Exemption No. 10152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

EVERGREEN HELICOPTERS, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0728

for an exemption from §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 8, 2010, Mr. Bruce Currier, Vice President for Avionics and Engineering, Evergreen Helicopters, Inc. (Evergreen), 3850 Three Mile Lane, McMinnville, Oregon 97128, petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm i nistration (FAA) on behalf of Evergreen for an exemption from §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemp tion, if granted, would allow Evergreen to operate one Eurocopter model AS332L-1 rotorcraft for 6 years before it installs a flight data recorder system to bring the aircraft into compliance with part 135.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.609(c)(1) prescribes that no person may operate a U.S. civil registered, multiengine, turbine-powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seats of 10 or more that has been manufactured after October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that utilize a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium, that are capable of recording the data specified in appendix E to this part, for an airplane, or appendix F to this part, for a rotorcraft, of this part within the range, accuracy, and recording interval specified, and that are capable of retaining no less than 8 hours of aircraft operation.

AFS-10-335-E2

Section 135.152(a) prescribes that except as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, no person may operate under this part a multi-engine, turbine-engine powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seati ng configuration, excluding any required

crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that was either brought onto the U.S. register after, or was registered outside the United States and added to the operator's U.S. operations specifications after, October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The parameters specified in either Appendix B or C of this part, as applicable must be recorded within the range, accuracy, resolution, and recording intervals as specified. The recorder shall retain no less than 25 hours of aircraft operation.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Evergreen states that it acquired a Eurocopter AS332L-1 (Super Puma) rotorcraft on May 21, 2010. The rotorcraft had previously been owned by the Tokyo (Japan) Fire Department. Evergreen intends to use the rotorcraft to support its contract to provide transportation for the U.S. Department of Defe nse (DoD) in Afghanistan. That contract requires that the aircraft go into service no later than September 5, 2010, and operate in accordance with part 135.

At the time of purchase, the rotorcraft was equipped with neither a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) nor a digital flight data reco rder (DFDR). Neither equipment system had ever been installed on the aircraft. Following acquisition of the aircraft, Evergreen began to research options for installation of a flight recorder. At the time of the petition, Evergreen stated that the aircraft was “currently being equipped” with a CVR that meets the regulatory requirements.

The petitioner sought to acquire a flight data recorder package from the original equipment manufacturer (Eurocopter). According to the petitioner, however, “by early July 2010, the situation deteriorated to protracted lead-times and non-availability of equipment.” The petitioner concluded: “Engineering, installation and approval of this OEM type FDR system is/are probably better than 1 year out following a financial commitment to Eurocopter-France to even begin the preparations – and we are not certain the system is fully FAA compliant without additional engineering modifications,” and that “the final configuration of this system is not yet fully known.”

The petitioner also investigated an alternative from Bristow Helicopter UK, which Bristow has been using in its rotorcraft in the North Sea. The petitioner states that it is “unlikely” that the Bristow system, a combined DFDR/CVR system, would meet the 14 CFR requirements for CVR systems. In July, Evergreen also found that there were other considerable limitations of the Bristow system if it were to be installed on Evergreen’s

rotorcraft.3

Evergreen concluded that “[N]either of th e developed Flight Data Recorder system seemingly available has been found to meet with any suitable time-line, materials availability or certification requirements with any degree of cer tainly. It appears at this point that [a compliant system for the rotorcraft] would require substantial engineering and design work with an eye towards more modern and available equipment. An effort of this magnitude could well take 18 months to two years to accomplish – and with an aircraft readily at hand.”

Since Evergreen has found that the timing of any retrofit project “makes aircraft delivery in to service in a timely manner not possible,” Evergreen is now requesting an exemption from the flight recorder requirements of §§ 91.609 and 135.152 for 72 months (6 years). The length of time requested “is based not necessarily on engineering time, materials acquisition time, or installation time required,” but on the fact that the aircraft “is to be deployed to a remote site with very limited facilities – for an extended period – making any fitment and test of a complex system impractical.” Instead, the time is requested to coincide with the aircraft “G-check” which occurs approximately every 72 months. The petitioner states that “[R]edeploying an aircraft of this size from a remote area to suitable maintenance bases is done via transport (Antonov 124), and has logistical complexities.”

The petitioner states that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest because the rotorcraft is “destined for service in the Afghanistan theater in support of US Forces operating under US Central Command.” The petitioner also states that “[T]he US Command and its various contractors continue to press fo r accelerated delivery of this type of aircraft” in Afghanistan.

The petitioner states that there would be no adverse impact on safety because “[T]he lack of an operating Flight Data Recorder does not impair in any way the operational safety

of the basic aircraft. The lack of the FD R would obviously impact only any subsequent accident investigation should that arise.” Regarding any necessary post-accident investigation, the petitioner notes that the rotorcraft is equipped with a compliant CVR and that the aircraft has an Iridium satellite tracking device.

Evergreen also requests that the exemption include a provision allowing the aircraft to be operated outside the United States.

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 Evergreen.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The subject rotorcraft (a Eurocopter/Aerospatiale AS332L-1 Super Puma) is destined for contract service in Afghanistan to support U.S. Forces operating under U.S. Central Command beginning September 2010. The U.S. Command and its various contractors continue to press for accelerated delivery of this type aircraft to the Afghanistan theater to meet U.S. military operational requirements for logistical and tactical support.4

Since taking delivery in May 2010, Evergreen has installed an FAA-approved

technical standard order-C123b 2-hour CVR with a 10 minute independent power source in the aircraft. Evergreen has investigated possible DFDR retrofits with Eurocopter-France and Bristow Helicopters in an effort to find a vendor of equipment that would make the aircraft complaint with parts 91 and 135. Evergreen stated that the alternatives it has found require significant time to develop an appropriate service bulletin, install, and certify the necessary components, equipment, sensors, and wiring to comply with 14 CFR §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a). Evergreen estimates that a modification of this magnitude could take from 18 to 24 months to accomplish.

Evergreen notes that this rotorcraft is equipped with an instrument flight rules (IFR) avionics and instrumentation suite and with military tactical communications, traffic detection, digital radar, and an Iridium satellite tracking device which provides real-time updates on basic aircraft flight profiles. In the event of an accident, accident investigators would have sources of data, including radar position reports, cockpit ambient and crewmember audio recordings, and main rotor revolutions per minute as an alternative to basic DFDR data. Accordingly, the FAA finds that the aircraft will be operating in a limited environment with some equipment that can track some of the basic functions that would be expected from a DFDR system.

The FAA does not agree with the requested exemption length of 72 months. Such a term would far exceed the norm for equipment retrofits of any kind. Evergreen stated that approximately 24 months would be needed to develop and engineer a compliant FDR package; that is the term of this exemption. Neither the location of the rotorcraft nor the usual maintenance check interval are appropriate factors in determining the length of time before the rotorcraft is required to be retrofitted for compliance. The petitioner is cautioned to heed its experience in acquiring retrofit equipment and not acquire any similar aircraft with the expectation that requests for exemptions will be granted.

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exem ption 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, Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a) to the extent necessary to operate its Eurocopter model AS332L-1 rotorcraft subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., m ay operate its AS332L-1 rotorcraft, serial number 2201, without complying with the flight recorder requirements of 14 CFR §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a) only as follows:

1. Only the petitioner, Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., may operate this rotorcraft.5

2. Operation of the single subject rotorcraft is extended to service only in the Afghanistan theater. Operation outside of this theater for ferrying purposes with only necessary flightcrew is allowed only for (a) transporting the rotorcraft to or from contract service in Afghanistan, or (b) transporting the rotorcraft within the United States for the purposes of retrofitting the rotorcraft to comply with 14 CFR §§ 91.609(c)(1) and 135.152(a).

3. This exemption expires September 5, 2012, or the departure of the rotorcraft from contract service in Afghanistan, which ever occurs first. This exemption will not be

extended.

4. A copy of this exemption must be carried on board the aircraft at all times.

This exemption terminates on September 5, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded or

the conditions set forth in the conditions and limitations sections above are not met.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 30, 2010.

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service