocal flying areas.1,000-feet ............ 3 statute miles ..... 1,500-feet ............ 5 statute miles ..... 1,000-feet ............ 5 statute miles. 

The FAA received support for this 

provision from several commenters. The 

NTSB supports codifying the more 

stringent weather minimums of OpSpec 

A021. PHI agrees with the proposal. 

AAMS expressed support for this 

provision but opposed the requirement 

that operators must designate a local 

flying area, commenting that there are 

some areas where using cross country 

weather minimums would be preferable. 

They recommended replacing the word 

‘‘must’’ with ‘‘may.’’ Similarly, AMOA, 

Air Evac EMS, and individual members 

of ACCT commented that a local flying 

area should be optional and that the 

FAA should also allow for noncontiguous local flying areas. Safety and 

Flight Evaluations, International agrees 

with the proposal to increase the VFR 

weather minimums, but disagrees with 

the proposed implementation and 

commented that there should not be a 

differentiation between the weather 

minimums for ‘‘local flying areas’’ and 

‘‘cross country flying areas’’ and that the 

proposed rule inappropriately decreases 

the minimums when the aircraft is 

equipped with an approved night vision 

imaging system or HTAWS. 

Final Rule 

The FAA is adopting this provision 

with several changes. Based on the 

comments received, the FAA 

determined that it would be overly 

restrictive to require operators to 

designate a local flying area that would 

not be used. The certificate holder will 

not be required to designate a local 

flying area but may do so in order to use 

the less stringent weather minimums. If 

an operator does not designate a local 

flying area, operations must be 

conducted in accordance with the more 

restrictive non-local-flying-area 

minimums in the rule. Thus the change 

in the rule will not negatively affect 

safety. 

As discussed in the NPRM, a pilot 

must demonstrate familiarity and 

detailed knowledge of the hazards and 

high altitude terrain in local flying areas 

in order to use the lower minimums. 

Thus, the final rule includes a 

requirement that a pilot may not use the 

local flying area weather minimums 

unless that pilot has passed an 

examination given by the certificate 

holder within the 12 months prior to 

using the local flying area weather 

minimums. 

Additionally, the final rule will allow 

non-contiguous local flying areas rather 

than tying them to the certificate 

holder’s base of operations. This rule 

does not restrict the number of local 

flying areas an operator may designate. 

The intended safety standard will be 

maintained because before using the 

less restrictive local flying area weather 

minimums pilots will demonstrate 

knowledge of that area. The title of this 

section has been changed for 

clarification. 

3. IFR Operations at Airports Without 

Weather Reporting (§ 135.611— 

Proposed § 135.609) 

Current part 135 regulations only 

permit instrument flight into and out of 

airports with an on-site weather 

reporting source. The FAA proposed 

allowing helicopter air ambulance 

operators to conduct IFR operations at 

airports and heliports without a weather 

reporting facility if they can obtain 

weather reports from an approved 

weather reporting facility located within 

15 NM of the destination landing area 

and meet other pilot and equipment 

requirements. 

The NTSB supported the proposal, 

agreeing that it would ‘‘provide an 

environment suitable for increased use 

of IFR,’’ and noting that it would 

partially respond to Safety 

Recommendation A–06–93 ‘‘because of 

the potential increase in the availability 

of IFR approaches for HEMS operators.’’ 

AMOA commented that all part 135 

operators should be able to use these 

procedures. The FAA did not propose 

permitting all part 135 operators to use 

these procedures in the NPRM and to 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9946 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

8Exemptions No. 9490 and 9490B (Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA–2006–26407); Exemption No. 9665 

(Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2008–0169); 

Exemption No. 6175 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA– 

2001–9195) (granting authority for departures only); 

Exemption No. 6175G (Regulatory Docket No. FAA– 

2001–9195). 

expand the applicability at this time 

would not be within the scope of this 

rule. Accordingly, the FAA is not 

extending this requirement to all part 

135 operators. 

Use of an Area Forecast as an Alternate 

Weather Source 

Currently, OpSpec A021 is issued to 

helicopter air ambulance operators and 

allows the use of an area forecast as an 

alternate weather source. The Society of 

Aviation and Flight Educators noted 

that the changes to OpSpec A021 were 

made because the FAA had determined 

that navigation by instruments is safer 

than navigation by visual reference. The 

revisions specifically included area 

forecasts to facilitate greater use of the 

instrument flight rules system. Many 

operators developed an instrument 

flight rules system that uses those 

forecasts. 

The Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators contended that this proposal 

would require an operator to either add 

an approved automated weather station 

at a location within 15 NM or to operate 

with visual flight rules. This, according 

to the commenter, would significantly 

undermine the ability of operators to 

add instrument operations as a safety 

improvement. PHI, AMOA, ACCT, 

MaxViz, and the Health Care District of 

Palm Beach County all echoed the call 

for adding the area forecast as an 

acceptable alternative if a weather 

reporting station is not available. 

The NPRM proposed a higher 

standard than that required by OpSpec 

A021. That operations specification 

permits an operator to use an approved 

weather reporting source if one is 

located within 15 NM of the landing 

area but if there is not such a source 

within that distance from the landing 

area, an area forecast may be used. 

In response to comments, and upon 

further review, the FAA has changed the 

requirements of this rule from those 

proposed in the NPRM. This final rule 

allows IFR operations at an airport 

without weather reporting if the 

certificate holder has an area forecast for 

the vicinity of the destination landing 

from the National Weather Service, a 

source approved by the NWS, or a 

source approved by the FAA. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the FAA finds 

that an area forecast is sufficient for the 

purposes of this rule because helicopter 

air ambulance operators have a history 

of safely operating under an exemption 8

or under OpSpec A021, on which this 

rule is based. The area forecast 

allowance of the exemption and OpSpec 

A021 is the same as in this final rule 

language. 

Pilot and Equipment Requirements 

The FAA also revised the rule 

language to eliminate several sections 

that were determined to be redundant 

with existing part 135 regulations. The 

redundancies removed were the 

requirements for pilots to: (1) Have a 

current § 135.297 instrument 

proficiency check; (2) hold an 

instrument rating; (3) complete a course 

including a review of IFR regulations, 

interpreting weather, reviewing 

instrument charts, and crew resource 

management; (4) learn methods for 

determining present visibility and 

ceilings; and (5) be tested on approaches 

authorized under this provision. In all 

these cases the FAA finds that pilots 

who conduct part 135 operations must 

already meet these standards, or that 

these standards are sufficiently 

incorporated into current pilot training 

requirements. 

The FAA also deleted the proposed 

requirements for aircraft to be equipped 

with an autopilot if used in lieu of a 

second in command as required by 

§ 135.101, and for the aircraft to be 

equipped with navigation equipment 

appropriate to the approach to be flown. 

Again, this requirement is redundant 

with existing §§ 135.101 (SIC) and 

135.105 (autopilot), which must be 

followed during part 135 operations. 

In response to a comment from 

AMOA that the references to ‘‘storm 

scopes’’ were outdated, the FAA deleted 

the references in proposed 

§ 135.609(b)(2) to ‘‘airborne weather 

radar’’ and ‘‘lightning detection’’ as 

types of severe-weather detection 

equipment. The final rule requires that 

helicopters conducting these operations 

be ‘‘equipped with functioning severe 

weather-detection equipment.’’ 

Requirements for Departures 

The rule requires that the weather at 

the departure point must be at or above 

the minimums for visual flight rules for 

a pilot to make an IFR departure. The 

pilot in command is authorized to 

determine whether the weather meets 

the takeoff requirements of part 97 or of 

the certificate holder’s operation 

specification. 

The FAA concludes that this new 

provision will increase instrument flight 

and result in more air ambulance 

helicopters operating in a positively 

controlled environment, thereby 

increasing safety. 

4. Approach/Departure IFR Transitions 

(§ 135.613—Proposed § 135.611) 

This rule was proposed to establish 

weather minimums for helicopter air 

ambulances that have been using an 

instrument approach and are now 

transitioning to visual flight for landing. 

This section is intended to encourage 

IFR operations because of their safety 

benefits. Pilots on an instrument 

approach would, upon reaching a point 

in space at a minimum descent altitude 

or decision altitude, continue the flight 

to the landing area under visual flight 

rules if conditions permit. The weather 

minimums that pilots will follow are 

based on the type of approach the pilot 

is flying and the distance between the 

missed approach point and the heliport 

or landing area. Pilots continuing on the 

‘‘proceed visually’’ segment of an 

instrument approach into an airport or 

heliport for which the approach is 

designed would follow the weather 

minimums on the approach chart when 

completing that approach. 

The FAA notes that in most cases the 

rule permits flight under less restrictive 

weather minimums than are currently 

allowed for cruise flight in uncontrolled 

airspace. As noted in the NPRM, 

obstacles in the vicinity of an 

instrument approach are flight-checked 

and marked on instrument approach 

charts. It is less likely that pilots would 

encounter unexpected obstacles when 

following an instrument approach chart. 

However, if the distance of the VFR 

portion of the flight is 3 NM or more, 

then the VFR weather minimums for 

that class of airspace apply. We 

emphasize that if a 3-NM-or-more VFR 

segment is flown in Class G airspace, 

the applicable VFR weather minimums 

would be those found in § 135.609. 

The rule also permits a pilot to depart 

with a VFR-to-IFR transition under the 

less restrictive weather minimums 

allowed for approaches if the pilot 

follows an FAA-approved obstacle 

departure procedure, has filed an IFR 

flight plan and obtains an IFR clearance 

at a predetermined location, and the 

transition to IFR occurs no farther than 

3 NM from the departure point. Pilots 

who cannot meet these requirements 

must use the standard VFR weather 

minimums required for that class of 

airspace, which would be those found 

in § 135.609 for Class G airspace. As 

noted in the NPRM, a pilot who simply 

flies the reverse course of the approach 

used when landing would not be 

following an FAA-approved obstacle 

departure procedure. That is because 

this procedure has not been flightVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:17 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9947 

9Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires the 

FAA to conduct rulemaking on helicopter air 

ambulance operations to address ‘‘flight request and 

dispatch procedures.’’ Though the benefits are less 

than costs for this provision, it satisfies the 

Congressional mandate as required by the Act. 

checked to specific departure criteria 

and therefore obstacle clearance cannot 

be guaranteed. 

A total of 21 individuals affiliated 

with PHI commented on the proposal 

for this rule. These commenters 

supported the proposed rule and noted 

that it is consistent with current OpSpec 

A021 requirements. Commenters also 

noted that proposed § 135.611(a)(2) 

contained an incorrect cross reference to 

§ 135.611(a)(1)(i). 

Safety and Flight Evaluations, 

International stated concerns with the 

construction of some PinS approaches. 

First, it noted the complexity in 

distinguishing between ‘‘proceed 

visually’’ and ‘‘proceed VFR,’’ because 

the weather minimums on the approach 

charts apply to ‘‘proceed visually’’ 

segments, while the distance from the 

missed approach point to the landing 

area dictates the weather minimums. It 

stated that having various minimums 

was complex and would not encourage 

IFR operations. Next, it noted the 

possibility that a pilot could reach the 

missed approach point, determine that 

the weather meets the requirements to 

proceed VFR, and then lose sight of the 

landing area. This would leave the pilot 

unable to continue IFR because the pilot 

would no longer be in protected 

airspace. Finally, Safety and Flight 

Evaluations, International commented 

that ICAO has established clearer 

requirements for similar operations and 

asked whether the proposed 

requirements comply with ICAO 

Procedures for Air Navigation 

Services—Aircraft Operations (PANS– 

OPS) definitions which limits the 

proceed VFR PinS procedure to no more 

than 3 kilometers. 

As a result of this comment, the FAA 

revised the rule language for 

clarification. During preflight planning, 

pilots will be able to identify the type 

of approach to be flown, the distance to 

the destination from the missed 

approach point and determine the 

applicable weather minimums for the 

VFR segment of the flight. This section 

does not apply to ‘‘proceed visually’’ 

segments of instrument approaches, 

which are the final segments (minimum 

descent altitude or decision height) of 

instrument approaches prior to landing. 

VFR flight rules do not apply to 

‘‘proceed visually’’ segments. Instead, 

the weather minimums for ‘‘proceed 

visually’’ segments are found on the 

approach chart. This section applies to 

the ‘‘proceed VFR’’ segments of PinS 

approaches and VFR maneuvering after 

transitioning to VFR from an IFR 

approach. 

The FAA has reviewed the ICAO 

PANS–OPS requirements and concludes 

that the ICAO operational requirements 

are not significantly different from this 

rule. In both cases, once the pilot 

concludes the IFR portion of the flight, 

the pilot is no longer under air traffic 

control and is operating under VFR. 

Further, the ICAO PANS–OPS 

paragraph 4.1.2.2 contemplates that 

member States may establish minimum 

visibility for PinS Proceed VFR 

procedures. We note that this rule does 

not address instrument approach design 

standards. These are what dictate the 

length of a segment between a missed 

approach point and a landing area. The 

FAA expects that pilots who transition 

to VFR and then encounter weather 

below VFR minimums would execute a 

missed approach procedure, a standard 

procedure followed when an instrument 

approach cannot be completed, if 

available, or follow appropriate 

emergency procedures. 

The title of § 135.613 has been 

changed so that it more accurately 

reflects its subject. Additionally, the 

section has been reorganized for 

clarification. 

5. VFR Flight Planning (§ 135.615— 

Proposed § 135.613) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require helicopter air ambulance pilots 

conducting operations under VFR to 

perform preflight planning to determine 

the minimum safe altitude along the 

planned route.9 This proposal would 

codify a provision in OpSpec A021. 

As proposed, the rule requires 

helicopter air ambulance pilots 

conducting VFR operations to evaluate, 

document, and plan to clear terrain and 

obstacles by no less than 300 feet for 

day operations, and 500 feet at night. 

With this minimum safe cruise altitude 

established, the pilot must then use it to 

determine the minimum required 

ceiling and visibility for the flight. If the 

weather minimum will not permit 

visual flight at the minimum safe cruise 

altitude, the pilot must conduct the 

flight under IFR or not fly at all. The 

proposed rule allowed for deviations 

from the planned flight path if 

conditions or operational considerations 

make it necessary. If deviating, however, 

the pilot must still observe the weather 

or terrain/obstruction clearance 

requirements. This rule is intended to 

prevent obstacle collisions by requiring 

pilots to be aware of the terrain and 

highest obstacles along a planned route. 

The FAA received 79 comments on 

the proposal for VFR flight planning, 

including comments from several 

individuals affiliated with ACCT, Air 

Evac EMS, PHI, and REACH. Sixty-nine 

commenters, including ACCT, AMOA, 

PHI, Air Evac EMS, Angel One 

Transport, and REACH, agreed with the 

proposed language. 

NEMSPA strongly opposed the 

‘‘highest obstacle determination’’ of the 

proposed rule, commenting that this 

requirement would have dangerous 

unintended consequences since pilots 

with launch time requirements would 

have up to 40 percent of their available 

preflight time taken up by a superfluous 

task, resulting in the likelihood that 

some critical items will not be 

accomplished. This commenter further 

asserted that the highest obstacle 

requirement should only apply when 

flying outside of the local flying area in 

a helicopter not equipped with a night 

vision imaging system or HTAWS, when 

the reported or forecasted weather 

conditions are less than 5 statute miles 

visibility and/or the ceiling is less than 

3,000 feet above ground level or above 

the highest obstacle on the course. 

Although agreeing with this proposal, 

several commenters, including AMOA, 

Air Evac EMS, and individual members 

of ACCT, recommended applying it to 

all part 135 operators. The NTSB agreed 

with the intent of the requirement, but 

believes a number of issues should be 

clarified. It commented that the FAA 

should provide guidance for minimum 

route width requirements for obstacle 

and terrain clearance evaluation, 

because aircraft may deviate from the 

planned course centerline. Several 

commenters also noted that requiring 

that obstacles be cleared vertically is not 

practical when some obstacles can be 

cleared by flying around them and 

recommended adding a corresponding 

route width to the visibility minimum. 

The NTSB also requested that the FAA 

clarify whether route evaluations must 

be performed before each flight or if an 

approval of a flight path can be 

performed on a less frequent basis for 

frequently flown routes. 

The FAA has determined that 

establishing a minimum route width 

would have an overly burdensome effect 

on helicopter air ambulance operations 

and pose operational difficulties for 

pilots who fly in mountainous or urban 

environments. A minimum route width 

would require pilots to fly at an altitude 

sufficient to clear the obstacles within 

the designated route width. As an 

example, a 3-mile route width 

requirement could force a pilot who 

safely flies under visual flight rules in 

a valley to operate at an altitude above 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9948 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10NTSB, Special Investigation Report on 

Emergency Medical Services Operations (NTSB/

SIR–06/01) 4 (Jan. 25, 2006). 

the highest peak because the mountains 

on each side would be included in the 

route width. This could easily place a 

visual flight operator into instrument 

flight conditions. The FAA recognizes 

that helicopter air ambulance operations 

can be safely conducted under VFR, and 

therefore has chosen not to impose this 

limitation. Operators would need to 

evaluate the route prior to each VFR 

operation. 

This requirement is intended to 

prevent obstacle collisions by ensuring 

that pilots know the minimum safe 

altitude that would permit clearance for 

all obstacles along the route. Therefore, 

the FAA considers that VFR flight 

planning is not a superfluous task for 

pilots with launch time requirements, 

but rather an important safety 

requirement. Additionally, the FAA 

concludes that all helicopter air 

ambulance operations flights conducted 

under VFR will benefit from this safety 

requirement, and does not intend to 

restrict this requirement to flights 

outside of the local flying or flights 

without a night vision imaging system 

or HTAWS. 

This rule requires a pilot to perform 

preflight planning from takeoff to 

landing for each flight conducted under 

VFR. This rule does not permit a pilot 

to conduct preflight planning on a less 

frequent basis for frequently flown 

routes. The purpose of flight planning 

before each flight is to ensure that the 

information used is current, as 

conditions and obstacles may change 

between each flight. However, the FAA 

notes that if a route is flown routinely, 

the amount of time required to do the 

preflight planning may be reduced. As 

noted in the NPRM, a helicopter air 

ambulance mission may include more 

than one leg. The flight plan may be 

completed for the whole mission prior 

to the first leg, but each subsequent leg 

of the mission must be reconsidered 

before takeoff and amended as 

appropriate. 

The FAA will not apply this 

requirement to all commercial 

helicopter operations because it is not 

within the scope of the rulemaking. 

This requirement is adopted as 

proposed with minor edits for 

clarification. 

6. Pre-Flight Risk Analysis (§ 135.617— 

Proposed § 135.615) 

The FAA proposed establishing a 

requirement for helicopter air 

ambulance operators to conduct a 

preflight risk analysis. The risk analysis 

would focus on such variables as the 

characteristics of the planned flight 

path, flight crewmember ability to safely 

conduct the operation, weather, and 

whether the flight has been rejected by 

another operator. The purpose of this 

exercise is to give certificate holders a 

way to assess risk and determine 

whether any risks can be mitigated so 

that the flight can be conducted safely. 

A total of 83 commenters, including 

Air Methods, Advanced Life Support 

and Emergency Response Team 

(A.L.E.R.T.), Med-Trans Corporation 

(Med-Trans), NEMSPA, the NTSB, 

REACH, and Staff for Life commented 

on this section. Several of those 

commenters, including ACCT, 

MedCenter, MedServ International, LLC 

(MedServe), NEMSPA, and NTSB 

agreed with the proposal. 

Operational Considerations 

The NTSB noted that this rule should 

not be a substitute for the safety benefits 

that would be provided by an OCC. 

Other commenters, including HAI, MedTrans, and REACH, thought that the 

proposed requirement might duplicate 

the requirements for an OCC or safety 

management program. A.L.E.R.T. said 

that documenting risk assessments for 

every flight would be counterproductive 

and would delay responses without 

improving safety and that it performs a 

risk assessment for every shift—not 

every flight. Staff for Life said that the 

risk assessment is not necessary because 

it has never done anything to save lives 

and pilots are constantly assessing the 

risks during preflight, flight, and postflight. 

The FAA disagrees that a pilot’s inflight assessment of risks is a sufficient 

substitute for the preflight risk 

assessment. Rather, they are 

complementary. The purpose of 

assessing risk before an operation is to 

be able to mitigate those risks before the 

operation, thereby preventing a pilot 

from encountering an unmanageable 

situation while in the air. It is of course 

possible that a pilot will encounter risks 

while conducting the helicopter air 

ambulance operation despite having 

performed a preflight risk assessment, 

and it is then that the pilot’s skills will 

be used to mitigate those risks. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the FAA and 

the NTSB have identified several 

accidents which may have been 

prevented had a preflight risk analysis 

been completed. The NTSB concluded 

that ‘‘implementation of flight risk 

evaluation before each mission would 

enhance the safety of emergency 

medical services operations.’’ 10

This rule requires the pilot in 

command to conduct a preflight risk 

analysis before the first leg of a 

helicopter air ambulance operation. As 

discussed in the NPRM, it would be 

completed before departure on the first 

leg, but take into account factors that 

may be encountered during the entire 

operation. The FAA acknowledges that 

certain parts of a preflight risk analysis 

can be accomplished at the beginning of 

a shift. However, time-sensitive 

components of a preflight risk analysis, 

such as crew fatigue, weather, required 

fuel, and route-specific information, 

should be conducted as close to the 

flight launch as possible. A blanket 

analysis at the beginning of each shift 

may not provide an accurate risk 

assessment. 

The FAA acknowledges that the preflight risk analysis will be an additional 

requirement that must be performed 

before beginning a helicopter air 

ambulance operation and certificate 

holders may not be able to launch a 

flight as quickly as before. The initial 

regulatory evaluation estimated that the 

preflight risk analysis would take 10 

minutes to complete. The FAA has 

determined that a 10-minute delay is 

acceptable because of the safety benefit 

of identifying risks before flight. 

The FAA also understands that there 

will be overlap between this 

requirement and the OCC requirement 

for certificate holders with 10 or more 

helicopter air ambulances. Under that 

requirement, both the operations control 

specialist and the pilot in command will 

be required to complete and approve the 

risk analysis worksheet. This overlap is 

intended to provide larger operations 

with an additional measure of review 

over the flight’s risk analysis. 

Content of the Pre-Flight Risk Analysis 

Thirty-five commenters, including Air 

Methods and REACH, did not agree 

with the proposal to require certificate 

holders to establish a procedure to 

determine whether another operator has 

refused or rejected a flight, saying that 

such a procedure would be too 

haphazard and unreliable to serve as a 

regulatory requirement. AMOA said the 

provision is unfair and unrealistic 

without a companion requirement for 

operators to report a flight rejection. 

PHI, like AMOA, believes reporting of 

flight rejections by other operators 

cannot be done uniformly unless the 

other operators are required to report 

that information. 

The FAA has communicated with 

State EMS medical directors, advising 

them of the problem of helicopter 

shopping. We will continue this 

outreach to emphasize the importance 

of obtaining the reasons for flight refusal 

by helicopter air ambulance operators. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9949 

11Section 306(d)(1) of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires 

the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that provides for 

a flight risk evaluation program in helicopter air 

ambulance operations. Additionally, section 

306(c)(1) requires the rule to address flight request 

and dispatch procedures. 

We will also work with emergency 

dispatchers and certificate holders in 

sharing this information. 

Two commenters, including the 

Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators, agreed with the requirement 

to obtain concurrence on the preflight 

risk analysis from someone other than 

the flightcrew during marginal weather. 

Air Methods said the requirement for 

managerial approval of the preflight risk 

analysis when flight risk exceeds a 

predetermined level is unfeasible. PHI 

said it has its own risk assessment, 

which requires operational control 

management approval for flight requests 

above a preset risk matrix level. 

PHI requested eliminating the 

requirement for the pilot’s signature on 

the risk assessment before takeoff. 

Another commenter asked whether an 

electronic signature would be sufficient. 

The rule requires operators to 

establish and document, and include in 

their FAA-approved preflight risk 

analysis, a procedure for determining 

‘‘whether another helicopter air 

ambulance operator has refused or 

rejected a flight request.’’ The FAA 

understands the commenters’ concerns 

regarding the ability to obtain 

information about flight refusals and 

rejections from other operators. To 

clarify, it is not the intent of this rule 

to require a definitive declaration on the 

preflight risk assessment as to whether 

the flight has been refused or rejected by 

another operator. Rather, it would be 

acceptable for a certificate holder that is 

called for a flight to ask the dispatcher 

offering the flight if another operator has 

turned it down. If the person offering 

the flight (emergency dispatcher, 911 

operator, etc.) does not know or cannot 

give the reason why the flight was 

turned down, the certificate holder need 

only make note of that in the preflight 

risk analysis and factor in that 

information as deemed appropriate. 

Compliance with this rule does not 

require certificate holders to call other 

operators to ask if the flight was refused 

or rejected or to inform other operators 

that they have refused or rejected a 

flight. A flight would not be presumed 

high risk just because there was no 

definitive response from an emergency 

dispatcher about whether the flight was 

refused or rejected by another operator. 

An operator following this procedure 

will have fulfilled its duty with respect 

to the rule. 

The FAA has determined that 

although the flight refusal or rejection 

information need not be definitive, it 

can yield useful information about the 

potential risk of a flight. Additionally, 

the FAA believes that this requirement 

will encourage certificate holders to tell 

dispatchers why a flight is refused or 

rejected to provide valuable safety 

information to other operators. It may 

also encourage emergency dispatchers 

to develop procedures for obtaining this 

information. 

In the final rule, the FAA did not 

change the requirement for management 

approval of flights in situations where a 

predetermined risk level is exceeded. 

The FAA has determined that 

management input provides an 

important second opinion on whether to 

conduct a flight if the risk is not clear 

cut. The FAA reiterates that 

management involvement must not be 

used to pressure pilots into conducting 

a flight that the pilot has determined to 

be unsafe. Likewise, the FAA 

emphasizes that the rule permits 

certificate holders leeway to develop 

preflight risk assessment procedures 

that work for them within the 

parameters set by the rule. Operators 

like PHI, which have established 

procedures, may comply with this 

requirement by incorporating their 

existing procedures into the mandated 

risk assessment. 

Regarding whether an electronic 

signature on the preflight risk 

assessment would be accepted, the final 

rule does not specify the method by 

which a pilot must sign a preflight risk 

assessment. The purpose of the risk 

analysis requirement is to ensure that 

pilots examine the risks associated with 

an operation and get information to 

mitigate those risks. The signature is 

important because it is the pilot’s 

verification that the information in the 

risk analysis is accurate and complete. 

Therefore, an electronic signature would 

be acceptable. FAA guidance on 

electronic signatures is found in 

Advisory Circular (AC) 120–78 (October 

29, 2002). 

Other Comments 

A few commenters, including Metro 

Aviation and REACH, stated that the 

proposal for the risk assessment was 

unclear and left significant room for 

interpretation and inconsistent or 

uneven enforcement. Many commenters 

asked that the FAA revise its previous 

guidance on risk assessment to more 

adequately reflect current industry best 

practices and provide more consistency 

to the risk assessment and mitigation 

process. 

Some commenters asked the FAA to 

develop and improve the preflight risk 

analysis worksheets so they can be more 

meaningful and useful to pilots, crews, 

and operations center personnel. Four 

commenters, including Air Methods, 

Metro Aviation, and AMOA, asked that 

the requirement for FAA approval of the 

risk analysis procedures be deleted. An 

individual commented that the 

requirement to retain the records of the 

risk analysis for 90 days is inconsistent 

with the load manifest and flight log 

data retention requirements. 

This requirement is based on FAA 

Notice 8000.301, Operational Risk 

Assessment Programs for Helicopter 

Emergency Medical Services, which, in 

part, provides practical examples of 

preflight risk assessments. The FAA has 

determined that these examples, along 

with this rule, provide adequate 

direction to certificate holders for 

implementation of this rule. The FAA 

will provide guidance to inspectors on 

how to enforce this rule. Nevertheless, 

the rule has been designed to allow 

flexibility so that certificate holders can 

develop procedures appropriate for their 

operations. 

Finally, the FAA is not modifying the 

90-day data retention requirement. The 

90-day retention will allow the operator 

to conduct a quarterly review to identify 

trends in its operations to further 

mitigate risks in future flights. This 

requirement is adopted as proposed.11

7. Operations Control Centers (OCCs) 

(§§ 135.619, 120.105, and 120.215) 

The proposal included a new 

requirement that certificate holders with 

10 or more helicopter air ambulances 

establish OCCs staffed with operations 

control specialists. These specialists 

would take part in preflight risk analysis 

required by § 135.617, maintain twoway communications with pilots, give 

pilots weather information, and monitor 

the progress of the flight. They would 

ensure that the pilot has completed the 

preflight risk analysis worksheet, 

confirm and verify the entries on the 

worksheet, and work with the pilot to 

mitigate any identified risk. The 

specialist would also sign the risk 

assessment worksheet along with the 

pilot. Certificate holders would be 

required to train and provide enough 

staff for their OCCs to make sure these 

services could be provided. 

Applicability of the Rule 

A number of commenters (including 

AMOA, NTSB, LifeFlight of Maine, 

AAMS, Air Evac EMS, NEMSPA, PHI, 

and ACCT) addressed the proposed 

requirement for certificate holders with 

10 or more helicopter air ambulances to 

have an OCC. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9950 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

These commenters objected to 

applying this requirement only to 

operators with 10 or more helicopter air 

ambulances. One commenter said that 

fleet size has no bearing on the stated 

risks a pilot faces. AMOA, Air Evac 

EMS, ACCT, and PHI called the 

distinction ‘‘arbitrary and subjective’’ 

and said this distinction does not 

recognize the complexity of operating 

less than 10 helicopter air ambulances 

that are geographically separated. All of 

these commenters suggested that if there 

are clear benefits to the use of an OCC, 

then the requirements should be 

applicable to all. 

The NTSB commented that if 

operators with less than 10 helicopters 

are not included in this requirement, 

then they ‘‘will transport approximately 

100,000 patients or more per year 

without the added safety benefit of an 

OCC.’’ Commenters explained that 

while the requirement should apply to 

all operators, it should be scalable for 

those with less than 10 helicopters. 

Comments referenced AC 120–96, 

which provides guidance for setting up 

OCCs for four levels of operators based 

on size. 

LifeFlight of Maine commented that 

all air ambulances (both rotor and fixed 

wing) should have an OCC and that 

while 24 large certificate holders 

operate 70 percent of the aircraft in the 

industry (as stated in the NPRM), 

operators with less than 10 aircraft, who 

make up 68 percent of the certificate 

holders, are not immune to accidents 

and need the extra layer of protection 

given by an OCC. 

AAMS recommended allowing 

smaller operators to subcontract OCC 

services from larger providers or private 

vendors for certain flight tracking and 

communication services, while 

maintaining ultimate operational 

control of the flight. Med-Trans and 

REACH asked for the ability to contract 

for certain functions of an OCC with 

another OCC. REACH commented that 

contracting would allow more operators 

to take advantage of the many safety 

benefits of an OCC but also share the 

cost. It noted that each operator would 

retain management authority and 

operational control responsibility. 

Med-Trans and REACH also suggested 

an alternate way of applying the OCC 

requirements. They said that ‘‘[s]everal 

companies currently operate aircraft on 

several different certificates but only 

utilize one [OCC]. Several air medical 

operators operate air ambulances on 

multiple certificates. Operations control 

center functions can be conducted 

without imposing a requirement for an 

[OCC] for each certificate.’’ They stated 

that the rule must allow air medical 

operators to combine OCC functions for 

multiple certificate holders that are 

under the same management. They said 

that this will achieve the benefits of an 

OCC without the additional cost. They 

also noted that this change would 

prevent companies from establishing 

multiple certificates with 9 or fewer 

helicopters on each to avoid the OCC 

requirement. 

Angel One Transport, a hospital-based 

pediatric critical care transport in Little 

Rock, Arkansas, commented that the 

proposed exclusion of fixed-wing air 

ambulances and air ambulance 

operators with less than 9 helicopters 

creates an ‘‘at risk’’ group in the air 

medical industry. Angel One Transport 

said that ‘‘as a small operator, our 

program has many of the same 

characteristics of an OCC established in 

our program’s operations though we do 

not meet the stated letter of the law in 

the NPRM.’’ Angel One Transport asked 

the FAA to consider adding language 

that allows smaller operators to have the 

‘‘functional capabilities’’ of an 

operations control center, noting that 

‘‘the functions of an OCC are invaluable 

but the financial obligations for a small 

operator to comply with such 

requirements are cost prohibitive.’’ 

Another small operator, A.L.E.R.T. in 

Kalispell, Montana, operates with only 

one helicopter. The commenter stated 

that the requirement for OCCs is a good 

idea, but that it should be based on the 

number of aircraft and not the number 

of dispatches or flights. It further 

asserted that ‘‘an operational control 

center would be very costly, which 

could easily be absorbed by a larger 

operation but prohibitive to a small one 

and not necessary.’’ 

NEMSPA said that ‘‘for smaller 

operations with a dispatch or 

communications center, placing 

personnel in that facility who meet the 

requirements for an operational control 

specialist should satisfy the 

requirements for the facility to be an 

operational control center.’’ 

LifeFlight of Maine supported 

extending the OCC requirements to all 

operators of an air ambulance, including 

rotor or fixed wing, to have an OCC 

regardless of size. Only one commenter, 

AAMS, suggested that this compliance 

requirement should be based on number 

of hours flown and geographical area 

covered rather than number of 

helicopters. 

It is possible that a small operator 

with only one or two helicopters could 

reach a set hourly limit, but would not 

have the same level of operational 

complexity as a certificate holder flying 

the same number of hours but with 10 

or more helicopters. Nevertheless, the 

FAA is requiring an OCC only for 

certificate holders with 10 or more 

helicopter air ambulances, as proposed. 

As discussed in the NPRM, these larger 

certificate holders will gain the most 

benefit from an OCC because their 

operations are more complex. This 

requirement will cover approximately 

83 percent of the U.S. helicopter air 

ambulance fleet. 

The FAA specifically asked for 

comments on whether the applicability 

of this requirement should be based on 

the number of operations or hours flown 

by each aircraft, rather than fleet size. 

After evaluating the comments, the FAA 

has concluded that fleet size is the best 

method for determining whether the 

OCC requirement would apply. The 

fleet size requirement is easily observed 

and evaluated by industry and the FAA. 

Additionally, the FAA does not have 

data that would allow us to determine 

how many hours or number of 

operations would constitute a complex 

operation, nor has the FAA received 

such information during the comment 

period. 

The FAA acknowledges that one 

company may hold several certificates 

for helicopter air ambulance operations. 

In these circumstances, each certificate 

would be evaluated independently 

rather than in the aggregate. Provided 

that each certificate holder has fewer 

than 10 helicopters used for air 

ambulances in its fleet, then no OCC 

would be required. 

Other OCC Comments 

PHI noted that OCCs were originally 

an invention of air medical operators to 

more effectively manage operations 

control. PHI said its Enhanced 

Operations Control Center has become a 

critical component in the company’s 

safety and risk management process as 

well as the OCC within the company. 

PHI, however, along with AMOA, Air 

Evac EMS, and ACCT, does not believe 

the requirement as proposed is 

consistent with the highest industry 

standards. These commenters also 

believe that the OCC requirements are 

too much like those for part 121 air 

traffic control and dispatch functions 

and are not compatible with part 135 

on-demand operations. They suggested 

delaying implementation of the rule 

until a minimum operating standard 

based on industry best practices could 

be developed. They recommend the 

FAA conduct an additional study of 

existing OCCs. 

LifeFlight of Maine commented that 

AC 120–96 is inadequate for principal 

operations inspectors and recommended 

additional guidance in line with 

industry best practices. The National 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9951 

12Statement from the Association of Air Medical 

Services, Helicopter Association International, and 

Air Medical Operators Association to the NTSB 14 

(Jan. 13, 2009), available at http://www.ntsb.gov/

Dockets/Aviation/DCA09SH001/default.htm. 

Association of Air Medical 

Communications Specialists (NAACS) 

sought clarification on the meaning of 

‘‘formalized dispatch’’ and ‘‘enhanced 

operational procedures.’’ 

As noted in the NPRM, the duties and 

training requirements of operations 

control specialists are based on AC 120– 

96, Integration of Operations Control 

Centers into Helicopter Emergency 

Medical Services Operations (May 

2008), which provides 

recommendations to assist helicopter air 

ambulance operators with the 

development and implementation of an 

OCC. Also as noted, AAMS, HAI, and 

AMOA commented to the NTSB that the 

AC is a ‘‘product of a survey of best 

practices in the air medical industry and 

gives guidance to other air medical 

services as to the benefits of this type of 

operation.’’ 12 These requirements found 

in the AC and in the rule are 

intentionally similar to part 121, but as 

noted in the AC, helicopter air 

ambulance operations are unique and 

therefore the FAA did not adopt the full 

part 121 aircraft dispatch requirements. 

We also note that the standard adopted 

in this rule is a baseline that can be 

augmented by an operator. 

Operations Control Specialists 

One commenter said that the FAA 

should require a dispatch center staffed 

with part 121 certificated dispatchers. 

This commenter said that the FAA 

should certify dispatchers, and those 

dispatchers should plan and evaluate 

the entire flight before contacting the 

pilot and then monitor the flight’s 

progress to destination. 

The NTSB also supported FAA 

certification of operations control 

specialists and commented that such a 

requirement will ensure that the FAA 

has oversight over training, testing, and 

certification, and will provide quality 

control. By requiring operations control 

specialists with standard certification, 

NTSB asserts that this may facilitate 

development of OCCs that will be able 

to subcontract their services to smaller 

HEMS entities. 

NEMSPA recommended a standard 

for operations control specialist training 

set by the industry and approved by the 

FAA before any requirement is put in 

place. Med-Trans, REACH, Air Evac 

EMS, AMOA, California Shock Trauma 

Air Rescue (CALSTAR), Omniflight 

Helicopters, Inc. (Omniflight), and 

Intermountain Life Flight do not believe 

that operations control specialists 

should be required to obtain 

certification in order to do their work. 

However, one individual questioned 

why a certified dispatcher is not 

qualified to act in an operations control 

position but a graduate of a companysponsored program is. 

The FAA received comments stating 

that the operations control specialist 

training proposed in the NPRM too 

closely follows the training program for 

part 121 dispatchers. The FAA 

acknowledges that the requirements of 

this rule were based on part 121 

dispatcher training rules. The topics 

selected for training, however, were 

derived from FAA AC 120–96, which 

provides a recommended training 

curriculum for communications 

specialists. The certificate holder may 

contract for operations control specialist 

training or testing in accordance with 

§ 135.324. The certificate holder may 

use a part 142 training center or another 

certificate holder for operations control 

specialist training and testing. 

Commenters also asked for a clearer 

distinction between the operations 

control specialists required by this rule 

and ‘‘CommSpecs,’’ the communication 

specialists currently employed in the air 

ambulance industry. NAACS asked 

whether the aviation base curriculum 

for operations control specialists would 

enhance safety benefits beyond the 

current ‘‘Certified Flight 

Communicator’’ program offered by 

NAACS. In response to this question, 

the FAA notes that the areas of required 

training for an operations control 

specialist, derived from AC 120–96, are 

specified in the rule. Compliance with 

this rule will enhance safety because the 

training will be required and 

standardized for all operations control 

specialists. The FAA does not believe 

that a distinction between operations 

control specialists and CommSpecs is 

necessary. This rule requires that an 

OCC be staffed by an operations control 

specialist at all times while helicopter 

air ambulance flights are being 

conducted. The number of persons 

functioning in this capacity is not 

mandated, but there must be a sufficient 

number of them to ensure operational 

control of each flight. An operator may 

also staff an OCC with CommSpecs, but 

these persons are not mandated and 

they may not perform the functions of 

an operations control specialist as listed 

in § 135.619(a)(1)–(4) unless they satisfy 

the qualification and training 

requirements of an operation controls 

specialist. 

Thirty-four commenters, including 

Air Evac EMS, Intermountain, MedTrans, Metro Aviation, Inc. (Metro 

Aviation), National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA) and REACH, 

objected to the proposed 10-hour duty 

time limitation for operations control 

specialists. They commented that this 

operations control specialist work shift 

limit reflects regulations applied to part 

121 dispatchers and does not reflect any 

best practice or proven standard in the 

air medical community. Air ambulance 

pilots, although only permitted to fly 8 

hours, work a 12-hour shift. These 

commenters, including AMOA, PHI, Air 

Evac EMS, and ACCT, described 

situations where the differences in shift 

hours could interfere with completion 

of a mission. PHI believes that requiring 

a duty day for these specialists that is 

less than that required of pilots is both 

arbitrary and unnecessary. PHI said that 

the operations control specialist 

requirement for a 10-hour workday 

effectively adds an additional full-time 

employee to the OCC and significant 

costs to the operator without a 

demonstrated benefit. REACH remarked 

that it is unclear why OCC personnel 

should be more limited in their duty 

time than flight or medical crews. 

After reviewing these comments, the 

FAA has determined that the proposed 

operations control specialist duty time 

is appropriate. The FAA acknowledges 

that these standards may be different 

than what some communications 

specialists may currently be practicing. 

However, as discussed in the NPRM, the 

operations control specialist duty time 

limitation is based on the duty time 

requirements for part 121 aircraft 

dispatchers. The FAA has determined 

that, based on the similarities of these 

positions, it is appropriate to use the 

same duty time limitation. Finally, 

although pilots may have a longer duty 

period than operations control 

specialists under this rule, the flight 

time limitations placed on pilots within 

their duty periods (or subsequent rest 

requirements) limits the pilot’s exposure 

to risk. 

In conjunction with the proposal for 

OCCs, the FAA proposed revising 

§§ 120.105 and 120.215 to add 

operations control specialists to the list 

of persons who must be tested for drugs 

and alcohol. Eleven commenters, 

including Air Methods, Metro Aviation, 

and several individuals affiliated with 

REACH, argued that operations control 

specialists should be exempt from part 

120 drug and alcohol testing. 

Operations control specialists will be 

performing safety-sensitive functions 

such as providing preflight weather 

assessment, assisting with fuel planning 

and alternate airport weather 

minimums, and communicating with 

pilots about operational concerns during 

flight. These duties are similar to those 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9952 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13See §§ 13.14 (Civil Penalties: General); 13.16 

(Civil Penalties); 120.33 (Use of Prohibited Drugs); 

120.37 (Misuse of Alcohol). 

14Section 306(d)(2) of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires 

the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that requires 

operations control centers for helicopter air 

ambulance services with 10 or more helicopters. 

Additionally, section 306(c)(1) requires the rule to 

address flight request and dispatch procedures. 

15Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires the 

FAA to conduct rulemaking on helicopter air 

ambulance operations to address ‘‘flight request and 

dispatch procedures.’’ Though the benefits are less 

than costs for this provision, it satisfies the 

Congressional mandate as required by the Act. 

of an aircraft dispatcher, and thus 

operations control specialists would be 

subject to the same restrictions on drug 

and alcohol use, and to a certificate 

holder’s drug and alcohol testing 

program, as described in 14 CFR part 

120. 

An operations control specialist who 

failed a drug test, functioned as an 

operations control specialist without 

completing training or passing 

examinations, or verified false entries 

on a preflight analysis worksheet, could 

be subject to enforcement action or civil 

penalties.13

The FAA’s reference to ‘‘formalized 

dispatch’’ in the NPRM refers to an 

established consistent process that 

certificate holders will use when 

dispatching a flight. The term 

‘‘enhanced operational control’’ 

involves more people than only the 

pilot in the flight release process. For 

example, it may include the pilot and an 

operational control specialist, the chief 

pilot, or the director of flight operations. 

Section 135.619 is adopted as 

proposed. The wording has been 

modified to ensure clarity.14

8. Briefing of Medical Personnel 

(§§ 135.117 and 135.621—Proposed 

§ 135.619) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require that medical personnel on board 

a helicopter air ambulance flight receive 

a supplemental preflight safety briefing 

with information specific to helicopter 

air ambulance flights.15 This 

information would be in addition to the 

passenger briefing currently required by 

§ 135.117. As an alternative to the 

proposed preflight safety briefing, 

certificate holders would be permitted 

to provide training every 2 years to 

medical personnel through an FAAapproved training program. 

The NTSB, A.L.E.R.T., LifeFlight of 

Maine, AAMS, and Angel One 

Transport supported the requirement. 

LifeFlight of Maine noted that continual 

educational opportunities for medical 

personnel will further enhance 

situational awareness and promote 

operational safety. 

AAMS, while supporting this 

proposal, suggested that the FAA work 

with industry to develop standardized 

briefing criteria and procedures in order 

to avoid confusion and inconsistent 

enforcement of this provision. Several 

commenters also suggested that 

accommodations should be made to 

permit briefings that are not as extensive 

as those proposed for the rare instances 

when medical personnel not associated 

with air medical operations are 

transported. 

Several commenters, including the 

NTSB, NEMSPA, and the Society of 

Aviation and Flight Educators, 

suggested that medical personnel safety 

training be conducted on an annual 

basis because much of their knowledge 

will degrade over time. A.L.E.R.T. made 

a similar suggestion, noting that it 

conducts training when it hires new 

personnel and annually after. AMOA, 

PHI, NEMSPA, the Health Care District 

of Palm Beach County and Air Evac 

EMS recommended that the FAA 

develop a standard and an approval 

process for a medical crew training 

program. Several commenters suggested 

that the medical personnel training 

program should be consistent with the 

Air Medical Resource Management 

(AMRM) program supported by FAA 

and industry. AMOA, PHI and Air Evac 

EMS also commented that it is 

unnecessary to require medical 

personnel training record retention for 

an additional 60 days beyond the 24 

months. 

AMOA, PHI, and Air Evac EMS 

expressed several concerns with this 

provision. They commented that a lack 

of formal guidance would lead to 

misunderstanding of the requirements 

along with inconsistent application and 

enforcement. 

The FAA finds that medical personnel 

on helicopter air ambulance flights will 

benefit from an increased familiarity 

with the helicopter and emergency 

procedures due to their unique role of 

providing patient care while 

simultaneously working around an 

operating helicopter. The preflight 

briefing and training is intended to 

prevent medical personnel from 

inadvertently introducing risk to the 

operation when outfitting the passenger 

compartment for the purpose of 

providing medical treatment and when 

providing medical care to a patient. 

The FAA notes that medical 

personnel preflight briefing and training 

is distinct from AMRM training. The 

AMRM program is not a preflight safety 

briefing, but rather a tool used by 

operators to improve communication 

and teambuilding skills among its 

employees during air medical 

operations. While the FAA supports the 

use of the AMRM program, it is a 

distinct program and unrelated to the 

medical personnel preflight safety 

briefing/training proposed in the NPRM 

and adopted in the rule. 

As proposed in the NPRM and 

contained in the final rule, this 

provision requires a briefing for medical 

personnel on the physiological aspects 

of flight, patient loading and unloading, 

safety in and around the helicopter, inflight emergency procedures, emergency 

landing procedures, emergency 

evacuation procedures, efficient and 

safe communications with the pilot, and 

operational differences between day and 

night operation. The FAA concludes 

that these requirements will provide 

certificate holders with sufficient 

guidance on how to conduct briefings, 

which will lead to consistent 

application and enforcement of this 

provision. Additionally, as proposed in 

the NPRM and contained in the final 

rule, this provision mandates that any 

certificate holder that chooses to 

conduct a medical personnel training 

program in lieu of preflight briefings 

must have an FAA-approved training 

program in place. This will also ensure 

consistency in application and 

enforcement of this provision. 

The FAA will not provide exceptions 

or accommodations to permit briefings 

that are not as extensive as those 

proposed for the rare instances when 

medical personnel not associated with 

air medical operations are transported. 

All medical personnel onboard a 

helicopter air ambulance flight who 

have not received the optional training 

provided for by this rule must receive 

the preflight safety briefing. Medical 

personnel not associated with that 

particular operation may still 

inadvertently introduce risk to the 

operation when on board the flight. The 

preflight safety briefing will provide 

these medical personnel with familiarity 

with the helicopter and emergency 

procedures, thus reducing the risk that 

those personnel will affect the overall 

safety of the operation. If medical 

personnel are not being transported 

during a ‘‘helicopter air ambulance 

operation’’ as defined in § 135.601, the 

operator would only need to provide the 

standard part 135 passenger briefing as 

found in § 135.117. 

The FAA has determined that medical 

personnel safety training will be 

conducted every 24 months. The NPRM 

proposed training every 24 months, and 

although commenters suggested that 

training occur on an annual basis, the 

FAA has determined that the required 4 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9953 

16The report can be accessed at: http://

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/sir0601.html 

(December, 10, 2013). 

hours of ground training and 4 hours of 

training in and around the air 

ambulance helicopter every 24 months 

will provide a sufficient amount of 

familiarity with the aircraft and 

emergency procedures. 

Final Rule 

Based on the comments received, the 

FAA is adopting the rule as proposed 

with changes. The FAA concludes that 

requiring medical personnel training 

record retention for an additional 60 

days beyond the 24 months is 

unnecessary and has amended the final 

rule to require that records be 

maintained for only 24 months 

following the individual’s completion of 

training. If an incident occurs near the 

end of the retention period, the FAA 

expects that these relevant documents 

will be retained per NTSB regulation 49 

CFR § 380.10(d). Additionally, we 

removed redundant briefing topics in 

§ 135.621 based on existing briefing 

requirements of § 135.117. 

9. Helicopter Terrain Awareness and 

Warning Systems (HTAWS) (§ 135.605) 

The FAA proposed a requirement for 

equipping helicopter air ambulances 

with HTAWS. There is no existing 

requirement for this equipment. One 

commenter stated that installation of 

HTAWS has been ‘‘the single most 

effective technology for reducing 

helicopter mishaps’’ among U.S. 

military helicopters. The NTSB 

concurred with the proposal and noted 

that it would meet Safety 

Recommendation A–06–15. However, 

commenters also raised concerns over 

the effectiveness of HTAWS, the need 

for flexibility, and the cost of the rule. 

A number of commenters, including 

NEMSPA, questioned why the FAA 

would propose mandating HTAWS, 

saying that its technology has not been 

proven in helicopters. Commenters 

assert that terrain awareness and 

warning systems (TAWS), the 

predecessor to HTAWS technology, has 

only been truly tested with airplanes 

operating in the high altitude 

instrument flight rules environment and 

that there is no evidence to show that 

HTAWS is effective in low-level visual 

flight operations. Other commenters 

said that this equipment is more 

effective in mountainous areas than in 

less challenging terrain, is a ‘‘distraction 

in the cockpit,’’ ‘‘doesn’t give the pilot 

the ability to see and avoid weather,’’ 

and ‘‘doesn’t keep you from spatial 

disorientation.’’ A number of 

commenters said that requiring 

operators to invest in this technology 

today might preclude them from 

acquiring more effective technology as it 

becomes available in the future. 

EADS Cassidian Electronics stated 

that air ambulance operators are the 

most prominent part of the flying 

community for which HTAWS can 

assist in preventing controlled flight 

into terrain and obstacle strike 

accidents, but the FAA should be clear 

about the limitations of current HTAWS 

systems caused by the reliance on 

databases. It stated that the vertical 

accuracy of the ground altitude of a 

database is approximately 60 feet, 

which does not include objects like 

trees, ‘‘which seems to be insufficient 

for take-off and landing.’’ Databases, 

according to the commenter, only 

include a fraction of man-made 

obstacles, such as power lines, antenna 

masts, and wind turbines which are not 

included in the database in real time. To 

resolve these problems, the commenter 

stated that the best solution would be to 

require equipment with a real-time 

forward-looking sensor system that 

would issue warnings for every obstacle 

in the flight. 

AAMS commented that HTAWS and 

night vision goggles (NVGs) should be 

required together as each provides 

benefits that complement the other. 

LifeFlight of Maine commented that 

HTAWS and NVGs should be a 

minimum standard for night operations. 

Max-Viz Inc. (Max-Viz) and several 

individuals commented that NVGs 

provide better protection from 

controlled flight into terrain than 

HTAWS. Additionally, one individual 

recommended requiring an autopilot 

rather than HTAWS because it is less 

expensive and more effective. Several 

members of ACCT also stated that 

autopilots are more effective than 

HTAWS. They claimed that HTAWS 

only provides a warning to a pilot of an 

impending collision or altitude loss, but 

the pilot’s corrective actions with the 

flight controls prevent controlled flight 

into terrain. They stated that an 

autopilot would decrease the risk of 

controlled flight into terrain and 

accidents from IIMC by holding the 

aircraft flight path steady and reducing 

a pilot’s susceptibility to spatial 

disorientation during IIMC recovery 

maneuvers. The reasons that the FAA 

did not adopt NVG or autopilot 

requirements in this rule are addressed 

in the discussion of pilot instrument 

ratings, § 135.603, below. 

The FAA disagrees with comments 

that HTAWS is not proven technology 

as it relates to helicopters and that it 

would not be effective in preventing 

controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents. 

RTCA/DO–309 Minimum Operational 

Performance Standards for HTAWS and 

Airborne Equipment TSO–C194 set the 

standards for HTAWS. The FAA and 

manufacturers have installed, evaluated 

and certified HTAWS in helicopters and 

the systems have been shown to perform 

their intended function as designed in 

low altitude environments. 

The FAA concludes that the use of 

HTAWS would create a safer 

environment for emergency medical 

services flight operations by preventing 

controlled flight into terrain at night or 

during bad weather. As noted in the 

NPRM, the NTSB cites 17 accidents in 

its Special Investigation Report on 

Emergency Medical Services Operations 

(Jan. 25, 2006) 16 that may have been 

prevented if the helicopters had been 

equipped with TAWS. The FAA 

maintains that HTAWS will make 

helicopter air ambulance pilots more 

aware of surrounding terrain and 

obstacles and keep them from collisions. 

It may prevent the accidents that 

happen when a pilot must take sudden 

and quick action to avoid a collision 

and then loses control of the helicopter. 

The FAA acknowledges that there 

may be lags between the time when new 

obstacles are erected and the time when 

they are put into an HTAWS database. 

However, the FAA has determined that 

the VFR flight planning and the VFR 

altitude requirements adopted here will 

help to offset such a lag by providing 

increased situational awareness to 

pilots. Likewise, the radio altimeter 

required under these rules will provide 

increased situational awareness by 

providing pilots with additional 

information about their altitude above 

the ground. 

The FAA received several comments 

addressing the flexibility in the rule and 

whether the implementation timeline is 

appropriate. Commenters including 

AMOA and PHI expressed the need for 

minimum equipment list (MEL) relief 

for HTAWS in the event that the unit is 

inoperable. Air Methods stated that the 

rule’s reliance on the technical standard 

order (TSO) process would ‘‘inhibit 

future technological benefits without a 

lengthy rule changing process.’’ The 

Health Care District of Palm Beach 

County stated that, in the future, 

HTAWS may not be the most effective 

way to achieve terrain and obstacle 

avoidance. AMOA commented that the 

rule should be performance based to 

allow flexibility for incorporation of 

later technology. 

LifeFlight of Maine and other 

members of the ACCT stated that they 

believed that the 3-year timeline for 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9954 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

17Section 306(c)(3) of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires 

the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that addresses use 

of HTAWS in helicopter air ambulance operations. 

18Section 306(a) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) directs the 

FAA to conduct rulemaking on helicopter air 

ambulance operations to address ‘‘safety enhancing 

technology and equipment,’’ including ‘‘devices 

that perform the function of flight data recorders 

and cockpit voice recorders.’’ Though the benefits 

are less than costs for this provision, it satisfies the 

Congressional mandate as required by the Act. 

19Although the NPRM did not contain proposed 

rule text, the FAA provided a detailed discussion 

of the proposals under consideration and asked for 

comments in anticipation of including an FDMS 

requirement in the final rule. 

implementation provides ample time to 

comply with the rule and to finance the 

costs. They did not agree with extending 

the time to comply or limiting the 

applicability of this requirement. 

FreeFlight Systems also commented that 

the 3-year implementation period 

seemed reasonable. 

Bristow Group noted its support for 

requiring all helicopters engaged in 

commercial service to be equipped with 

HTAWS if not already equipped with a 

radio-altimeter-based warning system. 

The FAA acknowledges that 

technology could be improved over 

time, but does not agree that mandating 

this particular type of equipment will 

constrain the ability to embrace new 

technologies. Incorporation by reference 

of new TSO requirements allows the 

agency to adopt revised technological 

standards. The need to incorporate new 

TSOs into the regulation, due to 

technological innovation, will not 

hinder adoption of that technology in 

helicopter air ambulances. 

In response to comments on the need 

for flexibility should an HTAWS unit 

become inoperable, the FAA agrees that 

an HTAWS may meet the requirements 

for MEL relief with certain conditions 

on the types of operations that could be 

conducted while the HTAWS was 

inoperable. The exact scope of such 

relief will be addressed through the 

FAA’s standard MEL process. 

Based on the comments received, the 

FAA has determined that the 

compliance date for the HTAWS 

requirement does not need to be 

extended. Extending the HTAWS 

requirement to the entire commercial 

helicopter population would be outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Finally, West Michigan Air Care 

estimated that its cost of compliance 

with the HTAWS requirement would be 

$75,000 for its two-helicopter air 

ambulance operation. The FAA notes 

that this estimate is consistent with the 

FAA’s estimate of $35,000 per 

helicopter for equipment and 

installation, plus $7,000 for revenue loss 

for equipment downtime. Additionally, 

while the FAA recognizes the financial 

burden new equipment requirements 

impose on operators, providing 3 years 

from the effective date of the final rule 

for installation will allow certificate 

holders to spread the cost of compliance 

over that period of time and take 

advantage of scheduled downtime for 

maintenance. 

This rule is adopted as proposed with 

minor edits for clarification.17

10. Flight Data Monitoring System 

(§ 135.607) 18

In the NPRM, the FAA stated it was 

considering requiring helicopter air 

ambulance operators to install a flight 

data monitoring system, referred to in 

the NPRM as a light weight aircraft 

recording system (LARS).19 Currently, 

§ 135.151 requires a cockpit voice 

recorder (CVR) system in rotorcraft with 

a passenger seating configuration of six 

or more seats and for which two pilots 

are required. Section 135.152 requires 

flight data recorders (FDRs) in rotorcraft 

with a passenger seating configuration 

of 10 or more seats. Most helicopters 

used in air ambulance operations are 

configured with fewer than six 

passenger seats, and thus are not 

required to be equipped with either 

CVRs or FDRs. 

In the NPRM, the FAA invited 

comments on the flight data monitoring 

system proposal under consideration. 

The FAA proposed that the flight data 

monitoring system ‘‘would be required 

to capture data according to a broadly 

defined set of parameters including 

information pertaining to the aircraft’s 

state (such as heading, altitude, and 

attitude), condition (such as rotors, 

transmission, engine parameters, and 

flight controls), and system performance 

(such as full authority digital engine 

control, and electronic flight 

instrumentation system).’’ Further, as 

proposed, the flight data monitoring 

system would have to be operated from 

the application of electrical power 

before takeoff until the removal of 

electrical power after termination of 

flight. It would be required to receive 

electrical power from the bus that 

provides the maximum reliability for 

operation without jeopardizing service 

to essential or emergency loads. Under 

the proposal, certificate holders would 

have had 3 years to comply with the 

rule. The FAA noted a flight data 

monitoring system can be used to 

promote operational safety, and that, 

because so few certificate holders are 

using such systems, it may be necessary 

to require them. Likewise, the FAA 

stated that these systems can provide 

critical information to investigators in 

the event of an accident. 

The FAA received numerous 

comments on this proposal regarding 

flight data monitoring system use in 

accident investigation and Flight 

Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) 

programs, the standards for the flight 

data monitoring system, the rule’s 

implementation date, and the FAA’s 

cost estimate. 

Accident Investigation/Use in a FOQA 

Program 

Many commenters supported a 

requirement for FOQA. LifeFlight of 

Maine and members of ACCT support 

both a requirement to install a flight 

data monitoring system and a 

requirement to participate in the FOQA 

program, and commented that flight 

data monitors can assist with accident 

investigation. They recommended that 

the FAA conduct a joint technical study 

with the NTSB and air ambulance 

operators who are using a FOQA 

program to determine the data capture 

rate needed to meet NTSB accident 

investigation needs and what data 

feedback requirements would best 

support FOQA programs. Eurocopter 

commented that FOQA use is preferable 

to use in accident investigation, and the 

Global Helicopter Flight Data 

Monitoring Steering Group commented 

that accident investigation use is only 

reactive, but FOQA use can be 

proactive. 

PHI supports installation and use of a 

flight data monitoring system in air 

ambulance aircraft. It suggested 

requiring operators to develop an 

internal process for using data collected 

by the system for analysis, identification 

and mitigation of at-risk behaviors 

across the organization, as well as 

development of supplemental 

educational opportunities for air 

ambulance pilots. PHI said that the 

focus of the flight data monitoring 

system should be to prevent accidents. 

It said the emphasis should be placed 

on FOQA and flight data management 

implementation and benefits. HAI 

supports and encourages flight data 

monitoring technology because it has 

obvious safety benefits for accident 

investigation and the potential for 

development of FOQA and other safety 

programs. Alakai Technologies 

Corporation commented that the 

requirement should be extended across 

all helicopter operations. 

An individual commented that 

satellite tracking, currently in use by his 

company, records flight information that 

can be used to help rescue the aircraft 

and provides the necessary information 

on aircraft operations making a flight 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9955 

data monitoring system unnecessary. 

Kestrel Air stated that the cause of most 

air ambulance accidents is already 

known and that flight data monitoring 

systems do not record flight visibility 

data, thus adding little value to 

analyzing IIMC encounters. 

A FOQA program is meant to improve 

flight safety by providing more 

information about, and greater insight 

into, the total flight operations 

environment. This is accomplished with 

selective automated recording and 

analysis of data generated during flight 

operations. Analysis of FOQA data can 

reveal situations that require 

improvement—in operations, in 

training, and in maintenance 

procedures, practices, equipment, or 

infrastructure. 

In response to comments about 

mandatory FOQA participation, the 

FAA notes that 14 CFR part 13, 

Investigative and Enforcement 

Procedures, states conditions under 

which information obtained from an 

approved voluntary FOQA program will 

not be used in enforcement actions 

against an operator or its employees. 

Part 193, Protection of Voluntarily 

Submitted Information, contains 

provisions for certain protections from 

public disclosure of voluntarily 

submitted safety-related information 

when such information has been 

designated by an FAA order as 

protected under that part. As stated in 

the NPRM, these protections are 

available only if the data is collected by 

the operator as part of a voluntary FAAapproved program. In support of this 

public safety objective, the FAA has 

endorsed the development and 

implementation of voluntary FOQA 

programs as a tool for continuously 

monitoring and evaluating operational 

practices and procedures, but 

maintaining the voluntary nature of the 

program is paramount and does not 

allow the FAA to mandate FOQA for 

any operator. 

As discussed in the NPRM, this 

equipment may be used to provide 

significant information for investigators 

to determine accident causation, which 

may help to prevent future accidents. In 

addition, the data can be used 

proactively by an operator to modify 

operational and maintenance 

procedures for increased efficiency and 

lower costs, to provide immediate 

feedback to pilots in training, and to 

highlight areas where additional 

training may be needed. 

The final rule requires certificate 

holders operating helicopter air 

ambulances to install and operate a 

flight data monitoring system in their 

helicopters. The FAA is not extending 

this requirement to all helicopter 

operations because that option was not 

presented in the NPRM. Although the 

FAA encourages operators to take 

advantage of the many uses of this data, 

this final rule does not require data 

collection because mandating it would 

open up that data to FAA surveillance, 

amounting to a required submission. 

The FAA is concerned that such an 

action would discourage operators from 

participating in a FOQA program. 

Although operators will not be 

required to collect data from the flight 

data monitoring system, the FAA 

encourages them to gather this 

information and analyze it for use in 

improving safety in their day-to-day 

operations. Based on current practice, 

some will choose to use the system this 

way. The rule will not preclude 

operators from participation in an FAAapproved FOQA program, and data 

submitted voluntarily as part of a FOQA 

program will be protected under part 

193. 

The FAA anticipates that the 

information that this equipment can 

gather may be used as a supplement to 

a certificate holder’s training program. 

Flight Data Monitoring System 

Capabilities 

The FAA received many comments on 

the flight data monitoring system 

standards discussed in the NPRM, 

including several stating that a 

regulation is not appropriate at this 

time. However, the FAA also received 

comments in support of flight data 

monitoring system, including from the 

NTSB. 

AAMS supports installation of a flight 

data monitoring system on air 

ambulance helicopters but says the 

proposal was not specific enough to 

justify a regulation at this time. NORTH 

Flight Data Systems stated a regulation 

would slow technological development 

of these systems. PHI recommended that 

the FAA conduct a comprehensive 

outreach process in partnership with 

certificate holders who currently have a 

flight data monitoring system installed 

and are participating in flight data 

monitoring FOQA programs. The 

commenter suggested this as a way to 

determine what data is needed for flight 

data management and what are realistic 

cost estimates for installing those 

systems and operating a fully functional 

flight data monitoring FOQA program. 

AMOA suggested waiting to establish 

a regulation until there is a more 

thorough understanding of current 

products, but also noted the need for 

MEL relief if a rule were adopted. HAI 

stated the technology is not sufficiently 

mature at this time to justify a 

regulation. Eurocopter recommended 

defining the required parameters in 

conjunction with aircraft manufacturers 

before regulating. Honeywell 

International also suggested the 

development of minimum performance 

specifications. The General Aviation 

Safety Network commented that what 

was proposed, with respect to required 

parameters, is too close to an FDR. 

The FAA also received several 

comments on whether the flight data 

monitoring system under the rule would 

need to comply with European 

Organization for Civil Aviation 

Equipment (EUROCAE) Document ED– 

155 or TSO–C197. 

NTSB said that a recorder that 

complies with ED–155 would be a 

valuable aid to accident investigations 

and would be fully capable of 

supporting a structured flight data 

monitoring program. The NTSB notes 

that a considerable amount of work has 

been done by EUROCAE (with full 

participation by both the FAA and the 

NTSB) to develop standards for lightweight flight recording devices that 

would fulfill the requirements outlined 

in the NPRM. The ED–155 standard 

covers FDR-like data recording, CVRlike audio recording, cockpit video, and 

data-link message recording. Several 

manufacturers are producing recorders 

to this standard at a cost of less than 

$10,000. 

FreeFlight Systems, an avionics 

manufacturer, said that TSO–C197 will 

drive up costs because it does not allow 

commercial-grade operating systems. 

This commenter said that, rather than 

using a TSO, a parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA) should suffice, since a 

flight data monitor failure does not 

endanger the airframe or other systems 

in the aircraft. For accident 

investigation purposes, FreeFlight 

indicated that it produces a hardened 

memory unit which provides protection 

of vital information in the event of a 

crash. It has significant ballistics 

protection and can withstand a 

temperature of 1,100 degrees Celsius for 

up to an hour. 

The General Aviation Safety Network 

commented that no certification should 

be required, except for RTCA DO–160E 

environmental categorization. NORTH 

Flight Data Systems commented that the 

‘‘crashworthy focus’’ of the NPRM will 

make many products undergo redesign 

to meet the TSO or ED–155 standards. 

The FAA agrees with the NTSB that 

several manufacturers have recording 

systems able to record flight 

performance data, audio, images, and 

data-link messages. This final rule is 

performance based and compliance with 

this rule does not necessarily require 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

installation of a TSO-approved system. 

However, TSO–C197-approved articles 

are an acceptable means of compliance 

with new § 135.607. This equipment 

must be capable of recording flight 

performance data. Considering the 

availability of such technology, the FAA 

has determined that a final rule 

requiring all air ambulance helicopters 

to equip with a flight data monitoring 

system is justified. This final rule 

requires installation and operation of a 

flight data monitoring system, but it 

does not require collection of data from 

that equipment or development of data 

collection processes. 

In response to these comments, the 

FAA offers clarification. The parameters 

described in the NPRM were meant to 

illustrate the type of data that could be 

collected by this equipment. In the final 

rule, the FAA does not specify 

parameters of data or specifically 

identify a set of performance standards 

that must be met. The final rule also 

does not require data collection or data 

analysis. It requires only that a flight 

data monitoring system capable of 

recording flight performance data be 

installed. This final rule simply requires 

equipment—not data collection. The 

rule does not establish standards for 

crashworthiness or environmental 

testing. This final rule uses a cost model 

for an approved flight data monitoring 

system designed and produced under a 

TSO–C197 authorization. 

It would be outside the scope of the 

rule to require satellite tracking of 

helicopter air ambulances because it 

was not proposed in the NPRM. In 

developing the 2010 NPRM, the FAA 

intended that compliance with 

§ 135.607 would be met by an FDR-like 

system installed and recording on the 

helicopter. An operator may 

demonstrate that a satellite tracking 

system, combined with onboard 

reporting, has the capability to meet the 

standards in § 135.607. 

The FAA anticipates that relief could 

be granted for operations with an 

inoperable flight data monitoring 

system. While a flight data monitoring 

system is a valuable tool that can be 

used for accident investigation, it is a 

passive device that collects information 

and is not essential for safe operation in 

the way an oil pressure gauge would be. 

The particular requirements relating to 

operations with an inoperable flight 

data monitoring system would be 

developed by FAA’s Flight Standards 

Service for its MEL program. 

Implementation Date for the Flight Data 

Monitoring System 

AMOA recommended that the FAA 

not issue a rule requiring flight data 

monitoring systems until there is a 

better understanding of current 

products. PHI said that a 3-year 

implementation time is too ambitious. 

HAI strongly supports flight data 

monitoring technology, but does not 

believe it is sufficiently mature at this 

time to serve as the basis for a regulatory 

equipment mandate. HAI and LifeFlight 

of Maine recommend establishment of a 

joint FAA/industry work group to 

collect relevant data and conduct a 

study on which to base long term 

guidance. The NTSB, in discussing the 

work that EUROCAE has done to 

develop standards for light-weight flight 

recording systems, said an ED–155- 

compliant recorder would be an aid to 

accident investigation and encouraged 

the FAA to include a requirement for a 

flight data monitoring system in the 

final rule. AMOA commented that 

operators have reported significant 

delays in the approval process for all 

types of equipment installations. It 

asked for expedited approval for any 

required new equipment 

The FAA has carefully reviewed the 

comments that industry needs sufficient 

time to manufacture, obtain and install 

equipment that meets the required 

performance standards. After 

considering comments, the FAA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

allow 4, rather than 3 years from the 

effective date of the rule for compliance. 

This extra year is warranted to provide 

additional time for operators to obtain 

and install equipment. 

Cost Estimate for Flight Data Monitoring 

Systems 

In the NPRM, the FAA estimated that 

the cost of a flight data monitoring 

system would be $6,450 for equipment 

and installation, and accompanying 

software would cost $750 per year. 

There was also a $1,913 average 10-year 

cost estimate for evaluation, analysis, 

and use of the recorded data. The FAA 

asked the public to evaluate the 

accuracy of this cost information and 

those comments are summarized below. 

Bristow Group stated that this 

equipment is affordable and effective 

and that the FAA should mandate it for 

all commercial helicopters that are not 

already required to have FDR. It asserts 

that this equipment is proven to bring 

safety and financial benefits to all types 

of commercial helicopter operations. 

Some commenters, including AMOA, 

PHI, LifeFlight of Maine, AAMS, and 

Air Evac EMS, said that cost estimates 

for the flight data monitoring system 

presented in the NPRM were unrealistic. 

They said that equipment bought at that 

price would not be able to perform all 

the functions mentioned in the NPRM. 

They also said that the FAA’s estimates 

had not included the cost of installation, 

the cost of time out of service, or the 

cost of reviewing data collected by the 

device. AMOA contended that there is 

no current device that can perform all 

the functions listed in the proposal. 

AMOA estimated that flight data 

monitoring system costs are more than 

$30,000, plus costs associated with the 

development of supplemental type 

certificates, installation, and time out of 

service. PHI estimated the actual cost of 

a complete flight data monitoring 

software platform can range from 

$50,000 to in excess of $120,000—a cost 

that does not include hardware, 

manpower, or recurring service/support 

and training. LifeFlight of Maine stated 

that one member, who is a part 135 

certificate holder with an FAA approved 

FOQA and a flight data monitoring 

system, found the costs for purchase, 

installation and data collection/analysis 

to be $27,250 per aircraft. AAMS stated 

that reports from its providers already 

using flight data monitoring systems 

suggested that the FAA estimates for 

equipment purchase and installation are 

4 to 5 times too low and did not account 

for program maintenance, data storage, 

and report development. Air Evac EMS 

estimated the total cost to be more than 

$40,000, plus costs associated with the 

development of supplemental type 

certificates, installation, time out of 

service, and very expensive service 

contracts. 

PHI agreed with AMOA on the cost 

analysis, saying that the FAA had 

‘‘grossly underestimated’’ the cost of 

flight data monitoring equipment, 

accompanying analysis software, and 

flight data monitoring FOQA program 

development and maintenance costs. 

These commenters argued that no 

system on the market could accomplish 

all the tasks specified in the NPRM at 

the price of $6,450. PHI also commented 

that ‘‘another cost driver for LARS will 

be the level of crash survivability 

specified.’’ PHI strongly urged the FAA 

to develop unique specific minimum 

operational performance specifications 

(MOPS) or a TSO for helicopter flight 

data monitoring systems. PHI contended 

that if this equipment is held to the 

crashworthiness called for in ED–155, 

some operators will not be able to afford 

it. 

In response to these comments, we 

note that the FDM capability described 

in the NPRM was meant to illustrate the 

type of data that could be collected by 

this equipment. We did not intend to 

propose an FDM system that must 

record all information pertaining to the 

aircraft’s state (such as heading, 

altitude, and attitude), condition (such 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9957 

20Section 306(d)(2) of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires 

the FAA to conduct a rulemaking that addresses use 

of devices that perform the function of flight data 

recorders and cockpit voice recorders, to the extent 

feasible, in helicopter air ambulance operations. 

as rotors, transmission, engine 

parameters, and flight controls), and 

system performance (such as full 

authority digital engine control, and 

electronic flight instrumentation 

system) that was discussed in the 

NPRM. Under this rule, the operator 

would be able to determine the 

parameters that the FDM would record. 

Our estimate of $6,450 ($5,950 plus 

$500 for installation) was based on a 

device that could meet the intent of the 

proposal, not one that could capture 

every parameter listed as examples in 

the NPRM. 

However, based on the comments 

received, the FAA reviewed and revised 

the FDMS cost estimates. In the final 

rule, the FAA specifically identifies a 

set of performance standards that must 

be met. While these performance 

standards are based on certain 

requirements in TSO–C197 and ED–155, 

the final rule does not require 

equipment that is compliant with TSO– 

C197 or ED–155. The FAA is aware of 

equipment that meets TSO–C197 

requirements that is currently available 

for $7,000 and uses this estimate in the 

final rule. The FAA also now estimates 

that installation would cost $8,000 (80 

hours x $100 per hour) which would 

include time to run operational 

performance tests on the FDMS. We 

estimate a one-time revenue loss of 

$7,000 per day for installation. 

Therefore, the FAA estimates the total 

cost per helicopter to be $22,000 ($7,000 

equipment, $8,000 installation, $7,000 

revenue loss). Additionally we estimate 

that operators will incur two, one-time, 

hardware and software license fee costs 

of $2,500 and $750, respectively. For 

detailed cost information see the 

accompanying regulatory evaluation. 

Final Rule 

This final rule will require 

installation of a flight data monitoring 

system capable of recording helicopter 

flight performance and operational 

data.20 It will not require data collection 

or prescribe standards or parameters for 

data collection. The flight data 

monitoring system must be activated 

and operative from the time electrical 

power is turned on before takeoff until 

it is turned off after the end of the flight. 

Helicopter air ambulance operators will 

have 4 years to comply with the rule. 

Helicopters equipped with an 

operational FDR that meets the 

requirements of § 135.607(a)–(b) will be 

in compliance with this rule. 

This rule addresses parts of NTSB 

Safety Recommendations A–06–17 and 

A–09–90. 

11. Pilot Instrument Ratings (§ 135.603) 

The FAA proposed to add § 135.603 

to require a helicopter air ambulance 

pilot to hold a helicopter instrument 

rating. Currently, § 135.243(b) requires 

the pilot in command of a helicopter air 

ambulance to hold, at a minimum, a 

commercial pilot certificate. Helicopter 

air ambulance pilots are not currently 

required to hold instrument ratings 

unless they will be flying under 

instrument flight rules (IFR) or, when 

flying under visual flight rules (VFR), 

they will be flying above a cloud layer 

(commonly called ‘‘VFR over-the-top’’). 

The FAA received comments 

expressing support for the proposal 

from commenters including the NTSB, 

AMOA, AAMS, Air Evac EMS, 

NEMSPA, and Safety and Flight 

Evaluations, International. 

The NTSB agreed with the 

requirement for a helicopter air 

ambulance pilot to hold an instrument 

rating, but stated that helicopter air 

ambulance pilots should maintain 

instrument currency. It commented that 

instrument currency is generally 

acknowledged to be a skill that 

deteriorates rapidly without continued 

practice and use. AMOA, NEMSPA, 

Safety and Flight Evaluations, 

International and numerous individual 

commenters also suggested that the FAA 

require helicopter air ambulance pilots 

to maintain currency or routinely 

demonstrate the ability to recover from 

IIMC. Several commenters noted that 

this requirement should be applied to 

all commercial pilots. 

Identical comments from two 

individuals suggested requiring frequent 

short training sessions involving 

unplanned entry into IMC followed by 

an instrument approach to landing at 

least quarterly in an approved aircraft or 

simulator. They suggested a requirement 

that a table-top PC-based navigation 

system trainer or similar device be used 

at least monthly. They commented that 

the FAA should not require using a nonmotion visual flight simulator with 

wrap-around visual display. They 

requested that the FAA prohibit flight 

assignment within 24 hours of training 

in a non-motion visual flight simulator 

with wrap-around visual display. 

The FAA notes that IIMC is a common 

factor in helicopter air ambulance 

accidents and the intent of the 

instrument rating requirement is to 

ensure that helicopter air ambulance 

pilots are better equipped to handle 

these situations. A pilot who receives 

this rating is better equipped to 

maintain situational awareness and 

maneuver the helicopter into a safe 

environment. Requiring an instrument 

rating, without a requirement to 

maintain instrument currency, will 

allow a VFR operator to expend fewer 

resources than required to meet full 

currency requirements while ensuring 

that pilots have the skills necessary to 

extract themselves from IIMC. 

Additionally, mandating instrument 

currency for all commercial pilots is 

beyond the scope of the current 

rulemaking. 

To prevent IIMC accidents, § 135.293 

requires that pilots demonstrate the 

ability to recover from IIMC during their 

annual competency checks. The FAA 

notes that the IIMC-recovery portion of 

the competency check could be 

performed in a simulator or flight 

training device, provided that it is 

consistent with that device’s specific 

approval. Pilots who obtain the 

instrument rating supplemented by the 

preparation for the annual competency 

check will be adequately prepared to 

recover from IIMC. 

This rule is adopted as proposed. 

E. General Comments 

FAA Oversight Resources/Delay in 

Approval/Expedited Approval Process 

AMOA commented that numerous 

operators report significant delays in the 

approval process for all types of 

equipment installations. It expressed 

concern about the FAA’s ability to 

inform and educate field personnel, 

such as Flight Standards District Offices 

(FSDOs) and headquarters inspectors, 

about new rule requirements. It 

maintained that there are a wide range 

of interpretations and implementations 

of rules, resulting in a lack of 

standardization throughout the FAA. 

The FAA understands the 

commenter’s concern and has issued 

guidance for inspectors to ensure 

uniform application of the rule’s 

requirements. This rule also contains 

delayed compliance dates for several of 

its provisions, which will give 

certificate holders time to purchase and 

install the required equipment and to 

develop and implement required 

procedures. 

Night Vision Goggles and Autopilots 

The NPRM did not propose requiring 

night vision goggles (NVGs) or night 

vision imaging systems (NVIS). The 

NPRM included a statement explaining 

that the FAA considered allowing NVGs 

as an alternate method of compliance 

for the HTAWS requirement, but 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

21Section 318 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) requires the 

FAA to study the ‘‘feasibility of requiring pilots of 

helicopters providing air ambulance services under 

part 135 . . . to use NVGs during nighttime 

operations.’’ 

decided that this technology might not 

be appropriate for all operations and 

that the FAA required further study on 

this equipment before allowing its use 

instead of HTAWS. 

Numerous commenters, including 

AMOA, PHI, Air Evac EMS, NEMSPA, 

LifeFlight of Maine, FreeFlight Systems, 

and AAMS expressed support for an 

NVG or night vision imaging system 

requirement in this rule. Many 

commented that night vision technology 

should be mandated in lieu of HTAWS. 

AAMS commented that HTAWS and 

NVGs should be required together as 

each provides benefits that complement 

the other. LifeFlight of Maine 

commented that HTAWS and NVG 

should be a minimum standard for night 

operations. The FAA did not receive 

any comments stating that the FAA 

should not require NVGs or night vision 

imaging systems. 

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA 

considered allowing certificate holders 

to use NVGs or night vision imaging 

systems as an alternative to HTAWS but 

did not include such a proposal in the 

NPRM for numerous reasons. Night 

vision goggles may not be appropriate 

for all operations, such as inadvertent 

flight into IMC. Additionally, the FAA 

stated that it must conduct further 

research to determine the most 

appropriate use of NVGs before allowing 

operators to use them as an alternate 

means of compliance. See 75 FR 62654. 

The FAA is, however, currently 

investigating the benefits, uses and 

limitations of NVGs.21

Similarly the FAA received comments 

questioning why this rule did not 

mandate an autopilot requirement. The 

NTSB commented that the NPRM did 

not address Safety Recommendation A– 

09–96, which recommended that the 

FAA require all EMS helicopters to be 

equipped with an autopilot for singlepilot operations. NTSB believes that an 

autopilot is a significant aid for 

unexpected high workload situations, 

such as IIMC. LifeFlight of Maine, 

Boston MedFlight, Life Flight Network, 

Angel One Transport, NEMSPA, Safety 

and Flight Evaluations, International, 

members of ACCT, and several 

individual commenters also expressed 

support for an autopilot requirement. 

Association of Air Medical Services 

supported the added safety benefits of 

autopilot technology but commented 

that further research, development, and 

industry collaboration is necessary 

before a regulatory requirement is 

considered. 

The FAA did not include an autopilot 

requirement in the NPRM. Therefore, 

mandating an autopilot unit is outside 

the scope of this current rulemaking. 

Furthermore, the FAA concluded that 

requiring autopilots on helicopter air 

ambulances in this current rulemaking 

would be premature. Autopilot units 

may be cost prohibitive and not widely 

available, and may pose space and 

weight issues for helicopters not 

equipped to handle the units. 

Public Aircraft Operations 

The FAA received several comments 

from public safety organizations, 

including the International Association 

of Fire Chiefs and the Department of 

California Highway Patrol, asking about 

the applicability of this rule to ‘‘public 

safety operations’’ or stating their 

understanding that the part 135 

provisions would not be applicable to 

such operations. The San Bernardino 

County Sheriff’s Department 

commented that applying the proposed 

rules to its public safety operations 

would limit its ability to conduct its 

operations and ‘‘render unusable 50% of 

the helicopter EMS aircraft’’ in the 

county. 

In contrast, several commenters, 

including AMOA, PHI, and West 

Michigan Air Care, expressed support 

for extending the provisions of this rule 

to include public aircraft operations. 

PHI expressed support for requiring 

public aircraft operations to comply 

with the rules proposed in the NPRM, 

stating that the thousands of passengers 

transported every year by government 

operators should benefit from the safety 

enhancements in the proposed rule. It 

stated that the FAA has been 

inconsistent in providing civil aircraft 

regulatory oversight of government 

operators engaged in air ambulance 

operations. PHI also highlighted NTSB 

Safety Recommendation, A–09–130, 

which calls for the FAA to seek specific 

legislative authority to achieve safety 

oversight of helicopter air ambulance 

operations conducted using 

government-owned aircraft. The 

Airborne Law Enforcement Association 

suggested that the FAA establish a 

definition of ‘‘public safety HEMS 

aircraft.’’ 

In response, the FAA clarifies that the 

part 135 provisions of this rule do not 

apply to public aircraft operations. The 

FAA has statutory authority to promote 

safe flight of civil aircraft in air 

commerce. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a). This 

authority does not extend to public 

aircraft operations. 

Public aircraft operation is limited by 

statute to certain government operations 

within U.S. airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 

40102(a)(41), 40125. Although these 

operations must comply with certain 

general operating rules (including those 

applicable to all aircraft in the National 

Airspace System), other civil 

certification and safety oversight 

regulations do not apply. Whether an 

operation may be considered a public 

aircraft operation is determined on a 

flight-by-flight basis, under the terms of 

the statute. The FAA considers the 

following factors in making these 

determinations: aircraft ownership, the 

purpose of the flight, and the persons on 

board the aircraft. 

Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41)(C) 

includes as a public aircraft ‘‘an aircraft 

owned or operated by the government of 

a State . . . or a political subdivision of 

[one of these] governments, except as 

provided in section 40125(b).’’ See Legal 

Interpretation to Ray Borrato, from 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (July 14, 2011). 

Section 40125(b) states that an aircraft 

included in § 40102(a)(41)(C) ‘‘does not 

qualify as a public aircraft . . . when 

the aircraft is used for commercial 

purposes or to carry an individual other 

than a crewmember or a qualified noncrewmember.’’ ‘‘Commercial purposes’’ 

under the statute means ‘‘the 

transportation of persons or property for 

compensation or hire. . . .’’ If an 

operator receives compensation for 

conducting operations it would not be 

providing the service as a public aircraft 

operation, but as a commercial vendor. 

Those flights would not qualify as 

public aircraft operations and the 

operator would be required to comply 

with the certification and operating 

rules of 14 CFR part 135. 

To that end, we note that the part 135 

provisions of this rule would apply only 

to civil aircraft operations and would 

not apply to public aircraft operations. 

Accordingly, an aircraft operator that 

only performs public aircraft operations 

would not need to hold a part 119 

operating certificate permitting part 135 

operations. An operator that conducts 

both public aircraft operations and civil 

operations would need to hold a part 

119 operating certificate and conduct its 

civil operations pursuant to part 135 

rules. We also note that public aircraft 

operations must adhere to part 91 

airspace rules; therefore, the provisions 

of § 91.155 would apply to both public 

and civil operations. 

The FAA encourages government 

entities that conduct public aircraft 

operations to inform the local FSDO that 

they conduct public aircraft operations 

in the FSDO’s area to avoid confusion 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9959 

about the oversight of those operations. 

The FAA conducts surveillance and 

oversight of part 119 certificates 

holders, including government entities 

that hold such certificates, to verify that 

they are complying with appropriate 

rules during civil operations. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analysis 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 directs that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The estimated mean benefit value for 

the rule will be about $821 million, or 

$577 million present value, over ten 

years. The FAA estimates the cost of 

this rule will be approximately $311 

million, or $243 million present value, 

over ten years. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

Helicopter air ambulance operators, 

commercial helicopter operators, 

helicopter aerial application operators, 

and helicopter external load operators. 

Assumptions: 

• The rule is expected to take effect 

in 2013. The time horizon for these 

potential benefits is 10 years, 2013 

through 2022. 

• All monetary values are expressed 

in constant 2013 dollars. We calculated 

the present value of the potential benefit 

stream by discounting the monetary 

values using a 7 percent interest rate 

from 2013 to 2022. 

• The FAA estimated that the 

helicopter fleet would grow at 2.8 

percent per year. 

Benefits of This Rule 

Benefits will accrue from the 

implementation of new operational 

procedures and additional equipment 

requirements for helicopter air 

ambulances. This final rule also 

increases safety for commercial 

helicopter operations by revising 

requirements for equipment, pilot 

training, and alternate airports and it 

increases weather minimums for 

helicopters operating under part 91. The 

estimated mean benefit value for these 

provisions will be $821 million, or $577 

million present value, over ten years. 

Costs of This Rule 

The FAA estimates the cost of this 

rule will be approximately $311 million, 

or $243 million present value, over ten 

years. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

Based on the criteria used in the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

used again here, this rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA’s usual threshold for economic 

significance is a 2 percent annual 

compliance cost to operating revenue. 

However, we elected to use a more 

conservative threshold of 1 percent 

annual compliance cost to operating 

revenue in this rulemaking. In the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, we stated 

that the proposed rule would cause 

small air ambulance operators to incur 

compliance costs such that the ratio of 

annual compliance cost to annual 

revenue ranged between 1.76 and 1.88 

percent, which we considered 

significant. We did not receive any 

comments on this determination. In the 

final regulatory flexibility analysis, we 

have updated the ratio of annual 

compliance costs to annual revenue to 

a range between 1.80 to 1.87 percent, 

but our determination has not 

changed—this rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small air 

ambulance operators. 

This final rule will impact air 

ambulance, air tour, on demand, aerial 

application, and external load operators. 

The U.S. Small Business Administration 

(SBA) classifies businesses as small 

based on size standards, typically 

expressed as annual revenue or number 

of employees. SBA publishes a table of 

small business size standards matched 

to North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes. 

Table 5 shows the size standards for the 

entities that will be affected by this rule. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

22We multiplied the average revenue per person 

for 5 different operators ($380.56/person) by the 

average hours per operation (0.7396 hours/

operation) and by the average revenue passengers 

per helicopters (6 passengers/helicopter). 

23 GAO, Aviation Safety: Potential Strategies to 

Address Air Ambulance Safety Concerns (2009). 

Air Ambulance Operators 

Because we did not have actual 

annual revenues for air ambulance 

operators, we estimated them using 

helicopter counts as a revenue driver. 

We assumed an average of 367 

operations per year for each helicopter 

and a charge of $7,000 per operation. 

The FAA estimated 35 small air 

ambulance operators (with estimated 

revenues lower than $7 million) out of 

the 73 air ambulance operators that will 

be affected by this regulation, which we 

consider a substantial number of small 

entities. Their ratio of annualized cost to 

annual revenue ranges from 1.80 to 1.87 

percent. Based on the criteria used in 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

and used again here, this rule will have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small air 

ambulance operators. Accordingly, the 

FAA prepared a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for small air ambulance 

operators, as described in the next 

section. 

Air Tour Operators 

We assumed an average of 747 air tour 

operations per year for each helicopter 

and a charge of $1,689 22 per air tour 

operation. As such, the FAA identified 

31 small air tour operators (with 

estimated revenues lower than $7 

million) out of the 46 air tour operators 

that will be affected by this regulation, 

which we consider a substantial number 

of small entities. Their ratio of 

annualized cost to annual revenue for 

air tour operators ranges from 0.08 to 

0.26 percent, which is not significant. 

While this rule will affect a substantial 

number of small air tour operators, they 

will not incur a significant economic 

impact. 

On Demand Operators 

The FAA identified 370 small ondemand operators (with 1,500 or fewer 

employees) out of the 379 that will be 

affected by this regulation, which we 

consider a substantial number of small 

entities. Although their annualized 

compliance costs range from $980 to 

$72,784, we were unable to estimate 

their annual revenues because average 

revenue per flight for these entities is 

not meaningful. There are a number of 

factors (e.g., length of flight, type of 

helicopter) that determine the revenue 

for an individual flight. These factors 

are not likely to result in a distribution 

around a meaningful average revenue. 

At the higher end of the compliance cost 

range, the economic impact may well be 

significant, but again, we cannot 

validate such an estimate. In the NPRM, 

we asked on-demand operators to 

provide financial data pertaining to the 

rule’s impact on their operations, but we 

did not receive any comments in 

response to this request. Therefore we 

still have no annual revenue data for 

these operators. 

Aerial Application Operators (Part 137) 

We assumed an average of 81 aerial 

application operations per year for each 

helicopter and a charge of $500 per 

aerial application operation. The FAA 

identified 224 small aerial application 

operators (with estimated revenues 

lower than $7 million) out of the 224 

aerial application operators that will be 

affected by this regulation, which we 

consider a substantial number of small 

entities. Their ratio of annualized cost to 

annual revenue is 0.01 percent, which is 

not significant. While this rule will 

affect a substantial number of small 

aerial application operators, they will 

not incur a significant economic impact. 

External Load Operators (Part 133) 

We assumed an average of 1,159 

external load operations per year for 

each helicopter and a charge of $625 per 

external load operation. The FAA 

identified 197 small external load 

operators (with estimated revenues 

lower than $7 million) out of the 219 

external load operators that will be 

affected by this regulation, which we 

consider a substantial number of small 

entities. Their ratio of annualized cost to 

annual revenue is less than 0.01 

percent, which is not significant. While 

this rule will affect a substantial number 

of small external load operators, they 

will not incur a significant economic 

impact. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as 

amended), each regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required to address the 

following points: (1) Reasons the agency 

considered the rule, (2) the objectives 

and legal basis for the rule, (3) the kind 

and number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply, (4) the reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule, and (5) all 

Federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the rule. 

Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule 

Helicopter air ambulance accidents 

reached the highest levels in history 

during the years from 2003 through 

2008.23 The year 2008 was the deadliest. 

In 2008, five air ambulance accidents 

killed 21 people, including pilots, 

patients, and medical personnel. A total 

of 62 helicopter air ambulance accidents 

occurred during the period from 1991 

through 2010, and this number included 

125 fatalities and a midair collision 

between two helicopter air ambulances. 

Commercial helicopters other than air 

ambulances had accidents as well. From 

1991 through 2010, these helicopters 

had 20 accidents and 39 fatalities. 

There were four common factors in 

these accidents—night conditions, 

inadvertent flight into instrument 

meteorological conditions, loss of 

control, and controlled flight into 

terrain. 

The impetus for this rulemaking is the 

number of helicopter accidents, noted 

above. Helicopter air ambulances 

operate under unique conditions. Their 

flights are often time-sensitive, putting 

pressure on the pilots. Helicopter air 

ambulances operate at low altitudes and 

under varied weather conditions. These 

pilots fly year-round in rural and urban 

settings, over mountainous and nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:17 Feb 20, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21FER2.SGM 21FER2

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9961 

mountainous terrain, during the day and 

during the night, and in conditions 

where visibility is good and in 

conditions where it is not. They must 

often land at unfamiliar, remote, or 

unimproved sites with hazards like 

trees, buildings, towers, wires, and 

uneven terrain. 

In an emergency, many patients will 

not have a choice of whether they want 

to be transported in a helicopter. They 

may be in a medical condition that 

prevents them from making decisions 

about transportation or indicating what 

they want. They cannot choose between 

competing carriers because the company 

that responds to the scene may be either 

the only one in the area or the first one 

called. For these reasons, and those 

discussed previously, the FAA is 

establishing more stringent safety 

regulations to protect patients, medical 

personnel and flight crewmembers 

onboard helicopter air ambulances. 

The Objectives and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(4), 

which requires the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations in the interest of 

safety for the maximum hours or 

periods of service of airmen and other 

employees of air carriers, and 49 U.S.C. 

44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

and minimum standards for other 

practices, methods, and procedures 

necessary for safety in air commerce and 

national security. 

The Kind and Number of Small Entities 

to Which the Rule Will Apply 

The FAA identified 35 small air 

ambulance operators on which the rule 

will have a significant economic impact. 

We estimate that the small air 

ambulance operators have annual 

revenues between $2.6 million and $5.1 

million. 

The Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Rule 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA will submit a copy of 

these sections to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for its 

review. The following provisions apply 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Rule 

The FAA is unaware of any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this rule. 

Other Considerations 

Affordability Analysis 

For the purpose of this analysis, the 

degree to which small entities can afford 

the cost of the rule is predicated on the 

availability of financial resources. Costs 

can be paid from existing assets such as 

cash, by borrowing, through the 

provision of additional equity capital, 

by accepting reduced profits, by raising 

prices, or by finding other ways of 

offsetting costs. 

One means of assessing the 

affordability is by determining the 

ability of each of the small entities to 

meet its short-term obligations by 

looking at net income, working capital 

and financial strength ratios. However, 

the FAA was unable to find this type of 

financial information for the affected 

entities, and so used an alternative way 

of analyzing affordability. The approach 

used by the FAA was to compare 

estimated revenues with the annualized 

compliance costs. 

The average ratio of annualized costs 

to estimated annual revenues for small 

air ambulance operators ranges from 

1.80% percent to 1.87 percent. Thus, the 

FAA expects that small air ambulance 

operators will not have trouble affording 

this rule. 

Competitiveness Analysis 

For small air ambulance operators, the 

average ratio of annualized cost to 

estimated annual revenue ranges from 

1.80 percent to 1.87 percent. For large 

air ambulance operators, it ranges from 

0.90 percent to 1.94 percent. For 33 out 

of the 38 large air ambulance operators, 

it ranges from 1.74 percent to 1.94 

percent. The FAA expects that, based on 

these overlapping results, there will be 

no change in the competitiveness of 

these 33 small air ambulance operators 

with large air ambulance operators. 

However, for the remaining 5 large 

operators, the average ratio of 

annualized compliance cost to 

estimated annual revenue ranges from 

0.90 percent to 0.93 percent, and this 

gives them a competitive advantage over 

small air ambulance operators. 

Alternatives 

Alternative One—This alternative 

considers excluding the Helicopter 

Terrain Awareness and Warning 

Systems (HTAWS) unit from the 

rulemaking. Although this alternative 

would reduce the ratio of annualized 

compliance cost to annual revenue from 

a range of 1.80 percent to 1.87 percent 

to a range of 1.61 percent to 1.68 

percent, there would also be a 

significant reduction in safety. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.002</GPH>
9962 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Conclusion—The HTAWS is a tool for 

situational awareness and for helping 

helicopter air ambulance pilots during 

night operations. This equipment 

enhances situational awareness in all 

aspects of flying including day or night 

flight, and flight in instrument 

meteorological conditions. The FAA 

believes that this equipment is a 

significant safety enhancement for all 

aspects of helicopter operations. The 

accident data shows that the HTAWS 

provision could have prevented many 

air ambulance accidents if this 

equipment had been installed in the 

helicopter. Also, HTAWS is a 

Congressional mandate under Public 

Law 112–95. The Act requires the FAA 

to conduct rulemaking on helicopter air 

ambulance operations to address 

‘‘safety-enhancing technology and 

equipment, including HTAWS. . . .’’ 

Thus the FAA does not consider 

excluding this requirement to be an 

acceptable alternative in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. § 603(d). 

Alternative Two—This alternative 

would affect the requirement for 

certificate holders engaged in helicopter 

air ambulance operations to have an 

OCC. The population affected would 

change from operators with 10 or more 

helicopters to those with 15 or more. 

Conclusion—The FAA believes that 

operators with 10 or more helicopters 

engaged in air ambulance operations 

comprise 83 percent of the total air 

ambulance fleet in the U.S. The FAA 

believes that changing the requirement 

to apply to operators with 15 or more 

helicopters would decrease the coverage 

of the population to 78 percent. 

Furthermore, the complexity of 

operations considerably increases for 

operators of 10 or more helicopters. 

Thus the FAA does not consider this to 

be an acceptable alternative in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(d). 

Minimizing the Burden on Small 

Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory proposals on small 

entities and to analyze one or more 

significant alternatives to minimize the 

rule’s burden on small entities. The 

FAA analyzed two alternatives to 

minimize the burden on small entities. 

We considered excluding the HTAWS 

unit requirement from the final rule. 

Next, we considered increasing the 

number of helicopters required to trigger 

the OCC requirement to 15. The FAA, 

however, did not consider these to be 

acceptable alternatives due to the 

significant enhancement for safety that 

HTAWS provides to helicopter 

operations. Therefore, the FAA did not 

adopt this alternative. 

Conclusion 

This rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small air ambulance 

operators. The FAA identified 35 small 

air ambulance operators on which the 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact. 

D. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined the regulations will improve 

safety, which is a legitimate domestic 

objective and therefore not an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

The final rule will impose the 

following new information collection 

requirements. 

Private Sector Costs 

(1) Require all rotorcraft used in part 

135 operations to be equipped with 

radio altimeters (§ 135.160). Certificate 

holders may apply for a deviation from 

the requirement for helicopters in which 

a radio altimeter cannot physically be 

installed in the flight deck. Estimated 

number of applications for deviations 

from on-demand helicopters = 94. 

Estimated number of applications for air 

tour helicopters = 13. Time needed per 

deviation application = 1 hour. Salary of 

chief pilot = $79 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9963 

(2) Establish VFR ceiling and 

visibility requirements for helicopter air 

ambulance operations conducted in 

class G airspace (§ 135.609). These 

operators may designate local flying 

areas. Certificate holders electing to do 

so would document the local flying area 

in a manner acceptable to the 

administrator. We estimate that 50 

percent of the air ambulance operators 

will designate local flying areas. 

Air ambulance operators = 73. 

Air ambulance operators affected = 

50%. 

Time needed to develop local flying 

area = 2 hours. 

Salary of chief pilot = $79 per hour. 

(3) Require air ambulance operators to 

document the highest obstacle along the 

planned route prior to a VFR flight 

(§ 135.615). Affected operators must 

document the procedures for performing 

this task in their operations manuals. 

Air Ambulance Helicopters = 1,073– 

1,371. 

Air Ambulance operations per 

helicopter = 367 per year. 

Flight planning time = 5 minutes per 

operation. 

Salary of pilot = $75 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.003</GPH> ER21FE14.004</GPH>
9964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Require each certificate holder 

performing helicopter air ambulance 

operations to implement an FAAapproved pre-flight risk-analysis 

program documented in its operations 

manual (§ 135.617). 

Air ambulance operators = 73. 

Time for chief pilot to develop risk 

analysis program = 30 hours. 

Time for clerk to develop risk analysis 

worksheet and insert program into 

operations manual = 30 hours. 

Salary of chief pilot = $79 per hour. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 

(5) Require pilots in command to 

conduct a pre-flight risk analysis, 

including completion of a risk analysis 

worksheet before a helicopter air 

ambulance operation (§ 135.617). 

Air Ambulance Helicopters = 1,073– 

1,371. 

Air Ambulance operations per 

helicopter = 367 per year. 

Flight planning time = 10 minutes per 

operation. 

Salary of pilot = $75 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.005</GPH> ER21FE14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9965 

(6) Require operations control 

specialists to participate in the pre-flight 

risk analysis required by § 135.617, 

including acknowledging in writing the 

date and time the risk analysis was 

completed and that the flight can be 

conducted safely (§ 135.619). 

Air Ambulance Helicopters operated 

by certificate holders with an OCC = 

895–1,144. 

Air Ambulance operations per 

helicopter = 367 per year. 

Time spent by OCS per pilot’s 

worksheet = 5 minutes. 

Salary of operations control specialist 

(OCS) = $42 per hour. 

(7) Require certificate holders with 10 

or more helicopter air ambulances to 

establish operational control centers and 

document operations control specialist 

duties and training in their operations 

manuals. (§ 135.619). 

Operators that need to develop the 

OCS training = 13. 

Operators that need to change their 

manuals = 2. 

Time for chief pilot to develop OCS 

training = 60 hours. 

Time for clerk to develop OCS 

training = 30 hours. 

Time for chief pilot to change manual 

= 1 hour. 

Time for clerk to change manual = 0.5 

hour. 

Salary of chief pilot = $79 per hour. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.007</GPH> ER21FE14.008</GPH>
9966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Require certificate holders that do 

not currently have operations control 

centers but will be required to have 

them to retain records of the training 

given to operations control specialists 

(§ 135.619). 

Operations control specialists = 119– 

152. 

Time per OCS training record = 5 

minutes. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 

(9) Require certificate holders with 

operations control centers to retain 

operations control specialist training 

records (§ 135.619). 

Operations control specialists = 369– 

472. 

Time per OCS training record = 5 

minutes. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.009</GPH> ER21FE14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9967 

(10) Require that medical personnel 

on board helicopter air ambulance 

flights receive either a supplemental 

safety briefing or safety training in lieu 

of a pre-flight briefing (§ 135.621). 

Affected air ambulance operators = 

37. 

Time for chief pilot to develop 

training = 10 hours. 

Time for clerk to incorporate training 

into operations manual = 10 hours. 

Salary of chief pilot = $79 per hour. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 

(11) Certificate holders choosing the 

option to provide safety training would 

be required to retain training records for 

persons receiving the training 

(§ 135.621). 

Medical personnel = 5,858. 

Time per medical personnel training 

record = 5 minutes. 

Training: every 24 calendar months. 

Salary of clerk = $25 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.011</GPH> ER21FE14.012</GPH>
9968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Note: 

Operations control specialists would 

be subject to certificate holders’ drug 

and alcohol testing programs (§§ 120.5, 

120.15). The FAA believes that, because 

certificate holders currently administer 

and maintain records for drug and 

alcohol testing for other employees 

(approved under OMB Control Number 

2120–0535), the cost for a clerical 

person to maintain the records would be 

negligible. 

Summary of All Burden Hours and 

Costs 

Cost to the Federal Government 

(1) Radio altimeters for rotorcraft 

operations (§ 135.160). 

Applications for deviations from radio 

altimeter requirement = 107. 

Time needed for review and 

operations specification = 1.5 hour. 

Salary of inspector at headquarters = 

$76 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.013</GPH> ER21FE14.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9969 

(2) Local Flying Area (§ 135.609). 

Air ambulance operators = 73. 

Air ambulance operators affected = 

50%. 

Time needed to review request = 1 

hour. 

Salary of inspector at field office = 

$48 per hour. 

(3) Review pre-flight risk analysis 

procedure and worksheet (§ 135.617). 

Air ambulance operators = 73. 

Time to review = 1 hour. 

Salary of inspector at field office = 

$48 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.015</GPH> ER21FE14.016</GPH>
9970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) OCS training/amendment to 

existing manual (§ 135.619). 

Operators = 15. 

Time to review OCS training = 1 hour. 

Salary of inspector at field office = 

$48 per hour. 

(5) Review Medical Personnel 

Training (§ 135.621). 

Air ambulance operators = 73. 

Time to review = 1 hour. 

Salary of inspector at field office = 

$48 per hour. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.017</GPH> ER21FE14.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9971 

Summary of All Burden Hours and 

Costs Over 10 Year Period 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these 

information collection amendments to 

OMB for its review. Notice of OMB 

approval for this information collection 

will be published in a future Federal 

Register document. 

G. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified the following 

differences. 

ICAO Annex 6 Part III, Section II, 

Chapter 4 sets standards for helicopter 

overwater equipment requirements 

based on performance class and 

distance from land based on time at 

normal cruise speed. The FAA did not 

adopt this requirement but instead bases 

the rule on existing FAA helicopter 

performance criteria and distances from 

shore. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

H. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f. Additionally, the FAA 

reviewed paragraph 304 of Order 

1050.1E and determined that this 

rulemaking involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

I. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.019</GPH> ER21FE14.020</GPH>
9972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 

the NPRM, the FAA requested 

comments on whether the proposed rule 

should apply differently to intrastate 

operations in Alaska. 

The agency received comments 

pertaining to this rule’s application in 

Alaska which are discussed in sections 

III.C.1 (the radio altimeter requirement) 

and III.C.3 (pilot testing on recovery 

from inadvertent flight into IMC, flatlight, whiteout, and brownout 

conditions) of this final rule document. 

To the requirement for a radio altimeter, 

NorthStar Trekking commented that this 

equipment can give erroneous readings 

on snow-covered surfaces. In response, 

as discussed in III.C.1, the FAA has 

determined that the safety benefits of 

this equipment outweigh the possibility 

of infrequent inaccurate readings. In 

response to the comment about pilot 

testing, the FAA reiterates that pilots 

will benefit from demonstrating 

knowledge of procedures for aircraft 

handling in all three conditions, 

because these conditions may occur 

year-round in many places. As a result, 

the agency has determined that there is 

no need to make any regulatory 

distinctions applicable to intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 120 

Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Alcohol testing, Aviation safety, Drug 

abuse, Drug testing, Operators, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Safety-sensitive, 

Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

91 to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 

44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 

44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 

46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 

articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

■ 2. Amend § 91.155 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.155 Basic VFR weather minimums. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section and § 91.157, no 

person may operate an aircraft under 

VFR when the flight visibility is less, or 

at a distance from clouds that is less, 

than that prescribed for the 

corresponding altitude and class of 

airspace in the following table: 

Airspace Flight visibility Distance from clouds 

Class A .................................................................................................... Not Applicable ............................... Not Applicable. 

Class B .................................................................................................... 3 statute miles ............................... Clear of Clouds. 

Class C .................................................................................................... 3 statute miles ............................... 500 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

Class D .................................................................................................... 3 statute miles ............................... 500 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

Class E: 

Less than 10,000 feet MSL .............................................................. 3 statute miles ............................... 500 feet below. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9973 

Airspace Flight visibility Distance from clouds 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

At or above 10,000 feet MSL ........................................................... 5 statute miles ............................... 1,000 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 1 statute mile horizontal. 

Class G: 

1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude) 

For aircraft other than helicopters: 

Day, except as provided in § 91.155(b) ........................................... 1 statute mile ................................. Clear of clouds. 

Night, except as provided in § 91.155(b) ......................................... 3 statute miles ............................... 500 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

For helicopters: 

Day, except as provided in § 91.155(b) ........................................... 1⁄2 statute mile ............................... Clear of clouds. 

Night, except as provided in § 91.155(b) ......................................... 1 statute mile ................................. Clear of clouds. 

More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 feet 

MSL 

Day ............................................................................................ 1 statute mile ................................. 500 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

Night .......................................................................................... 3 statute miles ............................... 500 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 2,000 feet horizontal. 

More than 1,200 feet above the surface and at or above 10,000 

feet MSL.

5 statute miles ............................... 1,000 feet below. 

........................................................ 1,000 feet above. 

........................................................ 1 statute mile horizontal. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be 

operated clear of clouds in an airport 

traffic pattern within 1⁄2 mile of the 

runway or helipad of intended landing 

if the flight visibility is not less than 1⁄2

statute mile. 

* * * * * 

PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL 

TESTING PROGRAM 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 120 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101– 

40103, 40113, 40120, 41706, 41721, 44106, 

44701, 44702, 44703, 44709, 44710, 44711, 

45101–45105, 46105, 46306. 

■ 4. Amend § 120.105 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 120.105 Employees who must be tested. 

* * * * * 

(i) Operations control specialist 

duties. 

■ 5. Amend § 120.215 by adding 

paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 120.215 Covered employees. 

(a) * * * 

(9) Operations control specialist 

duties. 

* * * * * 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 135 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 

40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 

44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– 

45105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 

44730). 

■ 7. Amend § 135.1 by adding paragraph 

(a)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 135.1 Applicability. 

(a) * * * 

(9) Helicopter air ambulance 

operations as defined in § 135.601(b)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 135.117 by adding 

paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows: 

§ 135.117 Briefing of passengers before 

flight. 

(a) * * * 

(9) If a rotorcraft operation involves 

flight beyond autorotational distance 

from the shoreline, as defined in 

§ 135.168(a), use of life preservers, 

ditching procedures and emergency exit 

from the rotorcraft in the event of a 

ditching; and the location and use of life 

rafts and other life preserver devices if 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Add § 135.160 to read as follows: 

§ 135.160 Radio altimeters for rotorcraft 

operations. 

(a) After April 24, 2017, no person 

may operate a rotorcraft unless that 

rotorcraft is equipped with an operable 

FAA-approved radio altimeter, or an 

FAA-approved device that incorporates 

a radio altimeter, unless otherwise 

authorized in the certificate holder’s 

approved minimum equipment list. 

(b) Deviation authority. The 

Administrator may authorize deviations 

from paragraph (a) of this section for 

rotorcraft that are unable to incorporate 

a radio altimeter. This deviation will be 

issued as a Letter of Deviation 

Authority. The deviation may be 

terminated or amended at any time by 

the Administrator. The request for 

deviation authority is applicable to 

rotorcraft with a maximum gross takeoff 

weight no greater than 2,950 pounds. 

The request for deviation authority must 

contain a complete statement of the 

circumstances and justification, and 

must be submitted to the nearest Flight 

Standards District Office, not less than 

60 days prior to the date of intended 

operations. 

■ 10. Add § 135.168 to read as follows: 

§ 135.168 Emergency equipment: 

Overwater rotorcraft operations. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section, the following definitions 

apply— 

Autorotational distance refers to the 

distance a rotorcraft can travel in 

autorotation as described by the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturer in the approved Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual. 

Shoreline means that area of the land 

adjacent to the water of an ocean, sea, 

lake, pond, river, or tidal basin that is 

above the high-water mark at which a 

rotorcraft could be landed safely. This 

does not include land areas which are 

unsuitable for landing such as vertical 

cliffs or land intermittently under water. 

(b) Required equipment. After April 

24, 2017, except as provided for in 

paragraph (c), when authorized by the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications, or when necessary only 

for takeoff or landing, no person may 

operate a rotorcraft beyond 

autorotational distance from the 

shoreline unless it carries: 

(1) An approved life preserver 

equipped with an approved survivor 

locator light for each occupant of the 

rotorcraft. The life preserver must be 

worn by each occupant while the 

rotorcraft is beyond autorotational 

distance from the shoreline, except for 

a patient transported during a helicopter 

air ambulance operation, as defined in 

§ 135.601(b)(1), when wearing a life 

preserver would be inadvisable for 

medical reasons; and 

(2) An approved and installed 406 

MHz emergency locator transmitter 

(ELT) with 121.5 MHz homing 

capability. Batteries used in ELTs must 

be maintained in accordance with the 

following— 

(i) Non-rechargeable batteries must be 

replaced when the transmitter has been 

in use for more than 1 cumulative hour 

or when 50% of their useful lives have 

expired, as established by the 

transmitter manufacturer under its 

approval. The new expiration date for 

replacing the batteries must be legibly 

marked on the outside of the 

transmitter. The battery useful life 

requirements of this paragraph (b)(2) do 

not apply to batteries (such as wateractivated batteries) that are essentially 

unaffected during probable storage 

intervals; or 

(ii) Rechargeable batteries used in the 

transmitter must be recharged when the 

transmitter has been in use for more 

than 1 cumulative hour or when 50% of 

their useful-life-of-charge has expired, 

as established by the transmitter 

manufacturer under its approval. The 

new expiration date for recharging the 

batteries must be legibly marked on the 

outside of the transmitter. The battery 

useful-life-of-charge requirements of 

this paragraph (b)(2) do not apply to 

batteries (such as water-activated 

batteries) that are essentially unaffected 

during probable storage intervals. 

(c) Maintenance. The equipment 

required by this section must be 

maintained in accordance with 

§ 135.419. 

(d) ELT standards. The ELT required 

by paragraph (b)(2) of this section must 

meet the requirements in: 

(1) TSO–C126, TSO–C126a, or TSO– 

C126b; and 

(2) Section 2 of either RTCA DO–204 

or RTCA DO–204A, as specified by the 

TSO complied with in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section. 

(e) ELT alternative compliance. 

Operators with an ELT required by 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or an 

ELT with an approved deviation under 

§ 21.618 of this chapter, are in 

compliance with this section. 

(f) Incorporation by reference. The 

standards required in this section are 

incorporated by reference into this 

section with the approval of the Director 

of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, the FAA must publish 

notice of change in the Federal Register 

and the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the FAA’s 

Office of Rulemaking (ARM–1), 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591 (telephone (202) 

267–9677) and from the sources 

indicated below. It is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(1) U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Subsequent Distribution Office, DOT 

Warehouse M30, Ardmore East Business 

Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, 

MD 20785; telephone (301) 322–5377. 

Copies are also available on the FAA’s 

Web site. Use the following link and 

type the TSO number in the search box: 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/

Frameset?OpenPage. 

(i) TSO–C126, 406 MHz Emergency 

Locator Transmitter (ELT), Dec. 23, 

1992, 

(ii) TSO–C126a, 406 MHz Emergency 

Locator Transmitter (ELT), Dec. 17, 

2008, and 

(iii) TSO–C126b, 406 MHz Emergency 

Locator Transmitter (ELT), Nov. 26, 

2012. 

(2) RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., 

Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, 

telephone (202) 833–9339, and are also 

available on RTCA’s Web site at http:// 

www.rtca.org/onlinecart/index.cfm. 

(i) RTCA DO–204, Minimum 

Operational Performance Standards 

(MOPS) 406 MHz Emergency Locator 

Transmitters (ELTs), Sept. 29, 1989, and 

(ii) RTCA DO–204A, Minimum 

Operational Performance Standards 

(MOPS) 406 MHz Emergency Locator 

Transmitters (ELT), Dec. 6, 2007. 

■ 11. Revise § 135.221 to read as 

follows: 

§ 135.221 IFR: Alternate airport weather 

minimums. 

(a) Aircraft other than rotorcraft. No 

person may designate an alternate 

airport unless the weather reports or 

forecasts, or any combination of them, 

indicate that the weather conditions 

will be at or above authorized alternate 

airport landing minimums for that 

airport at the estimated time of arrival. 

(b) Rotorcraft. Unless otherwise 

authorized by the Administrator, no 

person may include an alternate airport 

in an IFR flight plan unless appropriate 

weather reports or weather forecasts, or 

a combination of them, indicate that, at 

the estimated time of arrival at the 

alternate airport, the ceiling and 

visibility at that airport will be at or 

above the following weather 

minimums— 

(1) If, for the alternate airport, an 

instrument approach procedure has 

been published in part 97 of this chapter 

or a special instrument approach 

procedure has been issued by the FAA 

to the certificate holder, the ceiling is 

200 feet above the minimum for the 

approach to be flown, and visibility is 

at least 1 statute mile but never less than 

the minimum visibility for the approach 

to be flown. 

(2) If, for the alternate airport, no 

instrument approach procedure has 

been published in part 97 of this chapter 

and no special instrument approach 

procedure has been issued by the FAA 

to the certificate holder, the ceiling and 

visibility minimums are those allowing 

descent from the minimum enroute 

altitude (MEA), approach, and landing 

under basic VFR. 

■ 12. Amend § 135.293 by— 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ from the 

end of paragraph (a)(7)(iii); 

■ b. Removing the period and adding ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place at the end of paragraph 

(a)(8); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(9); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (c) 

through (f) as paragraphs (d) through (g) 

respectively; and 

■ e. Adding new paragraph (c). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 135.293 Initial and recurrent pilot testing 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(9) After the next scheduled 

competency check after April 22, 2014 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9975 

for rotorcraft pilots, procedures for 

aircraft handling in flat-light, whiteout, 

and brownout conditions, including 

methods for recognizing and avoiding 

those conditions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each competency check given in a 

rotorcraft must include a demonstration 

of the pilot’s ability to maneuver the 

rotorcraft solely by reference to 

instruments. The check must determine 

the pilot’s ability to safely maneuver the 

rotorcraft into visual meteorological 

conditions following an inadvertent 

encounter with instrument 

meteorological conditions. For 

competency checks in non-IFR-certified 

rotorcraft, the pilot must perform such 

maneuvers as are appropriate to the 

rotorcraft’s installed equipment, the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications, and the operating 

environment. 

* * * * * 

§ 135.297 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 135.297 by removing the 

reference to ‘‘§ 135.293(d)’’ and adding 

‘‘§ 135.293(e)’’ in its place in the last 

sentence of paragraph (c) introductory 

text. 

■ 14. Add subpart L to part 135 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart L—Helicopter Air Ambulance 

Equipment, Operations, and Training 

Requirements 

Sec. 

135.601 Applicability and definitions. 

135.603 Pilot-in-command instrument 

qualifications. 

135.605 Helicopter terrain awareness and 

warning system (HTAWS). 

135.607 Flight Data Monitoring System. 

135.609 VFR ceiling and visibility 

requirements for Class G airspace. 

135.611 IFR operations at locations without 

weather reporting. 

135.613 Approach/departure IFR 

transitions. 

135.615 VFR flight planning. 

135.617 Pre-flight risk analysis. 

135.619 Operations control centers. 

135.621 Briefing of medical personnel. 

Subpart L—Helicopter Air Ambulance 

Equipment, Operations, and Training 

Requirements 

§ 135.601 Applicability and definitions. 

(a) Applicability. This subpart 

prescribes the requirements applicable 

to each certificate holder conducting 

helicopter air ambulance operations. 

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this 

subpart, the following definitions apply: 

(1) Helicopter air ambulance 

operation means a flight, or sequence of 

flights, with a patient or medical 

personnel on board, for the purpose of 

medical transportation, by a part 135 

certificate holder authorized by the 

Administrator to conduct helicopter air 

ambulance operations. A helicopter air 

ambulance operation includes, but is 

not limited to— 

(i) Flights conducted to position the 

helicopter at the site at which a patient 

or donor organ will be picked up. 

(ii) Flights conducted to reposition 

the helicopter after completing the 

patient, or donor organ transport. 

(iii) Flights initiated for the transport 

of a patient or donor organ that are 

terminated due to weather or other 

reasons. 

(2) Medical personnel means a person 

or persons with medical training, 

including but not limited to flight 

physicians, flight nurses, or flight 

paramedics, who are carried aboard a 

helicopter during helicopter air 

ambulance operations in order to 

provide medical care. 

(3) Mountainous means designated 

mountainous areas as listed in part 95 

of this chapter. 

(4) Nonmountainous means areas 

other than mountainous areas as listed 

in part 95 of this chapter. 

§ 135.603 Pilot-in-command instrument 

qualifications. 

After April 24, 2017, no certificate 

holder may use, nor may any person 

serve as, a pilot in command of a 

helicopter air ambulance operation 

unless that person meets the 

requirements of § 135.243 and holds a 

helicopter instrument rating or an 

airline transport pilot certificate with a 

category and class rating for that 

aircraft, that is not limited to VFR. 

§ 135.605 Helicopter terrain awareness 

and warning system (HTAWS). 

(a) After April 24, 2017, no person 

may operate a helicopter in helicopter 

air ambulance operations unless that 

helicopter is equipped with a helicopter 

terrain awareness and warning system 

(HTAWS) that meets the requirements 

in TSO–C194 and Section 2 of RTCA 

DO–309. 

(b) The certificate holder’s Rotorcraft 

Flight Manual must contain appropriate 

procedures for— 

(1) The use of the HTAWS; and 

(2) Proper flight crew response to 

HTAWS audio and visual warnings. 

(c) Certificate holders with HTAWS 

required by this section with an 

approved deviation under § 21.618 of 

this chapter are in compliance with this 

section. 

(d) The standards required in this 

section are incorporated by reference 

into this section with the approval of 

the Director of the Federal Register 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

To enforce any edition other than that 

specified in this section, the FAA must 

publish notice of change in the Federal 

Register and the material must be 

available to the public. All approved 

material is available for inspection at 

the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking (ARM– 

1), 800 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591 (telephone (202) 

267–9677) and from the sources 

indicated below. It is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(1) U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Subsequent Distribution Office, DOT 

Warehouse M30, Ardmore East Business 

Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, 

MD 20785; telephone (301) 322–5377. 

Copies are also available on the FAA’s 

Web site. Use the following link and 

type the TSO number in the search box: 

http://rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/ 

rgTSO.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage. 

(i) TSO C–194, Helicopter Terrain 

Awareness and Warning System 

(HTAWS), Dec. 17, 2008. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street NW., 

Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, 

telephone (202) 833–9339, and are also 

available on RTCA’s Web site at http:// 

www.rtca.org/onlinecart/index.cfm. 

(i) RTCA DO–309, Minimum 

Operational Performance Standards 

(MOPS) for Helicopter Terrain 

Awareness and Warning System 

(HTAWS) Airborne Equipment, Mar. 13, 

2008. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

§ 135.607 Flight Data Monitoring System. 

After April 23, 2018, no person may 

operate a helicopter in air ambulance 

operations unless it is equipped with an 

approved flight data monitoring system 

capable of recording flight performance 

data. This system must: 

(a) Receive electrical power from the 

bus that provides the maximum 

reliability for operation without 

jeopardizing service to essential or 

emergency loads, and 

(b) Be operated from the application 

of electrical power before takeoff until 

the removal of electrical power after 

termination of flight. 

§ 135.609 VFR ceiling and visibility 

requirements for Class G airspace. 

(a) Unless otherwise specified in the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications, when conducting 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

helicopter air ambulance operations in Class G airspace, the weather minimums 

in the following table apply: 

(b) A certificate holder may designate 

local flying areas in a manner acceptable 

to the Administrator, that must— 

(1) Not exceed 50 nautical miles in 

any direction from each designated 

location; 

(2) Take into account obstacles and 

terrain features that are easily 

identifiable by the pilot in command 

and from which the pilot in command 

may visually determine a position; and 

(3) Take into account the operating 

environment and capabilities of the 

certificate holder’s helicopters. 

(c) A pilot must demonstrate a level 

of familiarity with the local flying area 

by passing an examination given by the 

certificate holder within the 12 calendar 

months prior to using the local flying 

area. 

§ 135.611 IFR operations at locations 

without weather reporting. 

(a) If a certificate holder is authorized 

to conduct helicopter IFR operations, 

the Administrator may authorize the 

certificate holder to conduct IFR 

helicopter air ambulance operations at 

airports with an instrument approach 

procedure 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, subject to 

the following limitations: 

(1) The certificate holder must 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, that is 

located within 15 nautical miles of the 

airport. If a weather report is not 

available, the certificate holder may 

obtain the area forecast from the NWS, 

a source approved by the NWS, or a 

source approved by the FAA, for 

information regarding the weather 

observed in the vicinity of the airport; 

(2) Flight planning for IFR flights 

conducted under this paragraph must 

include selection of an alternate airport 

that meets the requirements of 

§§ 135.221 and 135.223; 

(3) In Class G airspace, IFR departures 

are authorized only after the pilot in 

command determines that the weather 

conditions at the departure point are at 

or above VFR minimums in accordance 

with § 135.609; and 

(4) All approaches must be conducted 

at Category A approach speeds as 

established in part 97 or those required 

for the type of approach being used. 

(b) Each helicopter air ambulance 

operated under this section must be 

equipped with functioning severe 

weather detection equipment. 

(c) Pilots conducting operations 

pursuant to this section may use the 

weather information obtained in 

paragraph (a) to satisfy the weather 

report and forecast requirements of 

§ 135.213 and § 135.225(a). 

(d) After completing a landing at the 

airport at which a weather report is not 

available, the pilot in command is 

authorized to determine if the weather 

meets the takeoff requirements of part 

97 of this chapter or the certificate 

holder’s operations specification, as 

applicable. 

§ 135.613 Approach/departure IFR 

transitions. 

(a) Approaches. When conducting an 

authorized instrument approach and 

transitioning from IFR to VFR flight, 

upon transitioning to VFR flight the 

following weather minimums apply— 

(1) For Point-in-Space (PinS) Copter 

Instrument approaches annotated with a 

‘‘Proceed VFR’’ segment, if the distance 

from the missed approach point to the 

landing area is 1 NM or less, flight 

visibility must be at least 1 statute mile 

and the ceiling on the approach chart 

applies; 

(2) For all instrument approaches, 

including PinS when paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section does not apply, if the 

distance from the missed approach 

point to the landing area is 3 NM or less, 

the applicable VFR weather minimums 

are— 

(i) For Day Operations: No less than 

a 600-foot ceiling and 2 statute miles 

flight visibility; 

(ii) For Night Operations: No less than 

a 600-foot ceiling and 3 statute miles 

flight visibility; or 

(3) For all instrument approaches, 

including PinS, if the distance from the 

missed approach point to the landing 

area is greater than 3 NM, the VFR 

weather minimums required by the 

class of airspace. 

(b) Departures. For transitions from 

VFR to IFR upon departure— 

(1) The VFR weather minimums of 

paragraph (a) of this section apply if— 

(i) An FAA-approved obstacle 

departure procedure is followed; and 

(ii) An IFR clearance is obtained on or 

before reaching a predetermined 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER21FE14.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9977 

location that is not more than 3 NM 

from the departure location. 

(2) If the departure does not meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, the VFR weather minimums 

required by the class of airspace apply. 

§ 135.615 VFR flight planning. 

(a) Pre-flight. Prior to conducting VFR 

operations, the pilot in command 

must— 

(1) Determine the minimum safe 

cruise altitude by evaluating the terrain 

and obstacles along the planned route of 

flight; 

(2) Identify and document the highest 

obstacle along the planned route of 

flight; and 

(3) Using the minimum safe cruise 

altitudes in paragraphs (b)(1)–(2) of this 

section, determine the minimum 

required ceiling and visibility to 

conduct the planned flight by applying 

the weather minimums appropriate to 

the class of airspace for the planned 

flight. 

(b) Enroute. While conducting VFR 

operations, the pilot in command must 

ensure that all terrain and obstacles 

along the route of flight are cleared 

vertically by no less than the following: 

(1) 300 feet for day operations. 

(2) 500 feet for night operations. 

(c) Rerouting the planned flight path. 

A pilot in command may deviate from 

the planned flight path for reasons such 

as weather conditions or operational 

considerations. Such deviations do not 

relieve the pilot in command of the 

weather requirements or the 

requirements for terrain and obstacle 

clearance contained in this part and in 

part 91 of this chapter. Rerouting, 

change in destination, or other changes 

to the planned flight that occur while 

the helicopter is on the ground at an 

intermediate stop require evaluation of 

the new route in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(d) Operations manual. Each 

certificate holder must document its 

VFR flight planning procedures in its 

operations manual. 

§ 135.617 Pre-flight risk analysis. 

(a) Each certificate holder conducting 

helicopter air ambulance operations 

must establish, and document in its 

operations manual, an FAA-approved 

preflight risk analysis that includes at 

least the following— 

(1) Flight considerations, to include 

obstacles and terrain along the planned 

route of flight, landing zone conditions, 

and fuel requirements; 

(2) Human factors, such as crew 

fatigue, life events, and other stressors; 

(3) Weather, including departure, en 

route, destination, and forecasted; 

(4) A procedure for determining 

whether another helicopter air 

ambulance operator has refused or 

rejected a flight request; and 

(5) Strategies and procedures for 

mitigating identified risks, including 

procedures for obtaining and 

documenting approval of the certificate 

holder’s management personnel to 

release a flight when a risk exceeds a 

level predetermined by the certificate 

holder. 

(b) Each certificate holder must 

develop a preflight risk analysis 

worksheet to include, at a minimum, the 

items in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) Prior to the first leg of each 

helicopter air ambulance operation, the 

pilot in command must conduct a 

preflight risk analysis and complete the 

preflight risk analysis worksheet in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

FAA-approved procedures. The pilot in 

command must sign the preflight risk 

analysis worksheet and specify the date 

and time it was completed. 

(d) The certificate holder must retain 

the original or a copy of each completed 

preflight risk analysis worksheet at a 

location specified in its operations 

manual for at least 90 days from the date 

of the operation. 

§ 135.619 Operations control centers. 

(a) Operations control center. After 

April 22, 2016, certificate holders 

authorized to conduct helicopter air 

ambulance operations, with 10 or more 

helicopter air ambulances assigned to 

the certificate holder’s operations 

specifications, must have an operations 

control center. The operations control 

center must be staffed by operations 

control specialists who, at a minimum— 

(1) Provide two-way communications 

with pilots; 

(2) Provide pilots with weather 

briefings, to include current and 

forecasted weather along the planned 

route of flight; 

(3) Monitor the progress of the flight; 

and 

(4) Participate in the preflight risk 

analysis required under § 135.617 to 

include the following: 

(i) Ensure the pilot has completed all 

required items on the preflight risk 

analysis worksheet; 

(ii) Confirm and verify all entries on 

the preflight risk analysis worksheet; 

(iii) Assist the pilot in mitigating any 

identified risk prior to takeoff; and 

(iv) Acknowledge in writing, 

specifying the date and time, that the 

preflight risk analysis worksheet has 

been accurately completed and that, 

according to their professional 

judgment, the flight can be conducted 

safely. 

(b) Operations control center staffing. 

Each certificate holder conducting 

helicopter air ambulance operations 

must provide enough operations control 

specialists at each operations control 

center to ensure the certificate holder 

maintains operational control of each 

flight. 

(c) Documentation of duties and 

responsibilities. Each certificate holder 

must describe in its operations manual 

the duties and responsibilities of 

operations control specialists, including 

preflight risk mitigation strategies and 

control measures, shift change checklist, 

and training and testing procedures to 

hold the position, including procedures 

for retesting. 

(d) Training requirements. No 

certificate holder may use, nor may any 

person perform the duties of, an 

operations control specialist unless the 

operations control specialist has 

satisfactorily completed the training 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Initial training. Before performing 

the duties of an operations control 

specialist, each person must 

satisfactorily complete the certificate 

holder’s FAA-approved operations 

control specialist initial training 

program and pass an FAA-approved 

knowledge and practical test given by 

the certificate holder. Initial training 

must include a minimum of 80 hours of 

training on the topics listed in 

paragraph (f) of this section. A 

certificate holder may reduce the 

number of hours of initial training to a 

minimum of 40 hours for persons who 

have obtained, at the time of beginning 

initial training, a total of at least 2 years 

of experience during the last 5 years in 

any one or in any combination of the 

following areas— 

(i) In military aircraft operations as a 

pilot, flight navigator, or meteorologist; 

(ii) In air carrier operations as a pilot, 

flight engineer, certified aircraft 

dispatcher, or meteorologist; or 

(iii) In aircraft operations as an air 

traffic controller or a flight service 

specialist. 

(2) Recurrent training. Every 12 

months after satisfactory completion of 

the initial training, each operations 

control specialist must complete a 

minimum of 40 hours of recurrent 

training on the topics listed in 

paragraph (f) of this section and pass an 

FAA-approved knowledge and practical 

test given by the certificate holder on 

those topics. 

(e) Training records. The certificate 

holder must maintain a training record 

for each operations control specialist 

employed by the certificate holder for 

the duration of that individual’s 

employment and for 90 days thereafter. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
9978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The training record must include a 

chronological log for each training 

course, including the number of training 

hours and the examination dates and 

results. 

(f) Training topics. Each certificate 

holder must have an FAA-approved 

operations control specialist training 

program that covers at least the 

following topics— 

(1) Aviation weather, including: 

(i) General meteorology; 

(ii) Prevailing weather; 

(iii) Adverse and deteriorating 

weather; 

(iv) Windshear; 

(v) Icing conditions; 

(vi) Use of aviation weather products; 

(vii) Available sources of information; 

and 

(viii) Weather minimums; 

(2) Navigation, including: 

(i) Navigation aids; 

(ii) Instrument approach procedures; 

(iii) Navigational publications; and 

(iv) Navigation techniques; 

(3) Flight monitoring, including: 

(i) Available flight-monitoring 

procedures; and 

(ii) Alternate flight-monitoring 

procedures; 

(4) Air traffic control, including: 

(i) Airspace; 

(ii) Air traffic control procedures; 

(iii) Aeronautical charts; and 

(iv) Aeronautical data sources; 

(5) Aviation communication, 

including: 

(i) Available aircraft communications 

systems; 

(ii) Normal communication 

procedures; 

(iii) Abnormal communication 

procedures; and 

(iv) Emergency communication 

procedures; 

(6) Aircraft systems, including: 

(i) Communications systems; 

(ii) Navigation systems; 

(iii) Surveillance systems; 

(iv) Fueling systems; 

(v) Specialized systems; 

(vi) General maintenance 

requirements; and 

(vii) Minimum equipment lists; 

(7) Aircraft limitations and 

performance, including: 

(i) Aircraft operational limitations; 

(ii) Aircraft performance; 

(iii) Weight and balance procedures 

and limitations; and 

(iv) Landing zone and landing facility 

requirements; 

(8) Aviation policy and regulations, 

including: 

(i) 14 CFR Parts 1, 27, 29, 61, 71, 91, 

and 135; 

(ii) 49 CFR Part 830; 

(iii) Company operations 

specifications; 

(iv) Company general operations 

policies; 

(v) Enhanced operational control 

policies; 

(vi) Aeronautical decision making and 

risk management; 

(vii) Lost aircraft procedures; and 

(viii) Emergency and search and 

rescue procedures, including plotting 

coordinates in degrees, minutes, 

seconds format, and degrees, decimal 

minutes format; 

(9) Crew resource management, 

including: 

(i) Concepts and practical application; 

(ii) Risk management and risk 

mitigation; and 

(iii) Pre-flight risk analysis procedures 

required under § 135.617; 

(10) Local flying area orientation, 

including: 

(i) Terrain features; 

(ii) Obstructions; 

(iii) Weather phenomena for local 

area; 

(iv) Airspace and air traffic control 

facilities; 

(v) Heliports, airports, landing zones, 

and fuel facilities; 

(vi) Instrument approaches; 

(vii) Predominant air traffic flow; 

(viii) Landmarks and cultural features, 

including areas prone to flat-light, 

whiteout, and brownout conditions; and 

(ix) Local aviation and safety 

resources and contact information; and 

(11) Any other requirements as 

determined by the Administrator to 

ensure safe operations. 

(g) Operations control specialist duty 

time limitations. (1) Each certificate 

holder must establish the daily duty 

period for an operations control 

specialist so that it begins at a time that 

allows that person to become 

thoroughly familiar with operational 

considerations, including existing and 

anticipated weather conditions in the 

area of operations, helicopter operations 

in progress, and helicopter maintenance 

status, before performing duties 

associated with any helicopter air 

ambulance operation. The operations 

control specialist must remain on duty 

until relieved by another qualified 

operations control specialist or until 

each helicopter air ambulance 

monitored by that person has completed 

its flight or gone beyond that person’s 

jurisdiction. 

(2) Except in cases where 

circumstances or emergency conditions 

beyond the control of the certificate 

holder require otherwise— 

(i) No certificate holder may schedule 

an operations control specialist for more 

than 10 consecutive hours of duty; 

(ii) If an operations control specialist 

is scheduled for more than 10 hours of 

duty in 24 consecutive hours, the 

certificate holder must provide that 

person a rest period of at least 8 hours 

at or before the end of 10 hours of duty; 

(iii) If an operations control specialist 

is on duty for more than 10 consecutive 

hours, the certificate holder must 

provide that person a rest period of at 

least 8 hours before that person’s next 

duty period; 

(iv) Each operations control specialist 

must be relieved of all duty with the 

certificate holder for at least 24 

consecutive hours during any 7 

consecutive days. 

(h) Drug and alcohol testing. 

Operations control specialists must be 

tested for drugs and alcohol according 

to the certificate holder’s Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program administered 

under part 120 of this chapter. 

§ 135.621 Briefing of medical personnel. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, prior to each 

helicopter air ambulance operation, 

each pilot in command, or other flight 

crewmember designated by the 

certificate holder, must ensure that all 

medical personnel have been briefed on 

the following— 

(1) Passenger briefing requirements in 

§ 135.117(a) and (b); and 

(2) Physiological aspects of flight; 

(3) Patient loading and unloading; 

(4) Safety in and around the 

helicopter; 

(5) In-flight emergency procedures; 

(6) Emergency landing procedures; 

(7) Emergency evacuation procedures; 

(8) Efficient and safe communications 

with the pilot; and 

(9) Operational differences between 

day and night operations, if appropriate. 

(b) The briefing required in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this 

section may be omitted if all medical 

personnel on board have satisfactorily 

completed the certificate holder’s FAAapproved medical personnel training 

program within the preceding 24 

calendar months. Each training program 

must include a minimum of 4 hours of 

ground training, and 4 hours of training 

in and around an air ambulance 

helicopter, on the topics set forth in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(c) Each certificate holder must 

maintain a record for each person 

trained under this section that— 

(1) Contains the individual’s name, 

the most recent training completion 

date, and a description, copy, or 

reference to training materials used to 

meet the training requirement. 

(2) Is maintained for 24 calendar 

months following the individual’s 

completion of training. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 9979 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 49 U.S.C. 44730, in 

Washington, DC, on February 18, 2014. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03689 Filed 2–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES2