CONSTRUCTION HELICOPTERS, INC. £S7* ^ 

3679 Bowen Road 9 (800)-521 -5130 

Howell, MI 48855-7755 Fax (800)-548-5862 

lO-January-2011 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 

Washington, DC 20590 

Gentlemen: 

Construction Helicopters Inc. certificate number JTAA383F, is hereby petitioning for an exemption to 

91.313b of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed exemption would permit the air carrier 

to conduct FAA part 135flight crewmember training and evaluations in a restricted category Sikorsky 

model 61, (S-61) aircraft. Construction Helicopters Inc. supports this petition with the following. 

1. The petitioner's current S-61 fleet is currently supporting DOD operations in Afghanistan and a 

suitable replacement is not readily available. The availability of standard category S-61 aircraft 

is extremely limited within the United States, yet there is a ready availability of restricted 

category S-61 aircraft. The use of the aircraft is vital to provide initial, recurrent, upgrade, 

transition training, as well as examinations to crewmembers deploying to Afghanistan, in direct 

support of operation Enduring Freedom. The sole purpose and use of the aircraft would be for 

training and evaluations, conducted over non-congested areas and with minimal impact to other 

operations. 

2. The FAA has already determined by previous precedent that there are no significant differences 

between the restricted category S-61 and standard category S-61 operated by the carrier. (See 

enclosure). The only differences pertain to passenger comfort such as seating and observation 

windows, placement and type of doors. Any aircraft to be used would have equipment required 

for ftjll and constant radio communications. 

3. The petitioner's cadre has already been evaluated and found to be acceptable to the 

Administrator for the conduct of flight checks. The carrier is requesting to continue using 

existing cadre to conduct checks under 135.293, and 135.299 of the 14^ CFR. The carrier also 

petitions for the ability to complete the application for airman certification under 61.31, 

utilizing an S-61 Designated Pilot Examiner or FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. It is noted that 

there is no FAA designated distinction between S-61 Type evaluations. 

4. Construclion Helicopters Inc. is not seeking exemption from any other provision of the 

regulation, other than the distinction that a Part 135 check-ride is not one of the special purpose 

operations for which the aircraft has been certificated. 

Key. I. Flic. 12UI lOexempiion d^.c MVP imp N10-J;III-2UI2 .( 1427. I'g 1 oi 2 
s CONSTRUCTION HELICOPTERS, INC, 

3679 Bowen Road 9 (800)-521-5130 

Howell, Ml 48855-7755 Fax (800)-548-5862 

The petitioner believes that this action sets no precedent and is a similar condition as set forth in 

another ruling. That similar ruling is being submitted with this petition as an argument to support our 

request. Due to the identical nature of the rotorcraft to its standard category rotorcraft equivalent, the 

use of this aircraft would not have any adverse impact on safety. Any delay on action to this petition 

would be detrimental to Construction Helicopters Inc., and have a negative impact on our ability to 

serve as a DOD contractor. 

Sincerely, 

Matthew C. Van Peh 

ChiefPilot-Part 135 (JTAA383F) 

Construction Helicopters Inc. 

3679 Bowen Road 

Howell. MI, 48855-7755 

Enclosure-Exemption No. 10410 

Rev I. Tilt 1201 l(lc\tmplinn.dix MVPiiu p .slO-Jjii-:!)): ur 14 27. I'g 2 nt 2 
Exemption No. 10410 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

PRESIDENTIAL AIRWAYS 

for an exemption from § 91.313(b) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1270 

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated November 9, 2011, Mr. Walter C. Gamer, Director of Operations, Presidential 

Airways (Presidential), 1383 General Aviation Drive, Melbourne, Florida 32935, petitioned 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Presidential for an exemption from 

§ 91.313 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would permit Presidential to conduct part 135 flight crewmember training in a 

restricted category aircraft over congested areas. 

The petitioner requires reUef from the following regulations: 

Section 91.313(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a restricted 

category civil aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is certificated; or in 

an operation other than one necessary to accomplish the work activity directly 

associated with that special purpose. 

Section 91.313(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that operating a restricted category civil 

aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which 

the aircraft is certificated is considered to be an operation for that special purpose. 

Section 91.313(e) prescribes that, except when operating in accordance with the terms 

and conditions of a certificate of waiver or special operating limitation issued by the 

Administrator, no person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft within the 

AFS-12-082-E 
United States over a densely populated area, in a congested airway, or near a busy 

airport where passenger transport operations are conducted. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.313(e) to conduct training required by 

part 135 incongestedareasinarestrictedcategory Sikorsky S-61. The petitioner's current S61 fleet is being used to support military operations in Afghanistan. Presidential asserts that 

availability of standard category S-61 s in the United States is very limited. The use of this 

rotorcraft is vital to provide flight crewmember initial, recurrent, upgrade, and transition 

training, as well as practical examinations leading to flight crewmember certification, for 

crewmembers who will be supporting operations in Afghanistan. 

The petitioner maintains that no exemption is necessary to conduct this training in the 

restricted category aircraft if the FAA finds the restricted category aircraft "has no 

significantly different handling or flight characteristics*' than the standard category S-61 under 

§ 135.293. The petitioner bases this assertion on its interpretation that training (including 

training required under part 135) is always included as part of the special purpose of the 

aircraft under §91.313(b). To this effect, the petitioner maintains that this restricted category 

S-61 is virtually identically configured to its standard category counterpart. The only 

differences pertain to passenger comfort, such as seating and observation windows. The 

restricted category S-61 has equipment for full and constant radio communications and is fully 

capable of instrument landing approaches. If the FAA determines, however, that an 

exemption is warranted to permit training required under part 135 to be conducted in this 

restricted category S-61, because of the identical nature of the rotorcraft to its standard 

category rotorcraft equivalent, the use of this rotorcraft for training would not have an adverse 

impact on safety. 

The petitioner states that this exemption to permit training over congested areas is necessary 

since FAA facilities and equipment, i.e., airports, are normally located near or in densely 

populated areas with congested airways. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Presidential. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has reviewed the information submitted by Presidential. Although the petitioner 

maintains that exemption from §91.313(b) is not necessary based on the provisions of 

§ 135.293, the FAA has determined that an exemption from this requirement is necessary to 

permit training required under part 135 to be conducted in the restricted category S-61. The 

FAA has also determined that a grant of exemption or waiver from the restriction from 

operating in congested areas under § 91.313(e) is not appropriate. Thus, as outlined below, 
the FAA has determined that a partial grant of exemption would be in the public interest and 

not have an adverse impact on safety. 

The FAA does not agree with the petitioner's interpretation of § 9I.313(b)and § 135.293. 

The permission to conduct training in § 91.313(b) provides that "operating a restricted 

category civil aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for 

which the aircraft is certificated is considered to be an operation for that special purpose." 

This pennission to conduct trmning is limited to training related to the special purpose for 

which the aircraft is certificated under part 21. The training the petitioner desires to conduct 

is outside the scope of the limited special purpose for which this rotorcraft was certificated. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the petitioner requires an exemption from 

§ 91.313(b) to conduct training required under part 13 5 in this restricted category rotorcraft. 

Airworthiness standards for restricted category aircraft are not designed to provide the same 

level of safety that is required for aircraft certificated in the standard category under parts 23 

and 25 that are required for use in part 121 and 135 operations. The operating limitations set 

forth in § 91.313 are designed to compensate for this and to provide the necessary level of 

safety for special purpose operations. See Amdt 91-12, 30 FR 2531, 2532 (Feb. 25, 1965); 

see also 33 FR 12825 (Sept. 11, 1968) (adding allowance to conduct training related to the 

special purpose for which the aircraft was certificated). The training operations the petitioner 

proposes to conduct should be conducted in accordance with the higher safety standards set 

forth in part 135. The FAA finds, however, m light of the public interest to support the 

operations in Afghanistan that a grant of exemption for a limited period of time is warranted 

to ensure flight crewmembers are properly trained and qualified prior to operating in 

Afghanistan. The FAA expects that as Presidential's S-61 fleet becomes available that it will 

conduct this training in its standard category S-61 rotorcraft. 

The FAA has reviewed the petitioner's assertions that "the restricted category S-61 is virtually 

identically configured to its standard category counterpart." The FAA recognizes that the S-61 

is equipped to ensure full and constant radio communications. It is also capable of instrument 

landing approaches. The FAA has determined, based on the equipment installed and 

c^abilities of this rotorcraft, in conjunction with the conditions and limitations set forth 

below, that an equivalent level of safety to that set forth by the regulation may be established. 

The FAA recogruzes that the petitioner has requests an exemption from the restrictions 

gainst operating over congested and densely populated areas set forth in § 91.313(e)(1), (2), 

and (3). This type ofreliefis not appropriate for an exemption. The FAA Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) is responsible for determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a 

waiver from this restriction is appropriate. See §§ 91.313(e) and 91.905 (listing the 

regulations for which waiver is appropriate). Each waiver is based on the particular purpose 

of the flight or flights, equipment, and capabihty of the operator to ensure that all safety 

considerations are addressed. Thus, Presidential should contact the FSDO in the geographic 

region in which the training will be conducted to request this relief Regardless of whether a 

waiver from this restriction is granted by the FSDO, Presidential will be required to have all 
routes and training locations authorized by the certificate holding district office (CHDO) 

imder the conditions and limitations of this exemption. 

The FAA*s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C §§40113 and 44701, delegated to 

me by the Administrator, Presidential Airways is granted an exemption from § 91.313(b) to 

the extent necessa^' to allow Presidential to conduct training required under part 135 in a 

restricted category rotorcraft S-61, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. This exemption is only valid until a standard category S-61 aircraft becomes available 

for use by Presidential. This exemption will terminate upon the return of any standard 

category S-61 rotorcraft operated, leased, or owned by Presidential to the United 

States. Presidential will provide a monthly report to the CHDO of its efforts to obtain 

a standard category S-61 to conduct training required under part 135. 

2. This exemption is limited to Sikorsky S-61A, N561SC, serial number 61272. 

3. No operations for compensation or hire shall be conducted during operations under 

this exemption. 

4. Only FAA aviation safety inspectors (ASI) are authorized to conduct checks or testing 

granted by this exemption unless Presidential is granted authority to conduct specific 

checks in writing by the CHDO. Presidential must notify the appropriate CHDO at 

least 7 days in advance of the proposed date of the flight check or testing. 

5. All routes and training locations must be suitable to the FAA inspector conducting the 

check or as authorized by the CHDO if a check airman is permitted to conduct the 

check. 

6. Presidential may only use this aircraft for the special purposes identified on the 

restricted category airworthiness certificate for the rotorcraft and the following training 

required under part 135: 

a. Sections 135.293, 135.297, 135.299. To complete checks and evaluations 

required by § 135.297, the aircraft must be certificated for flight into instrument 

meteorological conditions; 

b. Section 135.347 for initial, upgrade, transition, differences; and 

c. Section 135.351 for recurrent training. 
7. An aircraft configuration analysis including but not limited to flight deck, flight 

manual, operating limitations, and procedures must be completed and provided to the 

CHDO reflecting the capability of the aircraft to perform all required procedures and 

maneuvers to meet part 135 training and checking requirements. In addition, 

differences training must be developed, and approved by the principal operations 

inspector (POI). Differences training must address all areas identified in the 

configuration analysis. 

8. No person may operate this S-61 A, N561SC, serial number 61272, helicopter at a 

weight greater than the weight that, with the critical engine inoperative, would permit a 

rate of climb of at least 50 feet per minute at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the 

elevation of the highest ground or obstruction within the area to be operated or at an 

altitude of 5,000 feet, whichever is higher. 

9. The aircraft must be maintained in accordance with the Sikorsky equalized inspection 

and maintenance program SA 4047-13. The operator must provide a written report 

validating compliance before beginning traiiung or checking and quarterly thereafter. 

The report will also include validation that life-limits have not been exceeded. 

10. A copy of this exemption must be provided to the POI and must be carried aboard the 

aircraft at all times. 

11. Failure to meet any of the conditions of this exemption immediately cancels the 

authority authorized by this exemption. 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 19, 2011 . 

^>r/, ^^iAUy 

fohn M. Allen 

lirector. Fligh t Standards Servic e