Exemption 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 September 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-E 
2

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 credit 
3

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, safety 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 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 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 .