AFS-11-348-E

Exemption No. 10745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of 

 

BRISTOW ALASKA INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0796

 

for an exemption from §§ 43.3(g), and 

43.3(h)(1) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated July 23, 2012, Mr. Jeff J. Ryhti, Director of Maintenance, Bristow 

Alaska Inc. (Bristow), 1915 Donald Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Bristow Alaska for an exemption from 

§§ 43.3(g) and 43.3(h)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Bristow holds a 

part 135 certificate and operates Bell 206, Bell 407, and Eurocopter BO105 helicopters. The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Bristow Alaska’s properly trained pilots to 

remove and install batteries and to remove and install pilot and passenger doors under an 

approved training program.

 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

In its petition, Bristow requested relief only from §§ 43.3(g) and 43.3(h)(1). 

Section 43.3(g) in pertinent part, states that:

(g) Except for holders of a sport pilot certificate, the holder of a pilot certificate issued under 

part 61 may perform preventive maintenance on any aircraft owned or operated by that pilot 

which is not used under part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter.

Section 43.3(h)(1) provides an exception to § 43.3(g) and states that “notwithstanding the 

provisions of paragraph (g) of this section, the Administrator may approve a certificate holder 

under Part 135 of this chapter, operating rotorcraft in a remote area, to allow a pilot to 

perform specific preventive maintenance items provided—
2

(1) The items of preventive maintenance are a result of a known or suspected 

mechanical difficulty or malfunction that occurred en route to or in a remote area;

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Bristow Alaska is based in Fairbanks, Alaska, and operates under part 135 in remote 

arctic conditions providing external load operations. The petitioner states the 

maintenance actions of removing and replacing a battery can be performed by a pilot 

under § 43.3(h) provided it is a result of mechanical difficulty. Bristow Alaska

believes the opportunity to make a mistake would be higher when attempting to fix an 

aircraft with a discrepancy rather than preventing the discrepancy to begin with.

The petitioner requests authorization to allow its pilots to remove and install batteries

to prevent the battery from freezing in cold temperatures. The petitioner is also 

requesting that pilots be allowed to remove and install pilot and passenger doors to 

facilitate external load operations. Bristow Alaska believes it is safer in certain 

operations to remove a door for increased visibility while performing external load 

operations when the maintenance functions can be performed by elementary means, are 

not complicated in nature, and are allowed to be performed by a pilot to prevent a 

mechanical malfunction. Bristow will also have an FAA approved training program 

that addresses task accomplishment and required documentation for all the maintenance 

items pilots are approved to perform. This exemption would be for the Bell 206 series, 

Bell 407 and Eurocopter BO105 helicopters operated under a part 135 Approved 

Airworthiness Inspection Program.

 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

Bristow submitted its request for exemption to the FAA by letter date stamped July 23, 

2012 and requested exemption “from all of 43.3(g) and 43.3(h)(1)” for its pilots to 

remove and install batteries and aircraft doors as necessary. In pertinent part, section 

43.3(g) prohibits pilots operating aircraft under part 135 from performing preventive 

maintenance, and section 43.3(h)(1) authorizes a Part 135 certificate holder operating 

rotorcraft in a remote area to allow its pilot to perform specific preventive maintenance 

items under certain prescribed conditions. Items identified as preventive maintenance 

are listed in Appendix A of part 43, paragraph (c)(1)-(31). We note that the removal 

and installation of batteries and doors are not included in the list for preventive 

maintenance. 

The installation and removal of batteries and doors is accurately described as 

maintenance, which would require performance by authorized personnel. The petitioner 

did not address this issue and also failed to identify the appropriate regulations from 

which relief should be granted. We base our final decision on this point.

Finally, in identifying the public interest served, the petitioner stated that grant of the 

exemption would result in lower costs to the public. While this may be true, the 

ultimate impact would also be to grant the petitioner an unfair advantage over its 
3

competition without a stated public interest or safety reason. We therefore have 

concluded that the petition for exemption should be denied.

The FAA’s Decision:

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption as requested would fail 

to provide the relief desired because exemption would be required from additional regulations 

and the exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority 

contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the 

petition for Bristow Alaska, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 43.3(g), and 43.3(h)(1) is 

hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 12, 2013.

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service