Exem ption No. 10461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

ERA HELICOPTERS, LLC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1018

for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated Septem ber 14, 2011, Mr. Dana Alan Raaz, Vice President-Director of Operations, Era Helicopters, LLC (Era), P.O. Box 6550, Lake Charles, LA 70606 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Era Helicopters for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Era to conduct Class D rotorcraft-load operations with an Agusta-Westland AW-139 helicopter certificated in the normal category under part 27.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 133.45(e)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that the rotorcraft-load combination of Class D may be conducted only in accordance with the following:

(1) The rotorcraft to be used must have been type certificated under transport Category A for the operating weight and provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating weight and altitude.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states the current certificate allows Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), Night Vision Goggles (NVG), and Air Medical and External Hoist Class D amongst others to support daily operations. The crew training program(s) include Air Medical specific training and the use of NVG. Each member of the five crewmember team are qualified emergency medical

technicians at a minimum.

AFS-11-460-E2

Era stresses while all hoisting operations are conducted at sea level there are circumstances where range and temperature limitations prevent single engine hover capability in the AW139. Currently, hoisting operations are conducted at the minimum fuel load allowable to meet single engine hover requirement to conduct hoists. At the higher temperature ranges, this can put the crews into a minimum reserve fuel situation. This also adds a higher risk of potential fuel starvation and severely limits the level of response for which the industry is in desperate need.

This is currently mitigated by the following: 1) maintaining the aircraft at the lowest available empty weight, 2) maintaining only the critical equipment necessary onboard the aircraft, 3) a very high level of training and currency of the crews, and 4) very specific planning and fine tuned adjustments when on scene with a site assessment of the situation or a flat out no-go for that mission. There are approximately 65 fuel sites throughout a several hundred square mile radius in the Gulf of Mexico that can support the AW139 Helicopter.

With larger helicopters, the fuel locations available would be dramatically reduced due to helideck weight and dimension limitations. Era believes the AW139 is the best helicopter for this service in the Gulf of Mexico. There are no commercially available helicopters on the market today that can meet a 200 nm range and +20 degree Celsius temperature single engine hover performance requirement that is needed for the offshore evacuation profile when human life or health is in jeopardy.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2011 (76 FR 61474). Three comments were received and all were not in favor of the exemption.

Commenters noted there are aircraft available that meet the requirements the petitioner requests relief from and those aircraft were available at the time they acquired the aircraft they desire to use.

Another commenter contended the request for exemption presented the potential for substantially degrading safe part 133 Class D operations without establishing any limitations

or parameters.

All commenters expressed a concern operational mission planning did not capture information such as maximum allowable operational weight for One Engine Inoperative (OEI) external hoist operations and did not provide adequate information.

One commenter believed Search and Rescue (SAR) operators should be given credit for using aircraft and equipment that take advantage of evolving technology that enhances safety. It was the commenter’s opinion this circumstance did not warrant that credit3

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds that while Era states in its request for exemption the Agusta AW139 helicopters have superior single engine hover performance, Era does not specify in any detail the range and temperature limitations that precludes them from complying with the part 133 requirements they seek exemption from. Era cites the hoist cable speed as a mitigating factor. The FAA disagrees. The time spent positioning over, lowering the hoist, acquiring and connecting the rescue target, and raising the target are all part of the total time of exposure, not just the time it takes to raise the target under the ideal hoist conditions referenced by the hoist speed versus weight scenario submitted by the petitioner.

Era states that based on the superior reliability of the Pratt & Whitney PT6-67C engines and Era’s highly qualified crewmembers, they believe an exemption would not adversely affect safety. The FAA does not dispute the overall reliability of the Pratt & Whitney PT6-67C engines as described. However there are other factors that need to be considered. For example, the drivetrain integrity influences the overall reliability and could place the aircraft in a one engine inoperative condition. In addition, the FAA disagrees that because the crewmembers are highly qualified and proficient, sa fety would not be adversely affected. Not being able to maintain flight, the aircraft would impact the water in a single engine flight condition, placing not just the rescue target, but the entire crew at added unacceptable risk.

The petitioner states Exemption Nos. 6740 and 7118 are materially similar and believes those grants are a solid basis to review and approve this request. In Exemption No. 6740, which is actually a “partial grant,” there is the specific limitation that states, “this exemption is not valid for operations conducted below 2,500 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).” This statement was inserted due to specific areas of operations such as high remote mountainous terrain or areas inaccessible by other means. The altitudes the petitioner would conduct their desired operations in this case are below this condition and limitation and the area of desired geographic operations area has other means of rescue available.

In Exemption No. 7118, the petitioner’s request was to the extent necessary to permit the conduct of Class D rotorcraft-load combination rescue operations with an aircraft certificated in the normal category under part 27 instead of the required transport category. In the grant,

condition and limitation item number 5 also contains the condition and limitation, “this exemption is not valid for operations conducted below 2,500 feet mean sea level.” Again, the petitioner desires to conduct operations below this altitude. In Exemption No. 7118 the petitioner also was under the specific condition and limitation to “...provide the FAA with current information on the status of its helicopter replacement project...” which included aircraft meeting the one engine inoperative requirement and thus eliminating the need for an exemption.

The petitioner has not adequately demonstrated how an equivalent level of safety would be maintained if the exemption were granted or how the public interest would be served.4

In the successful petition for Exemption No. 8116D, where a petitioner requested similar relief, the FAA was very specific and stated “ you are not exempt from the requirement that the aircraft provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that weight and altitude.” The FAA went on to further reiterate and clarify in condition and limitation item 5 “this exemption does not relieve AAS from complying with the portion of § 133.45(e)(1) which states, “...and provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating weight

and altitude.”

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exem ption 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 of Era Helicopter, LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR § 133.45(e)(1) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 2012.

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service .