AFS

- 14

- 461

- E Exemption No. 17162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

UNIT ED STATES DEPARTMENT Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0693 of the INTERIOR (DOI)

for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 1, 2014, Mr. David Parsons, United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Aviation Services, 300 E. Mallard Dr., Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83706

- 3991 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of DOI for an exemption from § 133.45(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow DOI MD

- 530, MD

- 500D, MD

- 900, Bell

- 206

- L4, Bell

407, Bell

- 205 and AS

- 350B3 contra cted helicopters to conduct s hort

- h aul missions in conjunction with search and rescue operations.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation

. Section 133.45(e)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that the rotorcraft

- load combination of Cla ss D may be conducted only in a rotorcraft 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 fo llowing information: The petitioner states that helicopter short

- haul operations are an effective tool in meeting safe and efficient objectives while conducted under the DOI’s oversight. Most of these operations are assigned to contracted civil operators that have helicopters based in different locations such as National Parks; however, some aircraft are owned and operated by DOI, such as the2

Park Police in Washington, D.C. All short

- haul operations conducted in National Parks fall under DOI operational c ontrol and these missions are performed by DOI trained and approved personnel. Additionally, all short

- haul operations conducted by civil operators contracted by the DOI in National Parks are done using only single engine helicopters.

The petitioner states the need for short

- haul programs have been proven every year and that National Parks need this added capability of saving injured people’s lives by this proven safe process. DOI contracts single

- engine and twin

- engine helicopters that have the best high altitude performance in production. The petitioner states that the only helicopters it approves to perform these missions are MD

- 500D, MD

- 530, MD

- 900, Bell

- 412, Bell

- 206

- L4, Bell

- 407, Bell

- 205, and the AS

- 350B3. However, the petitioner states that n one of these aircraft meet the current performance requirements listed in 14 CFR § 133.45(e)(1). The cost to contract additional helicopters to perform this single short

- haul mission that meet this requirement would place an economic hardship on taxpayers . The petitioner maintains that granting this exemption would not adversely effect the excellent safety record of these programs.

The petitioner states that all DOI short

- haul programs must be approved by the DOI in accordance with its Short

- Haul Operation s Guide. This guide provides all the detailed requirements for each helicopter and its required equipment. This guide also describes the DOI training and certification requirements including a plan of when and how short

- haul will be used. The operations plan includes a GO/NO

- GO process for risk management purposes and all pilots, aircraft, and crew members are inspected and trained by certified DOI personnel annually to perform short

- haul missions. Contracted entities conducting short

- haul operations for the DOI must have a current FAA part 133 operating certificate as well as have their pilots trained and qualified in

- accordance with 14 CFR part 133. The DOI does not intend to extend public use status to the civil contractors hired for conducting short

- h aul operations in National Parks.

The petitioner states that none one of the aircraft it or it’s contractors operate meets the current performance requirements listed in 14 CFR 133.45(e)(1). The cost to contract additional helicopters to perform this single short

- haul mission that meet this requirement would place an economic hardship to the taxpayers.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows :
The FAA has fully considered the DOI’s petition for exemption, including supporting information, and finds a grant of exemption would not provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is be sought. Since the DOI uses only single engine helicopters for short

- haul operations in National Parks, an equivalent level of safety ca nnot be maintained should an engine or power failure occur if compared to the level of safety provided under 14 CFR 133.45(e)(1).

The petitioner states that based on the ir extensive training and oversight program along with the proven safety track record of short

- haul operations, they believe an exemption would not adversely affect safety. The FAA does n ot dispute the safety record, risk management3

techniques and training program conducted by DOI. However, t he FAA disagrees that because crewmembers are trained on short

- haul operations that safety would not be adversely affected by using single

- engine helicopters that cannot meet the requirements of section 133.45(e)(1)

. Should the only engine on a single engine helicopter fail , the helicopter would be unable to maintain altitude and would ultimately impact the surface, placing not just the intended rescue target at an unaccep table level of risk, but the entire flight crew and rotorcraft as well

. The DOI did not provide how they intend to mitigate the risk of injury or death to persons should an engine failure occur on a single engine helicopter while conducting short

- haul operations.

In grant of e xemption No. 8116 D , where a petitioner requested similar relief, the FAA was very specific in stat ing that the petitioner “was not exempt from the requirement that the aircraft provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that weight and altit ude.” The FAA went on to reiterate in the conditions and limitations that the petitioner was not relieve d from the portion of § 133.45(e)(1) which states, “...and provide hover capability with one engine inoperative at that operating weight and altitude.” Since the petitioner contract s some of their s hort

- h aul operations to single

- engine helicopter providers

, there is no hover capability if an engine failure were to occur

. The petitioner states that none of the aircraft it or its contractors operate can meet the requirements of 133.45(e)(1), and that purchasing or contracting new aircraft would place an

econ omic hardship on taxpayers. In grant of exemption No. 7118F, the FAA recognized that there existed at the time no domestic or foreign

- manufactured helicopter s operated in the United States that, when considering the altitudes, temperatures, and operating w eights typical of mountain rescue operations, had FAA

- approved performance providing compliance with the one engine inoperative hover requirements of § 133.45(e)(1). However, that grant of exemption was specific to operations in mountain rescue in a define d operating area under specific conditions and limitations based on the detailed information submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, Exemption No. 7118F covers the operation of multi

- engine helicopters that have proven capabilities of hovering out of gro und effect should one of its two engines fail during search and rescue operations in specific operating environments. In that case, by g ranting relief, the FAA continue d to allow rescue operatio ns where human life or health was in jeopardy in geographic a reas where civil helicopter hoist rescue operations have not otherwise been possible. The FAA noted that those operations had not been possible because, generally speaking, most civil rotorcraft have an inability to comply with section 133.45(e) at altitud es greater than 2,500 feet MSL. Although the FAA requested additional information in this case from DOI, the petitioner did not provide sufficient information for the FAA to evaluate and make a similar finding with regard to the public interest or safety.

Finally, the FAA notes that the petitioner requested relief on behalf of itself and several civil operators with which it contracts to conduct short

- haul missions in National Parks. However

, under the FAA’s exemption policy, the FAA cannot grant broad rel ief to the DOI that would apply to other operators, as exemptions are not transferable or shareable . The FAA notes that should DOI wish to submit a new petition for exemption, DOI contracted operators would have to petition the FAA separately

. Each petitio n for exemption would be evaluated on its4

own merit for ensuring an equivalent level of safety is maintained pertinent to the aircraft used.

The FAA’s Decision:

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Admini strator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of United States Department of the Interior (DOI) for an exemption from 14 CFR § 133. 45(e) (1).

Issued in Washington, D.C., o n November 23, 2016

.

/s/ John s. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service