Exem ption 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-E2

The petitioner states that its missions involve the pickup of a surgical team of doctors and nurses. Chrysler Aviation also states that the f lights 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. Ch rysler 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 surgi cal 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 emergenc y 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 cont ributor 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 exem ption 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