Exemption No. 10715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

PHI AIR MEDICAL
, L

. L

. C Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1233

for an exemption from § § 135.293, 135.297, 135.299, and

135.343 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated October 28 , 2011 , Mr. Kurt A. Baden, Director of Operations, PHI A ir Medical, L

. L

. C

. , 2800 44 th Street, Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85008, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of PHI Air Medical

, L

. L

. C (Air Medical) f or exemption from § § 135.293, 135.297, 135.299, and 135.343 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Air Medical ( p art
119 a ir c arrier c ertificate number VE7A070N ) to use pilots previous ly qualified to operate
under another air carrier certificate ( that of PHI, Inc., p art 119 a ir c arrier c ertificate number

HEEA617E , hereafter “PHI” ) with out additional training

, testing , or checking by Air Medical

.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 135.293 states , in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of a pilot unless, since the beginning of the twelfth month before that service, th at pilot has passed

a written or oral test and a competency flight check given by the Administrator or authorized

check airman.

Section 135.297 states , in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the s ervices of a pilot in command unless, since the beginning of the sixth calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed an instrument proficiency check.

Section 135.299 states , in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of a pilot in command unless, since the beginning of the twelfth calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed a flight check using representative routes and airports in one of the types of aircraft which that pilot is to fly

.Section 135.343 s t ates , in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use a person as a crewmember unless that crewmember has completed the appropriate initial or recurrent training phase of the training program appropriate to the type of operation in which the

crewmemb er is to serve since the beginning of the twelth calendar month before that service.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

PHI desires to implement the transition of approximately 78 helicopters and 275 pilots to the

Air Medical part 119 air carrier certificate. Air Medical proposes to “adopt” the existing policies, programs, procedures, records, manuals and training programs of PHI. Air Medical

, then, seeks this exemption to permit it to use pilots qualified under PHI’s approved air carrier training program for up to 13 months without clearly defined training

, testing , or checking by

Air Medical. The petitioner states that granting this petition will not only provide an equivalent level of safety, but will enhance safety

. The 78 helicopters will continue to operate

at the current PHI bases with the same personnel. The petitioner state s that the day before the transition of the selected pilot and his/her aircraft at one of the 65 bases around the country, the pilot is full y trained/checked and qualified to serve as a pilot under part 135 . T he day after the transition, the same pilot will be flying the same helicopter from the same base using the

same FAA

- approved/accepted procedures with the same pilot competency and knowle dge of the day before. The petitioner believes that a dditional training and checking will increase additional exposure to potential hazards required by additional training and checking of 275 pilots.

The petitioner states that denial of t he petition will r equire a dditional FAA resources to
conduct oversight of the training and checking required by the regulations from which relief is requested

. The petitioner further states that merging the operations of the PHI helicopters with

the Air Medical airplanes u nder one certificate would increase safety by allowing Air Medical

to focus on one “ line

- of business. ” The petitioner asserts that granting the exemption is in the public interest and would allow the FAA to focus on other safety issues.

Without providing a specific reference, the petitioner states that “similar administrative relief was previously provided by the FAA for several years in accordance with FAA Order

8400.10.” This Order is now cancelled.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2012 (77 FR 5087). No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner ’s request and supporting materials and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and w ould not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations

.Air Medical (VE7A) is a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct on

- demand passenger, cargo and air ambulance operations under part 135 utilizi ng only fixed

- wing

aircraft. Air Medical currently operates 5 airplane s of the same type.

PHI (HEEA) is a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct on

- demand passenger, cargo and air ambulance operations under part 135 utilizi ng only rotorcraft.

Air Medical will be acquiring assets from PHI ’s helicopter air ambulance operations, including helicopters, operational bases, mechanics, pilots, check airm e n and associated management personnel. Operationally, Air M edical will continue to conduct fixed

- wing operations while adding 78 helicopter air ambulances at 65 bases around the country

. Through this action Air Medical will be expanding its aircraft fleet to more than fifteen times it current

size . I t will also be adding helicopters to its certificate , a class of aircraft not currently operated by Air Medical

.

Two operators that conduct operations under the same regulation may require operational control systems of dif fering degrees of sophistication. For example, a part 135 on

- demand may find a simple flight locating system to be adequate. A part 135 helicopter air ambulances operator that conducts many flights a day to and from major t erminal areas may find, however, that a more sophisticated system is necessary to effectively control operations. The training

associated with a carrier’s operational control system is necessarily unique and a critical safety
component.

T he transaction pr oposed between PHI and Air Medical can be characterized as an acquisition

. 1 At the conclusion of the acquisition, both certificates will remain active

. However, the petitioner is requesting exemption from certain regulatory requiremen ts in order to allow it to use pilots under the acquiring air carrier certificate without clearly defined training, testing or checking by Air Medical for up to 13 months.

A lthough the petitioner asserts there would be minimal operational changes , p art 135 requires

each individual air carrier to have an approved training program tailored specifically for its operation and the make, model and variant of aircraft flown

. T raining required by Air Medical

and PHI is necessarily different to some degree for th e following reasons: the nature of the two different operations ; the tremendous difference in geographic size and scope of the combined operation, as well as the rapid expansion that will be incurred as a result of the acquisition ; and the introduction of rotorcraft , with their significantly different operational

characteristics , into what had been an airplane

- only operation. All of these factors impose significant challenge s for the combined carrier.

1 FAA policy on oversight during a transition of assets is contained in FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 34,

Section 1, Air Carrier Mergers and the Acquisition of Air Carrier Operational Assets . This section discusses the development of a transition plan by the acquiring carrier; typically, when personnel are transferred, as the petitioner proposes here, such a plan wou ld outline the training required to transition pilots successfully from one

carrier to another.T he petitioner has failed to show how its proposal would provide an equivalent lev el of safety

or be in the public interest.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA find s that a grant of exemption is not in the public

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delega ted to me by the Administrator, the petition of PHI Air Medical, L L C for an exemption

from 14 CFR § § 135.293, 135.297, 135.299 and 135.343 is hereby denied

.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2013.

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Acting Deputy Direc tor, Flight

Standards Service