Exemption No. 10310 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

CHRYSLER AVIATION, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0370

 

for an exemption from § 135.267(c) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated April 11, 2011, Mr. Eugene W. Comroe, Director of Operations, Chrysler 

Aviation, Inc. (Chrysler Aviation), 7120 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Suite 309, Van Nuys, 

California 91406, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Chrysler Aviation for an exemption from § 135.267(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Chrysler Aviation to extend the 

duty limit from 14 hours to 16 hours in the event of a bona fide medical emergency. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.267(c) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a crewmember’s regularly assigned duty 

period may not exceed 14 hours when conducting unscheduled on-demand operations. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

Chrysler Aviation is a part 135 operator who provides human donor transportation. The 

petitioner states that it has been providing such services for more than 20 years to numerous 

hospitals and transplant transportation organizations using jet aircraft. The petitioner states 

that these missions require rapid response capability using highly trained jet pilots. 

AFS-11-270-E 
2

The petitioner states that its missions involve the pickup of a surgical team of doctors and 

nurses. Chrysler Aviation also states that the flights are afforded air traffic control priority as 

a “Lifeguard” flight. The team is usually picked up from Chrysler Aviation’s home base and 

then transported to the airport nearest the organ donor hospital. The petitioner states that the 

flightcrew then stands by at the airport. Chrysler Aviation contends the time required varies 

depending on the distance to the hospital and the readiness of the operating room, as well as 

the medical procedures. The petitioner further states that there are times when there is more 

than one organ and multiple surgical teams are involved. Chrysler Aviation states the 

lifeguard portion of the flight ends when the surgical team departs the aircraft to return to the 

recipient’s hospital. If not at the home base, the team repositions the aircraft to its home base. 

The petitioner contends that duty time can range between 4-14 hours depending on the 

distance between the airports. 

The petitioner states that a medical emergency involving the surgical procedure or ground 

transportation logistics could conceivably delay the flight beyond the duty time limits posed 

by § 135.267(c). Chrysler Aviation contends that this situation poses the risk that the 

recipient could die because the useful life of the organ is limited. 

Finally, the petitioner included letters of support from Helinet Aviation and Transplant 

Transportation Services, Inc., in its petition. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2011 

(76 FR 30231). 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 would not provide a level of safety 

equivalent to that provided by the current regulations. 

The FAA recognizes that Chrysler Aviation is an experienced organization that meets or 

exceeds the minimum regulatory standards and finds its contribution to life-saving efforts 

laudable. The FAA further recognizes that the nature of the humanitarian contributions by 

Chrysler Aviation makes it difficult to schedule such humanitarian flights within reliable and 

predictable blocks of time. However, although the FAA fully supports organizations such as 

Chrysler Aviation in its humanitarian operations, we cannot support those efforts through a 

reduction in the safety of those operations. 

Pilot fatigue is a well-known and documented contributor to aviation accidents and incidents; 

thus, the FAA has established the carefully structured regulatory framework within which all 

air carriers must operate. The established limits on duty time and flight time are not arbitrary 

and extending them for even the most commendable of reasons will not obviate the fact that 

extended duty time will contribute to pilot fatigue. A fatigued pilot is, statistically, a less-safe 

pilot regardless of how commendable the reason. 
3

Human organ transportation services are not, in themselves, emergency activities; they are, in 

fact, on-demand operations. Chrysler Aviation has voluntarily chosen to offer its services to 

the medical needs of a particular group of physicians and patients. To offer such services 

clearly implies that the organization has the capacity to carry out those services within the 

existing regulatory framework. At the least, this assumes that it has both the aircraft and 

pilots capable of carrying out any task assignment that it accepts. If the task requires possible 

duty times in excess of 14 hours, then acceptance of an assignment means acceptance of those 

operational logistics necessary to provide the appropriate standby pilots in the event the 

assigned task exceeds the 14-hour regulatory duty time requirement established in 

§ 135.267. In this circumstance, extending the regulatory duty time limit as requested by the 

petitioner would primarily serve to ease the logistics demands of the operator in that there 

would be a reduced need to plan for relief pilots. While this would be in the operator’s 

interest, the benefit gained does not sufficiently offset the potential reduction in safety that 

may result from fatigued pilots. 

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 Chrysler Aviation, Inc., for 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.267(c) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 11, 2011. . 

/s/ 

David C. Gillion 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service