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 Docke t 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 exempt ion 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 pilot s to
remove and install batteries and to remove and install pilot and passenger doors under an approved training program

.

Th e 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) i n pertinent part , states that : (g) E xcept 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 opera ted by that pilot which is not used under part 12 1, 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 certi ficate 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 difficult y 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 Fairba nks, Alaska, and operates under part 135 in remote arctic conditions providing external lo ad operations. The petitioner states the

maintenance actions of removi ng 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 pilot s to remove and install batteries to prevent the battery from freezing in cold temperatures. The petitioner is also requesting that pilot s 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 visibil ity while performing external load operations when t he 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

tha t addresses task accomplishment and required documentation for all the maintenance items pilots are approved to perform. T his exemption would be for the Bell 206 series,

Bell 40 7 and Eurocopter BO 105 helic opters operated unde r a part 135 A pproved

A irworthiness I nspection P rogram

.

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.

T he installation and removal of batteries and doors is accurately described as maintenance, which would require performance by autho rized personnel . T he 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 peti tioner 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 its3

competition without a stated public interest or safety reas on. 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 b e 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 th e Administrator, the petition for Bristow Alaska, Inc. for a n 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