U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF •^'"' ' ' ' ' • ^ 

MTOWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS, INC. HBARlNG UOCK c 1 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09GL007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0846 

•'•- '••oS^--s: : 

• r-i —. * 

o ---' — I — I 

U l C O 

DSf THE MATTER OF 

MIDWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09GL009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0973 

RESPONDENT'S PRE-HEARING LEGAL MEMORANDUM 

Respondent, MIDWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS, INC. ("Midwest Helicopter"), by 

and through its counsel, respectfully submits this Pre-Hearing Legal Memorandum setting forth 

its position with respect to the factual and legal issues to be heard in the two-above captioned 

actions. 

NATURE OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT 

The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has issued two separate and independent 

actions and Civil Penalty Notices to Midwest Helicopter. Both were initiated by the same FSDO 

Inspector from the Milwaukee FSDO, Mr. Michael Mecha. The Notices arise out of two Part 
133 helicopter "heli-lift" external-load "sling" operations conducted by Midwest Helicopter on 

July 14, 2(X)8 and October 31, 2008. The July 14, 2008 lift (FAA Docket No. CP09GL009) was 

conducted at the Alcan Packaging facility in Neenah, Wisconsin (hereinafter the "Alcan Lift"). 

The October 31, 2008 lift (FAA Docket No. CP09GL007) was conducted at the Quad/Graphics 

facility in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (hereinafter the "Quad/Graphics Lift"). 

In both matters, the FAA contends, through their FSDO Operations Inspector, Michael 

Mecha, who does not himself have any "heavy-lift" experience or even a rotorcraft rating, that 

Midwest Helicopter violated Federal Aviation Regulations Parts 133.33(d)(1), 133.33(e) and 

91.13(a) because Midwest Helicopter did not submit a Congested Area Plan (CAP) to him prior 

to conducting said lifts, and because said operations were alleged by him to have created some 

unspecified "hazard" to persons or property on the ground. The FAA has proposed to access a 

civil penalty against Midwest Helicopter in the amount of $20,000.00 for each lift (for a 

combined penalty of $40,000.00). 

It is the position of Midwest Helicopter that neither lift required a CAP because neither 

lift was conducted over a "congested area." Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that 

any hazard was created to nonparticipating persons or property on the ground during the subject 

lifts, nor involved a violation of any FAR. Therefore, the proposed Civil Penalties must be 

dismissed. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Midwest Helicopter is a certified Part 133 External-Load Operator based in Willowbrook, 

Illinois. Midwest Helicopter specializes in conducting heli-lift operations for the construction 

industry. Throughout its 40+ years of operations and experience. Midwest Helicopter has a 

perfect safety record without a single injury to any member of the nonparticipating public. 
Midwest Helicopter utilizes its highly maneuverable Sikorsky S-58t helicopters in these 

operations. Typically, Midwest Helicopter is hired to lift/move/install heavy objects, such as an 

HVAC, to or from various sites across the United States. Moreover, Midwest Helicopter has 

successfully coordinated its operations with FAA Flights Standards District Offices (FDSOs) 

from across the country with a mutual respect for the type of operation and an ultimate concern 

for safety. 

The two subject actions were not brought by the FSDO having "home" cognizance over 

Midwest Helicopter. Similarly, the two subject actions did not result from a complaint from any 

member of the nonparticipating public. Rather, they were initiated solely at the whim of Mr. 

Michael Mecha, an Aviation Safety Inspector at the Milwaukee FSDO. Mr. Mecha has stated to 

Midwest Helicopter that he considers "any area within the jurisdiction of the Milwaukee FSDO" 

to pCT se be a "congested area." According to Mr. Mecha, any lift conducted within said 

jurisdiction requires an advance notice to him personally, and a full and complete CAP. The law 

simply does not require that and Inspector Mecha's demand is both arbitrary and capricious. 

Midwest Helicopter rejects Mr. Mecha's unsupported, overly broad and erroneous interpretation 

of the Part 133 CAP directives, and it has rejected compromises that leave it without the judicial 

protection against Inspector Mecha. 

As Midwest Helicopter will demonstrate at the two Hearings in these matters, the two 

subject lifts were conducted in ftill conformity with all the requirements of Part 133, as well as 

the guidance provided by the FAA from its own FSDO and the Agency in its sundry 

implementation publications. On the other hand, the position of the FAA in these matters is 

simply not supported by any FAA regulation or published guideline. 
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 

The FAA has alleged that Midwest Helicopter violated the following regulations during 

the two subject lifts: 

A) Part 133.33(d)(1) (failure to submit a CAP for external-load operations over 

a "congested area"); 

B) Part 133.33(e) (external-load operations creating hazards to persons or 

property on the ground); and 

C) Part 91.13(a) (careless or reckless operation). 

Part 133.33(d)(1) provides as follows: 

"the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may conduct 

... rotorcraft external-load operations over congested areas if those 

operations are conducted without hazard to persons or property on the 

surface and comply with the following: 

(1) The operator must develop a plan for each complete operation, 

coordinate this plan with the FAA Right Standards District Office having 

jurisdiction over the area in which the operation will be conducted, and 

obtain approval for the operation from that district office..." 

(emphasis added). 

As such, what constitutes a "congested area" for a heavy lift helicopter operation differs 

markedly from what constitutes a "congested area" for fixed-wing operations, with which 

Inspector Mecha is more familiar. Moreover, under Part 133.33(d), heli-lift external-load 

operations may be conducted over congested areas if a Congested Area Plan (CAP) has been 

submitted to and approved by the local FSDO office having jurisdiction over the operation. On 

the other hand, an external-load operation conducted over a "non-congested area" does not 

require a CAP. 

The second regulation at issue. Part 133.33(e), states as follows: 

"(e) ... the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may 

conduct external-load operations, including approaches, departures, and 
load positioning maneuvers necessary for the operation, below 500 feet 

above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and 

structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to 

persons or property on the surface." 

(emphasis added). 

Finally, Part 91.13(a) states that "[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or 

reckless maimer so as to endanger the life or property of another." The Part 91.13(a) count is 

merely a "tag-along" or "piling on" count sought by the FAA, and is not based on any 

independent factual allegations separate or distinct from the aforementioned Part 133 counts. 

Therefore, in the two above-referenced actions, the Court must determine the following 

issues: 

1. Were the subject lifts conducted "over" a congested area at the time of the 

actual lifts, thereby requiring the prior submission and specific approval of a 

CAP? 

2. Can a heavy-lift helicopter operator make a preliminary determination that the 

area over which the lift will be conducted is (or isn't) a congested area? 

3. Did the two subject heavy-lift operations, which were safeguarded against any 

people from entry, create a "hazard" to persons or property on the surface? 

4. Were the subject lifts, in fact, careless or reckless? 

i. Midwest Helicopter Properly Made the Determination that it was Not Required to 

Submit a Congested Area Plan (CAP) Prior to Either Lift 

First, the FAA will be unable to establish that Midwest Helicopter violated Part 

133.33(d)(1), because neither lift was, in fact, conducted over a "congested area." Therefore, a 

CAP was simply not required under the FARs for either lift. 

Preliminarily, it is important to remember that the subject lifts were conducted utilizing a 

highly maneuverable Sikorsky S-58t helicopter, not a fixed-wing aircraft. Thus, the traditional 

concept of what is or isn't a "congested area" applicable to fixed-wing aircraft under Part 91.119 
(i.e. an area defmed on a sectional or class B chart as "yellow") is not applicable to the subject 

action. Due to their maneuverability, helicopters are explicitly permitted by the FARs to operate 

over otherwise congested areas, as long as said operations are conducted without hazard to 

persons or property on the ground. See Part 91.119(d). As the NTSB noted in Engen v. Carman. 

1986 NTSB LEXIS 173, *6 fn. 6, Order EA-2371, "due to the greater inflight maneuverability of 

helicopters over fixed wing aircraft, the FAR have never contained any objective standards for 

the helicopter minimum permissible lateral or vertical clearances near persons or property." 

Instead, helicopter pilots "must rely upon their own personal knowledge of their own experience 

and expertise when maintaining a measure of separation that will ensure safe operation." Id. 

citing Administrator v. Reynolds. NTSB Order No. EA-1770 (1982). Inspector Mecha lacks 

any qualifications for him to have made a knowledgeable determination. 

Similarly the concept of a "congested area" for the purpose of Part 133 external-load 

operations is strangely and ambiguously not defined by any Federal Aviation Regulation. 

Instead, Part 133 operators are left to rely upon their own experience, and the limited guidance 

published by the FAA in its Advisory Circulars, as well as the guidance provided by the FAA to 

its Safety Inspectors in its Flight Systems Information Management System Handbook (FAA 

Order 8900.1). Of course, the later two documents are "advisory only" and neither have the 

force and effect of law, unlike the FARs. 

a) Advisory Circular AC 133-lA 

The FAA has published a single Advisory Circular pertaining to Part 133 external-load 

operations. Advisory Circular AC 133-lA (replacing AC 133-1, dated 1977), published in 1979. 

See Exhibit R-8 (excerpts). Midwest Helicopter has justifiably relied on the guidance provided 

by this Advisory Circular, as well as how said Advisory Circular has been consistently applied 
by the respective FAA FSDOs, throughout its 40+ years of accident and hazard free operation. 

Midwest Helicopter has worked out a close, cooperative working arrangement and understanding 

with their local FSDO and Principal Operations Inspector. Only Inspector Mecha has a problem. 

AC 133-lA notes that "[sjpecifically, it was necessary to provide an exception for 

congested area extemal-load operations and for external-load operations over other than 

congested areas." See Exhibit R-8, Page 3, Section 8(c)(1) (emphasis added). It follows that 

extemal-load operations may be conducted over either (1) congested areas (whereby a CAP 

would be required) or (2) non-congested areas (whereby a CAP would not be required). As such, 

Mr. Mecha's unsupported statement that any lift conducted within the jurisdiction of Milwaukee 

FSDO would require a CAP is clearly erroneous. Certainly, the entire jurisdiction of the 

Milwaukee FSDO could not be considered "congested" for the purpose of helicopter extemalload operations, contrary to his unsupported, arbitrary and capricious opinions. 

Furthermore, AC 133-lA provides as follows: 

(2) ... For extemal-load operations, a factory with adjacent occupied 

parking lots, filled with employees and vehicles, might be considered a 

congested area unless the parking lots and employees are vacated and 

necessary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and persons from 

reentering the area.** 

See Exhibit R-8, Pages 4-5, paragraph (a)(2). 

These were exactly the factual conditions present on the two subject heavy lift operations. 

Accordingly, the FAA, in AC 133-lA, has made clear that a factory "might" be considered to be 

"congested area" unless all nonparticipating persons are vacated from the operational area and 

reasonable precautions are made to prevent reentry, thereby rendering a once potentially 

"congested area" non-congested. Operations over such a non-congested area do not require a 

CAP. To require otherwise would render the express language of the Advisory Circular useless 
and ineffective. Inspector Mecha has unreasonably interpreted this Advisory Circular to not 

apply if ... "what if someone came in on the weekend when the factory was empty and lockeddown and ignored the signs or jumped over the taped-off area." This is nonsense. 

b) FAA Order 8900.1, Ch. 51, Section 6. 

In addition, FAA Order 8900.1, Ch. 51, provides guidance to FAA Aviation Safety 

Inspectors who evaluate Part 133 extemal-load operations. See Exhibit R-12 (excepts). 

Although not binding on Midwest Helicopter, FAA Order 8900.1 contains the FAA's internal 

policy and procedures for evaluating Part 133 operations. Accordingly, this document is relevant 

to the subject determination. 

In the aforesaid document, "Congested Area Plan" is defmed as "... a risk management 

document. It is used to show that the risk associated with an extemal-load operation will not 

create undue hazards to property and the nonparticipating public because of certain, specific 

procedures used by the operator during the operation." Exhibit B (emphasis added). But, this 

assumes that the risk of people in the area can't be eliminated, unlike the two matters in question. 

Furthermore, "congested area" is defmed as follows: 

"[t]he congested nature of an area is defmed by what exists on the surface, 

not the size of the area. While the presence of the nonparticipating public is 

the most important determination of congested, the area may also be 

congested witih stmctures or objects...However, the most important word 

in this concept is over. Helicopters can operate over relatively small 

uncongested areas because of their maneuvering abilities. 

See Exhibit B, 3-402(C)(2) (emphasis added). 

In conclusion, FAA Advisory Circular 133-lA and FAA Order 8900.1 make clear (and 

not subject to interpretation by Inspector Mecha) that the relevant inquiry is whether the subject 

heli-lift extemal-load operation was conducted "over" an uncleared and "neutralized" congested 

area at the time of the lift, not whether the lift was conducted "near" or "in the vicinity of an 

8 
otherwise still congested area. If the specific operational area is not congested, a CAP is not 

required. Furthermore, operations over a factory which "might" have normally or otherwise 

been occupied with workers during normal weekday operations and considered to be located in a 

"congested area" can be rendered non-congested if members of the nonparticipating public are 

vacated from the operational area and safety perimeter established by the landowner and 

helicopter operator prior to the lift. See Exhibit R-8. This was, in fact, what occurred in both 

heavy lift operations and was ignored by Inspector Mecha, who decided to press on. Finally, a 

CAP is used to define procediures taken during a lift (not before a lift) that is to be conducted 

over a congested area to prevent under hazard. 

c) The Alcan Lift (FAA Docket No. CP09GL009) 

The Alcan Packaging Facility is located on private property in Neenah, Wisconsin. The 

operational area for the Alcan Lift was located over a much smaller portion of the large Alcan 

premises. The purpose of the Alcan Lift was to remove an old press strand air unit off the North 

Warehouse Roof of the facility, and to lift a new HVAC air makeup unit onto the North 

Warehouse Roof. In accordance with AC 133-lA, prior to the lift, the specific operational area 

where the lift was conducted was cleared of any and all nonparticipating personnel and vehicles. 

Furthermore, reasonable precautions (cones, tapes and signage) were made to prevent reentry of 

nonparticipating persons into the operational area. Among other things, various portions of the 

premises were completely evacuated, entrances to said areas were blockaded, and caution tape 

and stands were used to blockade road access to the operational area. See Exhibit R-1, Statement 

of Thomas Knudstmp; Exhibit R-4, Statement of Fergus Ponder. Clear evidence (not opinion) 

supports this. 
AC 133-lA expressly provides that a factory is a "non-congested area" if "the parking 

lots and employees are vacated and necessary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and 

persons from reentering the area.** That is precisely what occurred prior to the Alcan Lift. 

Therefore, pursuant to the guidance of AC 133-lA, the Alcan Lift was conducted over a "noncongested area," and a CAP and Inspector Mecha's blessing was simply not required. 

This well-established principal is fully understood by all other FSDOs with whom 

Midwest Helicopter has conducted and coordinated its operations over its 40+ years of extemalload experience. See Exhibits R-5, R-6 and R-7, R-16, R-17, correspondence from Grand 

Rapids FSDO, North Florida FSDO, and Cincinnati FSDO. 

d) The Quad/Graphics Lift (FAA Docket No. CP09GL007) 

The Quad/Graphics Lift was conducted at the Quad/Graphics Distribution Center, private 

property located in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. The purpose of the Quad/Graphics lift was the 

installation of an HVAC. 

The Quad/Graphics facility is located in an area that is not readily accessible to the 

public. The facility was under constmction and was not operational (without factory workers in 

the area) at the time of the subject lift. Furthermore, the constmction project was shut down 

during the lift, and all other trades were vacated from the blocked off area. The lift was 

performed from the South parking lot. The road to the South of the lot was similarly under 

constmction and was barricaded by constmction vehicles at the time of the lift. In fact, at the 

time of the lift, the only access to the constmction site was a single lane gravel/dirt road. The 

west side of the building is bordered by a large field and then a bridge that crosses over a railroad 

which borders the North side of the building. There is an industrial area to the north of the 

tracks. East of the building is a large open field with a small garage. South of the road on the 

10 
South side of the facility is a long pond. South of the pond is a thick tree line. While there are 

some houses further south of the tree line some distance away, persons occupying those houses 

would not be able to walk through the tree line and cross the pond and road to reach the job site. 

Thus, the presence of houses south of the non-congested inaccessible operational area would not 

render the area "congested." See e^^^. Mickalich v. United States. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28882 

(the presence of a trailer park across the nearest road and to the north of the area did not convert 

the area into a "congested area"). Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the Quad/Graphics 

Lift was conducted over a "non-congested" area. See Exhibit R-4, Statement of Gerry F. 

Ventrella. 

Furthermore, despite its non-congested status, additional reasonable precautions were 

taken to assure that nonparticipating persons could not and did not inadvertently enter the noncongested area. In fact, personnel were positioned to intercept any pedestrians in the unlikely 

event that one would pass by. Exhibit R-4, Statement of Gerry Ventrella. Additionally, all 

persons were required to remain a minimum distance of approximately 1,100 feet away from the 

operational area at all times. See Exhibit R-1 (CP09GL007), Statement of Richard S. Wirt. 

Therefore, the FAA will be unable to factually demonstrate at the Hearings in these 

matters that either lift was conducted over a "congested area," at the time of the two lifts in 

question. Because the two subject lifts were each conducted solely over a "non-congested area," 

a CAP and the approval of Inspector Mecha was not required, and there was no violation of Part 

133.33(d)(1). 

11 
ii. Midwest Helicopter Did Not Create a Hazard to Persons or Property during Either 

Lift 

In addition, the FAA will be unable to demonstrate that Midwest Helicopter violated Part 

133.33(e) because the FAA will be unable to factually identify any nonparticipating persons or 

property that were put at risk during the subject lifts. 

In FAA Order 8900.1, "without hazard" is defmed as "to operate without undue hazard 

beyond the risk posed by other aircraft operations to nonparticipating public or property." See 

Exhibit R-12, FAA Order 8900.1, Ch. 51, Section 6, 3-4302(C)(l). Therefore, in determining 

whether a hazard to persons or property on the ground was created per Part 133.33(e), there 

must, in fact, be a showing that specific members of the "nonparticipating" public or specific 

items of "nonparticipating" property were put at risk. 

Regarding the Alcan Lift, the only observers noted by Mr. Mecha were the exempted 

individuals who were "participating" in the lift as expressly permitted by the FARs and FAA 

guidance. These persons were posted on the south edge of roof 17 to observe the operation. See 

Exhibit R-1 (CP09GL009). In addition, these individuals were located 345 feet outside the 

operational area where the highly maneuverable Sikorsky helicopter was operating. At no time 

did the Part 133 operation take place "over" these individuals, or even "over" the general area 

where these individuals were located. Furthermore, at no time did any of the observers feel 

themselves in danger from the operation. Exhibit R-1 (CP09GL009). The only one who felt 

there to have been danger was Inspector Mecha. 

As to the Quad/Graphics Lift, again, all persons present were there solely for the purpose 

of the lift as is permitted. Regardless, these individuals were still required to remain a minimum 

12 
distance of approximately 1,100 feet away from the operational area at all times. See Exhibit R1 (CP09GL007), Statement of Richard S. Wirt. Additionally, personnel were present and 

positioned to intercept any nonparticipating pedestrians in the unlikely event that one would pass 

by and "neutralize" the area from there being a hazard. Exhibit R-4 (CP09GL007), Statement of 

Gerry Ventrella. The FAA's Answers to Interrogatories fail to identify a single person or item of 

property that was put at risk. Moreover, the Inspector, Mr. Mecha, arrived on the lift scene after 

the lift had already taken place and had been concluded, and barriers and tape removed and 

conditions changes. Mr. Mecha inappropriately and inaccurately based his report on the 

conditions present at that irrelevant post-lift time period. 

Therefore, the FAA will be unable to identify any member of the nonparticipating public 

who, in fact, was put at undue risk of harm during the two subject lifts. Without this, the FAA 

cannot establish a violation of Part 133.33(e). 

iii. Midwest HeUcopters Did Not Violation Part 91.13(a). 

Finally, the FAA has alleged a "tag-along" violation of Part 91.13(a) ("careless or 

reckless operation"). In these matters, the FAA has alleged no facts and cannot present any 

factual evidence giving rise to any "careless or reckless act" beyond the previous alleged 

violations of Parts 133.33(d)(1) and 133.33(e). Therefore, because the FAA will be unable to 

establish a violation of either Part 133.33(d)(1) or Part 133.33(e), the "tag-along" assertion of a 

Part 91.13(a) violation must similarly fail. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons. Respondent seeks a Hearing regarding these two matters and 

seeks the protection of the Administrative Law Judge from the overzealous and overreaching 

Inspector Mecha, who apparently doesn't know how the Part 133 mles work. Accordingly, 

13 
Respondent, Midwest Helicopter Airways, Inc., respectfully requests the Administrative Law 

Judge to enter an Order finding that the FAA has failed to establish that it violated any of the 

aforementioned Federal Aviation Regulations during the two subject lifts, and to enter and 

further relief as the Administrative Law Judge finds just and proper 

Dated: January 11,2011 

Respectfully submitted, 

.HOFF & HERRAN 

John S. Hoff 

Jeff Clement 

Hoff&Herran 

135 South LaSalle St., Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312)346-8111 

(312) 853-3924 (FAX) 

14 
CERTDFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on January 11, 2011, a copy of the foregoing was served upon the following 

via facsimile and by depositing said document in an envelope, sealed, first-class postage fully 

prepaid and placed in the U.S. mail located at 135 S. LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois 60603: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

ONE COPY 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7B 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Jeff Clement 

15 
AC 133-U 

DATE 10/16/79 

ADVISORY CIRCULAR 

DEPART-MEXT OF TltAXSPOKTATION 

F«4tr»l AviatlM A4minlfllnt(M 

WuUnglon. D.C. 

Exhibit 

R-8 

CP09GL0009 

PiR GmDANCE KkTEEa.AL 

Subject' . ROTORCRAFT EXTERKALrLOAD OPERATIONS IN ACCORItANCE WITH FEDERAL 

AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 133 

1. PURPOSE* This advisory circular (AC) provides information for persons 

Interested in applying for a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate. 

2. CANCELLATION. AC 133-1, dated July 15» 1977, la canceled. 

3. RELATED FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS (FAR). 

a* Part 21 - Certification Proeedares for Products and Parts. 

b. Part 27 - Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft. 

c. Part 29 - Airworthiness Standards: Transpoirt Category Rotorcraft. 

d. Part 133 - Rotorcraft Extcrnal-lxiad Operations. 

4. tACKGROUND. In May 1977, Aaendoent 133-6 was announced in the Federal 

Register incorporating the following changes to Part 133t 

a. Section 133.1, Applicability: "This Part prescribes— 

"(a) Airworthiness certification rules for rotorcraft used in; and 

"(b) Operating and certification rules governing the conduct of; 

nonpassenger-carrying civil rotorcraft external-load operations in the United 

States by any person (other than as an air carrier). However, this part does 

not apply to operations conducted under Part 375 of this Title." 

b. Section 133.11, Certificate required. 

"(a) No person subject to this part may conduct rotorcraft externalload operations within the United States without, or in violation of the 

terms of, a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate issued by the 

Administrator under Section 133.17," 

Initiated bv: AFO-820 
AC 133-lA 10/16/79 

c. Section 133.13, Duration of certificate, is discussed in paragraph 10 . 

of this AC. 

d. Section 133.19, Rotorcraft. 

"(a) The applicant must have the exclusive use of at least one 

rotorcraft that-

" CD Has type certificated under, and meets the requirements 

of. Part 27 or 29 of this chapter (but not necessarily with extemal-loadcarrying attaching means installed), or in Section 21.25 of this chapter for 

the special purpose of rotorcraft extemal-load operations;" 

5. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS. Application for a Rotorcraft External-Load 

Operator Certificate should be submitted in duplicate to the General Aviation 

District Office/Flight Standards District Office (GADO/FSDO) having jurisdiction over the area in which the applicant's principal business office is 

located* FAA Po m 8710-4, Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate 

Application, should be completed as illustrated In Appendix 1, page 1. 

a. Signatures on FAA Form 8710-A should be as follows: 

(1) Application from a person acting as an Individual should be 

signed by the owner; 

(2) Application from the partnership should be signed by all 

partners; 

(3) Application from a corporation should be signed by the president 

or such other officers as authorized by the corporate bylaws to sign for the 

corporation and certified by' the corporate secretary attesting to the 

authority of the Indivlduala to sign such a document; or 

(4) Application from a company, club, or association should be 

signed by the president or such other officer or director as authorised by 

the organization's bylaws, and attested to by the secretary. 

b. Rotorcraft. All Part 27 or 29 rotorcraft to be used should be listed 

on FAA Form 8710-4 as Illustrated in Appendix 1, page 1. 

Note: Restricted category rotorcraft need not be listed on the 

Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate. (See paragraph lOf.) 

c. Application for renewal or amendment of a Rotorcraft External-Load 

Operator Certificate should be completed in the same manner a t for the 

original certificate except that it should be clearly identified as application for renewal or amendment, as the case may be. 

6. CERTIFICATE FACSIMILE. Section 133.27(b) requires that a facsimile of the 

Rotorcraft External-Load Operating Certificate, FAA Form 8430-2 (Appendix 1, 

2 Par 4 
10/16/79 AC 133-lA 

page 2), be carried In each rotorcraft engaged In operations authorised by , 

the certificate* The certificate holder nay utilise any reasonabia means to 

show coapllAAce with this requirement* Only rotorcraft listed on the certificate as shown in Appendix 1, page 3 (except that, as mentioned on page 2» 

restricted category aircraft need not be listed), may be used under Part 133. 

A supplemental list of rotorcraft may be used as illustrated in Appendix I, 

pages 3 and 4. 

7, PILOTS* Section 133.31(d)(4) provides that a pilot engaging in externalload operations have In his/her personal possession, his/her logbook containing the appropriate load-class competency entry, or a Letter of Competency 

(Appendix 1, page 5), signed by the chief pilot or an FAA General Aviation 

Safety Inspector (Operations). For convenience, a Letter of Competency, the 

size of a pilot certificate, may be used In. lieu of the pilot's logbook. 

8. CONGESTED AREA OPERATIONS* 

a* Section 133.31(f) establlahes the requirements for conducting 

external-load operations over congested areas. Each operation is required 

to be conducted under a plan that must be approved by the GADO/FSDO having 

jurisdiction over the area in which the operation is to be conducted. It Is 

not Intended that a separate plan be required for each flight. One plan will 

suffice for an.operation that might require several flights to complete. Each 

plan ahould provide sufficient information for a realistic.evaluation to be 

made of all safety mattera. A chart depleting flight routes and altitudes 

should be included in esch operating plan. Aeronautical charts may be used 

if the acale and detail is sufficient for evaluation purposes. Past experience has shown that city maps distributed by oil companies are excellent for 

congested area operating plans. Lsck of adequate charts may make it necessary to use a hand-drawn chart to identify routes over city streets, railroad 

tracks, riverbeds, etc* In order that each congested area operating plan may 

be properly evaluated, it should be submitted at least five working days in 

advance of the proposed operation to the appropriate office. 

b* Section 133.45(e) atatea, "No person may conduct an extemal-load 

operation under this part with a rotorcraft type certificated in the 

reatrlcted category under Section 21*25 of this chapter over a densely populated area, in a congested airway or near a busy airport where passenger 

transport operations are conducted." 

c* The following considerations should be clearly understood by 

restricted category helicopter operators: 

(1) During the development of FAR 133, it was necessary to consider 

the application of the congested area rules of Section 91.79 as they would 

apply to flight operations over congested areas* Specifically, it was necessary to provide an exception for congested area external-load operations and 

for external-load operations over other than congested areas. The first was 

accomplished In Section 133.31(f), which authorizes congested area operations 

under specified conditions for helicopters type certificated under Parts 27 

Par 6 
AC 133-lA 10/16/79 

or 29 (normal category and transport category). No provision is a>ade in 

Section 133.31(f) for congested area extemal-load operations by rotorcraft 

certlflcateiii in the restricted category under Part 21. A restricted category 

(Part 21) helicopter Is Ineligible for use over congested areas during external-load operations. Secondly, Section 133.31(g) was designed to allow for 

•xternal-load operations below those altitudes otherwise prohibited by 

Section 91.79(c) which do not create a hazard to peraons or property on the 

surface. This rule is applicable to normal and restricted category 

helicopters alike. 

(2) Section 91.39(d) prohibits the operation of restricted category 

aircraft over densely populsted areas, in congested altwaya, or near a busy 

airport where paasenger transport operations are conducted, except as suthorIzed by an appropriate certificate of waiver. Extemal-load operatora are 

eligible for auch waivers applicable to reatrlcted category helicopters, as 

are the operators of any other restricted category aircraft. In the case of 

the extemal-load operator, such a waiver is applicable to all operations 

otherwise prohibited by Section 91.39(d), except when that operator Is 

engaged directly In extemal-load operations* Section 133*45(e) reinforces 

the prohibition of Section 91*39(d) for extemal-load operations, and waiver 

provisions are not authorized* 

(3) Access routes (ingress/egress) to the site of an extemal-load 

operation should not be construed to be a part of the extemal-load operation* 

Access to and from the worksite, not Involving carriage of external load, 

should be considered a Part 91 operation. 

(4) To review: A restricted category helicopter may not be used by 

en extemal-load operator for external-load operatlona over congested areas, 

over densely populated areas, In congested airways, or near busy airports 

where passenger transport operations are conducted. 

9. DISCUSSION OF TERMS. 

a. Congested Area. The term "congested area" has been applied on a 

case-by-case baais since it first appeared in the Air Coanerce Regulations 

of 1926. No precise mathematical or geographic definition haa yet been 

developed. The tern has never been defined in any regulation. However, the 

following guidelines have been applied by the Civil Aeronautlca Board (CAB) 

(now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give the term 

fair and equitable effect: 

(1) The tern is administered so as to protect persons and property 

In small, sparsely settled communities, as well as persons and property in 

large metropolitan areas, from the hazards and from the noise of low flying 

aircraft. Thus, the size of the area is not controlling, and violations of 

the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (1) over a small 

congested area consisting of approximately 10 houaes and a school; (11) over 

the campus of a university; (iii) over s beach area along a highway; and 

Par 8 
10/16/79 AC 133-lA 

(iv) over a boys camp where there were numerous people on the docks and 

children at play onshore. 

(2) The presence of people Is important to the detenlnatlon of 

whether a particular area is "congested." Thus, no violation was found In 

the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-fanlly dwellings 

because, In the words of the GAB Examiner, "it i«s not known whether the 

dwellings were occupied." In that esse, the area surrounding the buildings 

was open, flat, and seal-arid* For extemal-load operations, a factory with 

adjacent occupied parking lots, filled with employees and vehicles, might be 

considered a congested area unless the parking lots and employees are vacated 

and neceaaary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and persons from 

reentering the area* 

(3) The term is administered to prohibit overflights that cut the 

corners of Isrge, heavily congested, residential areas. 

(4) As stated in FAR 91.79, the congested area could be any area of 

a city, town, or settlaaent. However, no precise density of population, 

ground traffic, or congestion, or precise description of the proximity of 

buildings or number of residences, has yet been devised that will achieve 

both the intended protection of persons and property on the ground, and fair 

application of the rule to operators of aircraft* 

b. Densely Populated Areas* A densely populated area could be considered 

almost synonynous with a congested area* Those areas of a city, town, or 

settlement, which contain a large number of occupied hones, fsctorles, stores, 

schools,' university and hospital-type bulldinga, and other related business 

structures, might be considered densely populated areas* Additionally, a 

densely populated area may not contain any buildings, but could consist of a 

large gathering of persons, such aa on a beach area, an airshow, a ball game, 

fairgrounds, etc* 

c. Near a Busy Airport Where Passenger Transport Operations are 

Conducted. An extemal-load operation conducted within an airport traffic 

area could be considered "near" in the application of FAR 133.45(e). External-load operations cannot be conducted within such an area when passenger 

transport operations (air carrier and air taxi) are being conducted to or fron 

those airports. Accordingly, the operator must be advised that advance coordination with the controlling air traffic control facilities will be necessary 

to ensure the establishment of proposed hours of external-load operation, and 

that adequate procedures will be utilized to ensure that no extemal-load 

operation is conducted when passenger transport operations to or fron the 

airport are in progress. Passenger transport operations %fill be considered 

"in progress" whenever an aircraft engaged in such operations is in flight 

within the above defined areas, and the operator Is so advised by air traffic 

control. 

Par 9 
8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

VOLUME 3 GENERAL TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION 

CHAPTER 51 PART 133 EXTERNAL LOAD OPERATIONS 

Section 1 Introduction To Part 133 Related Tasks 

3-4081. EXTERNAL-LOAD OPERATIONS. Volume 2, Chapters 7, Section 1, Volume 3, 

Chapter 51, Section 3 through Section 6, Volume 5, Chapter 10, Section 1, and Volume 6, 

Chapter 5, Section 1 through Section 3, contain guidelines for certification and surveillance of 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 133 Rotorcraft External-Load 

Operators. 

3-4082. AMENDMENTS TO PART 133. Past amendments to part 133 are summarized as 

follows: 

A. Civil Operators. All civil rotorcraft extemal-load operators must be certificated. 

B. Restricted Category Rotorcraft. Part 133 permits external-load operations with 

restricted category rotorcraft except over certain areas. 

C. Certificate Expiration. Certificates issued under part 133 are valid for a period of 24 

calendar months. 

D. Congested Area Operations. Restricted category rotorcraft are prohibited from 

conducting extemal-load operations in congested airways, over densely populated areas, or near 

busy airports where passenger transport operations are conducted. 

E. New Load Class. A new Class D authorization has been established to permit the 

carriage of persons in a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved personnel lifting 

device. 

F. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Operations. IFR external-load operations are 

permitted as specified by the Administrator. 

G. Operations Flight Characteristic Demonstration. New operators are relieved of 

the requirements for an operational flight characteristic demonstration if a demonstration has 

already been performed by the manufacturer. This information is contained in the rotorcraft 

flight manual for each rotorcraft. 

3-4083. CLASSES OF AUTHORIZATION. 

A. Class A External-Loads. Class A is an external- load that caimot move freely, 

cannot be jettisoned, and does not extend below the landing gear. An example of Class A 

operation is the carriage of supplies in an approved cargo rack, bin, or seat affixed to the exterior 

of the aircraft. A cargo rack may be certified with or without a cargo envelope. The FAAapproved flight manual supplement that is required for the cargo rack installation specifies the 

approved configuration. If ttie cargo carried is within the envelope specified in the flight manual 

supplement, the rotorcraft MAY BE operated in accordance with part 91 or 135. If the cargo rack 

1 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

VOLUME 3 GENERAL TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION 

CHAPTER 51 PART 133 EXTERNAL LOAD OPERATIONS 

Section 6 Evaluate a Part 133 Congested Area Plan (CAP) 

3-4201. PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) 

ACrriVITY CODE. 1332 

3-4202. OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if a CAP meets all 

regulatory and safety requirements. Successful completion of this task results in either approval 

or disapproval of a CAP. 

3-4203. GENERAL. 

A. Authority. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 133, 

§ 133.33(dXl)(2) permits an operator to conduct external-load operations over congested areas 

provided the operator does so without creating imdue hazard to persons or property. Each flight 

must be conducted on a route and at an altitude that will allow a jettison able load to be released 

and the helicopter to be landed safely if an emergency arises. (Reference subparagraph C8.) Title 

14 CFR § 133.33(d)(1) requires the operator to develop a plan for each operation in a congested 

area. The plan must be approved by the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) having 

jurisdiction over the area in which the operation will be conducted. 

B. Background. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that 

extemal-load operations are in the public interest and do not inherently pose an undue risk to the 

public. Hazards are prevented by risk management procedures such as a CAP, and by frequent 

surveillance. Title 14 CFR § 133.33(d)(1) describes the information that must be included in a 

CAP. 

C. Definitions. For the purpose of operations conducted imder 14 CFR part 133 the 

folloAving definitions apply: 

1) Without Hazard. This means to operate without undue hazard beyond the risk 

posed by other aircraft operations to nonparticipating public or property. The nonparticipating 

public is expected to be protected from all the potential hazards associated with extemal-load 

operations. Property should be protected as much as possible. Potential hazard to property alone 

should not preclude conducting an external-load operation in accordance with a CAP. 

2) Congested Areas vs. Densely Populated Areas. These two terms are used in 

reference to rotorcraft extemal-load operations. Although the terms describe similar areas, the 

meanings are different. The regulations require preparation of a CAP for congested areas. A CAP 

is also needed for densely populated areas. In addition, an imcongested, sparsely populated area 

may need a CAP because the area may quickly become congested with persons watching an 

extemal-load operation. 

a) Congested Area. The congested nature of an area is defined by what exists on 

the surface, not the size of the area. While the presence of the nonparticipating public is the most 

1 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
8900.1 CHGO 9/13/2007 

important determination of congested, the area may also be congested with structures or objects. 

An area considered congested for airplane operations coiUd be equally congested for helicopters. 

If an airplane flying over a congested area at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in 

violation of 14 CFR §91.119(b), the area may also be a congested area for a helicopter 

conducting extemal-load operations. However, the most important word in this concept is over. 

Helicopters can operate over relatively small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering 

abilities. 

b) Densely Populated Area. Title 14 CFR §§ 91,313 and 133.45(d) use the term 

"densely populated" area. Those areas of a city, town, or settlement that contain a large number 

of occupied homes, factories, stores, schools, and other stmctures are considered densely 

populated. Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any buildings but could 

consist of a large gathering of persons on a beach, at an airshow, at a ball game, or at a 

fairground. 

NOTE: While the presence of the nonparticipating public is the most important 

determination of congested, this definition also applies to stmctures, buildings and 

personal property. The congested nature of an area is defmed by what exists on 

the surface, not the size of the area. 

3) Operational Area. An area unoccupied on the surface by the nonparticipating 

public. The operational area is not part of the operation, but persons within this area could be 

injured, or property could be damaged by the external-load, or by the attaching means (load, 

cables, hooks, etc.). 

4) Congested Area Plan. The CAP is a risk management document It is used to 

show that the risk associated with an extemal-load operation will not create undue hazards to 

property and the nonparticipating public because of certain, specific procedures used by the 

operator during the operation. 

5) Contractor. The person, corporation, or entity who hired an operator to conduct 

the extemal-load operation. 

6) Appropriate Political Subdivision. This term describes local officials who may 

exercise the authority to exclude persons and property from an area. These officials include the 

county sheriff, city police department, highway patrol, fire department, or security guards acting 

for the political subdivision. In many cases local police will monitor an extemal-load operation 

but will require the operator to supply sufficient personnel to exclude persons and property from 

the lift area. 

7) Emergency Landing Site. Thle 14 CFR § 133.33(d)(2) requires the rotorcraft to be 

at an altitude that allows landing in an emergency without hazard to persons or property on the 

surface. There is no requirement that the emergency landing be made without damage to the 

rotorcraft. An emergency landing site does not have to be an improved surface. The parking lot 

at the pickup site or a rooftop at the set site are examples of emergency landing sites. 

2 

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED 

Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use 
HaU-S-e009 14109 FRDMtNEHHOH R-WT anSIHEE 9507cr?6768 TO:416303S53313 P.i 

e Pagei November 5,2009 

III 

nil 

November 5,2(1)09 

III K 

JimTrtjgs 

CorMrtructbnlin Pilot 

Midwest Haibopter Airways. Inc. 

DearSIr: 

Ck>ncerning the use of your cbmisany to lift old air make up parts off our pjantroof and a new air make up onto iha mot, I am 

attaching a deeofptlon of the eafety planning bejbre 0ie event, ^ e safety precautione we took for (he event, end my notes of the 

ovent. 

Tt\e lift wae planned for and conducted on July 18,2008. The work to be completed was the removal of some parts of the bkJ alr 

makeup ftKirn our North Waiehouoe Ftoof and the lifting of the new 86" makeup onto our North Warehouse Roof. This roof i» 

noted as #28 on the attached drawing end is 22,259 sq ft in elze. 

The air makeup, tni^udlng inatallation and startup, was purchased from Muza Sheetmeteil. Muza was iiespon8lt>le for deterthlnlng 

the best way to get tfie old equ^en t off and the new equipment onto this roof. 

I met vyHh Muza Sheetmetal the day before the tin and reviewed M protection requtt«menl8 for workers on (he roof and what 

areas wouU be evacuated and bicdcededdurfrtg the IHL The form we used Is attached. 

Areas on the map deeignated as 16,18,19, 20,21.22, 23, 24,25, and 26 ware evactiigiiied and the entrances to these areas 

were blockaded. A later review d these areae by the FAA representative that showed up was positive with the representative's 

only suggested change for future evenb being that live persons be posted at the biookade points. 

We also used caulic^ tape and stands to blockade the road access to the chosen heiicopieir landing area. We discus&ed using a 

live person atihispo{r)t but M thatthie person Qoukf be exposed to flying dust from the prop wash^ 

Obserirare Afom both Mean Packaging iandMuza Sheetmetal were posted at the south edge of roof #17 to observe thie operaton. 

At no time dk) these observers feel themselves in danger from this operation. 

During the lift, a rapresentaUva from the FAA showed up on the property and approached the danger tape strung across the road 

access to the lahding ansa. When questk)ned and cautioned by the observers on the roof, he identified himself as being from the 

FAA. 

Sincerely, 

Thomas S. Knudstrup 

Principal Engineer 

Alcan Packaging Neenah Plant 

1815 Mamthon Ave. 

Neenah. Wl 54956 
i'iu^/-o-cXKKf l*»:«r3i hhOUHEEMflH PLflNT EWGINEE 9e07e7S768 TO:416305B533i3 P.S 

e Pa8e2 November 5,2009 
is»jy-b--f.'tlUW 14; 09 FROM! NEENAH PLftNT ENGINEE 9207576768 TO:416303253313 P,3 

November 5,2008 

._J' ;vv^.:. • r: _,:v:.» 
HmueoFTMn AIRWAY*:, INC. 

NATWNWWa •MVie i 

Sflptcanber 4,2008 

Federal Aviation AdmimstrBtton 

Flight Standards District Office 

4915 South HoweU Street 

Mihvmikee, Wi S3207 

ATTN: Mr. MBehMl O. Meoha 

&e:File# 2008OL130073 

Dear Mr. Mecha 

Oh July 14,20081 wa« scheduled to fly an external load operation at Alcan Paoicagfait in 

Neenah, Wi. After diacuesh^ tiie project witii ths oontractor and reviewing aerial photos of the 

site, h waa determined to be Qou-oongesied. 

iPrior to landing I circled the deBtgnated landmg area and after determining it was clear of vehicle 

and pedestrian tr«fiBc I continued the i>ait,91 flight into the designated area. Following a walk 

' through of the ataging •'ea, %fat patn, and equipment placemmt area it was confirmed the area 

ynui ( ^ oTpeople and preeauttoni had been taken to keep people from enteric 

Having confirmed tiie area waa non-oongeated, I completed the part 133 operation. 

Since the area affected by the project waa non-congeited, I don't &el I did anything contraiy to 

Federal Aviation Bjegulationa. 

I am available fbr fiirther discuaaion, if neceaaaiy. 

Respectfully, 

Fergus Ponder 

ChiefFikit 

• i/:i'h.Sf\\KU:\:^Wki^?.:.rs 

S23EMCuaveDJl%|^fiMi6^kiySiP!^3i^ l-800-323-7d09 
Ub/u/vm:; ix;Vb blb>«<l031iie 

O 

uaOepartfiYdm 

of Hafisportalton 

Paderal Aviation 

Admlntetratloii 

CRR Ff m 

PAGE 02/06 

Grand Rapids FSDO 

Facsimile: Cbifer Sheet 

Exhibit 

R-5 

CP09GL0009 

fro: Blak Mmitk 

eoupmny! Mdimmt Rmlieopfi Aiiwyu 

PhoM: 8S0-325'7B€D 

A«A ; 

OnfXeSB: 

' 

Plipam: 

Fax: 

Dmtm: 

P«gm» incrlwdliig thlm 

oovcr pno*; 

ORUiD JMPXJte^ tax.. 

mxmr BKumatm DXiasacr 

Office Main vo, 6ie-9B4 eesf 

Dixmet diMl- 6U"974-St''»iS'. 

616-940 3140 

06'XS'-02 

1 

1 

She lif t plan eubnitted lOy MA4»ra«t xialiaaptMV Mxytnym to the 

Soufth Bendr zv,. FSSO, for eh* Amarioen 8aX*f building in 

Mwrillville » XW. on «-ia-oa, heii bifen xMvlpiwea'toy fchia o«£io«-

neeed on My plioae eal l fao you on; thl a d^ter. e-X3-jQa i^nJ tiha g^fifa 

that thi e iai new <wnat:«ucfcie» and the gaot t:l»%;nd gonetgnotion 

ttfl^fffji^l »il l be In the buiXding ate t;he> tawte »g JAA Ijib , iiecto 

„:wi>t eenaidar fcbie a AKt oirer a cewgeeted erea^ypii. tnereloge no 

conoeBt:ed erea lif t plan i e required. IS e^^y o< the above stated 

faot* change pleaea oontaot ma direotxy.ao «h««-.we aan arrange 

for the review of a conga.eted arjia p).en» 

Mill Blliot t 

'"^.. 

001 Dave SehioH - fflatr-rSDO 

FAX N0..21»-333-»397 
y & 

r-mta . KM. 

U& Department rX^a-. ^ Q '-I >r-rN-N/-s 

of Tmnsporiaion vJrand Rapo ? FBD O 

l^ditatillit^ Facsimile Cov©r Sheet 

»" 

To: Riok Smith 

Coapaiqr; MidwMre neiiaeptser MxiNnym 

Phaam: 630-$iS^7$$0 

KAX f90'-395"9il3' 

owwxcBi <Mvmia»isa, MX. 

Phonm: Ottlomtim^n tta. 626-994 -^'637 

Olxioei dia l .6i6-974~ji323 

rs» : €16-^940 9140 

Data; ll-06'0 2 

eever petre; 

X have reviewed the informatKm.<aee attached): tha t yau faxed t o 

thi e of flee , regerding your aompanye lif t on.!^l-X7-a00a in 

Covert, HI. Baaed on thi e infezmation a eodgoit^ed are a plan ia 

not required, ae t:hle lif t wiill not ioaoiir to 'i-'eongeebed araa. 

Plaaae keen i n mind tha t thi e dettexndnation i a beeed c» the faob 

tha t no workere othe r than tehoae raKyiafed for the lif t will' be in 

^the iiyneciiate aree . • • ^ . . ^7. ^7 

I t yott beve any furthe r quest iome pleaee fee l free-t o cal l n>a. 

Will Blliot t 
fiiuncs I _ncju.i(.Ajr i cji\ 

l^lok«nilili 

Frofflt ataphen Hollands (8teveOmiciweathelloop(en.ooni] 

Santi 'Hifttday, Ooiober 2p» 2QO01 ;24 PM 

To: Rld( Smith 

Subject: PWd: CAP - LOOKHECO MARTIN 

Exiilbit 

R-7 

CP09GL0009 

Begin forwarded meisi^ : 

ys!!mmsm>i PMEDT 

Steve 

No Cap in required ft>r this lift. TJianlca for tlie heada up. 

Biok 

No virua found In this Inoomirui measage. 

oheeked by AVO - www.avD:oom 

venlon: 9.0.606/Vhus Database: Z70.l4.2a/244a - Release Date: 10/20/09 05M3:0D 

10/2Q/^(^9-
rage lot, I 

FUckSmitli 

From: Stephen Hollands IsteveOmidwesthelfcopters.comg 

Sen t Tuesday, October 20,20001 -.23 PIM 

To: Ricksmkh 

Subject: Fwd: C.A.P - LOCKHEED MARTIN 

Bc^tn forwarded message: 

From: $t*ph«n Holand* ''•ty*Pffl^(|gtf»"<»Pt«»««>'«» 

Data: Octobsr 20,200911:10:23 A M EOT 

To: RIoK Shappard <i1ok.«hw>Datdg|tf«a,qRy». ttlUIfiSU^ligfij!tt(Pi&£Sia> Robort Pac 

Su^ccfc CAP . LOCKHEED MARTIN 

Ride, 

On November IStti, 2009 we will be conducting an external load operation at the 

Lockiieed Martin Corporation situated at 3600 Sand Lake Road, Orlando. 

Public access is probiblted to the site and steps will be taicen to secure the parking 

lot, -vAddti will be used as the sta^og and emergency L.Z. Only essential personnel 

will be allowed in this area during the lift. Tlie building will be completely 

evacuated. 

The requirements of 14 CFR part 133 will be adhered to during the operation. 

Submitted fos your review and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Hc^lands 

Chief PUot 

Midwest Helicopter Airways, INC. 

FL: 941-792-8959 

IL; 630-325-7860 

FAX 630-325-3313 

www BTiidivesthelicooters.CQm 

steve@midwesthelicopters.com 

No ^^ s found m this Inoomtrtg message. 

Checked by AVO - www.avQ.oom .„„«« „ „ - „ „ . 

Vereion: 9.0.686 / vims Database: 270.14.23/2448 - Release Date: 10/20/09 05:43:00 

10/20/2009 
* ^ » 'J' J %'%^Krr%\m:y.f • _ • 

A.P. 10/1S/2009 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINI8TKATION 

RIgM Standards Disfrfct Office 

6960 Haaeltine National Drive, Suite 600 

OnBnilO,FL3282X 

ATTENIYON: Operatione Supervteor 

VIA FACSIMILE: 46r-612'7710 

Equipment: SikorekyS'^T N827MW 

PH.OT INFO: WAME 

STEPHEN J . HOLLANDS 

JAMES S. TRIGGS 

DALER.STUTESMAN 

CERTIFCATE NO.: JTKL388F 

OPERATOR: MIDWEST HELICOPTER AIRWAYS. INC. 

625 Executive Dtfve 

WUIowbrook, Ilinola 80627 

(630) 328.7660 Office 

(630) 326-8313 FaeeimMe 

Standerd Category 

COMMeRCiALfy9 

2589976 

2687444 

371682734 

JOB INFORMATION 

JOB LOCATION: Lockheed Martin 

3600 Sand Leke Roed 

OrfBndD,FL 32819 

SCHEDULE WORK DATE: 11/18(2009 

TIME: 7:30 AM 

ALTERNATE WORK DATE: 11/22A)8 

TIME: 7:30 AM 

NO. OF LIFTS: aU: DESCRIPTION: Class B Non-AoFodynamlc WEIGHT: 4500 lbs 

JOB SITE CONTACT: 

(CONTRACTOR) 

David Beckemeler 

Jaoobe FaeiUtlea 

LETTER TO FOaOW? ( ) YES (XX) NO 

PHONE NO.: 407-396.2387 

POUCE DEPT. CONTACT: Orange County Sheriffs Office PHONE NO.: 407'«36-4387 

LETTER TO FOLLOW? ( ) YES (XX) NO 

CHART: (Piok-up site, dellve7 site, blocKed strset, omarganoy landing area): 

"SEE ATTACHED PLAN" 

E8TIMATBD LENGTH OF ATTACHINO MEANS: 100 FEET 

HIGHEST POINT ABOVE THE BUILDING LOAD WILL BE UFTBD: 20 FEET 

NUMBER OF FLOORS VACATED: K/|klwast HeBcopter wlfl oordon off area; at no time wiH the building, or part thereof 

direcOy affected by our operatiane, be oooupled other man authorized personnel. 

The Job win be perfonned at a tbne when the area Is least oongestsd. Only persons directly Involved In the lift will be 

pemiltled in the openUonal area, hi case of a potential hazard, the signalman in the landing/Staging area has 

reaponsibllHy fbr oootracUns the pilot and apprising him of the situaiion. 

oc: ^|3Vkl.beoKemBtar<ttHaeot».oom 

wiillam.winQfl)laoob8.com 

Fax: 407-356-1018 

Stephen Hollands (LHt Pilot) 
viAs^TVk.^ I ^ li^uxs^u r I cr \ TH^X. 03 / Db 
111/23/2008 09:13 5138«I29643 FEDERAL AVIATION ADM PAGE Ql 

o 

u.a ouportmeit 

dTDonipoitallon 

Fedetd AvioMfen 

AdmintihQHon 

Fsdvnii Avtodon Adnrintstniloii 

PlflM fitandAKls DWIM Offletf 

4840 Airport Hood 

ClnalimBtl,0H4SftSfl 

nK>n»:S13-07S44OO 

Pax; S1S>87S>S4SQ 

Januaiy 23,2006 

Mr. Fallon 

Midwest Helkjopter Always Inc. 

525 Exocuth/a Drive 

Willowbrook, Illlnote 80627 

Dear Mr. Fallon: 

Upon review of the pictures and lift plana you have aubmllted, for the lifl opdratlone at: 

. B77d Le Saint BK/d. West Chester, OH 

. 1725 World Wide Blvd, Hebron, KY 

We oonour that these Itfte do not appear to bo In a oongestod environment 

It Is your responsibility to meet any restrictions from the local government, as well as 

ensure that the site Is kept sterile and does not beoome congoeted. 

Should you have any questions, please contact this office. An Inapector from this office 

may be present at our option. 

Slnoeraiy. 

(^y^^lS'^^-' 

Stan Fasl<e 

Principal Maintenance inspector 

Exhibi t 

R-13 

CP09GL0009 
OM-C-. /ac^c / ^'••^ - .- «*-^...^r*- f-^'*^- ^ ^r^^^J . ^ LU . 

<?'^ S^ - /gg K i! ^ ^ ^ ^'-tgfejg 
ii/:<:D/zaa

3 03:O J &J0JZ0JJ1J mimcj

D I _ncuioijr i CJT 

«« 
^ N56W16743 Ridgcwood Drive, Ste.80C 

J. F. AHERNCO . Menomonee Falls, W I 53051-5666 

MECHANICAL & FIRE (262) 252-5921 p • (262) 252-59271 

PROTECTION CONTRACTORS www.j£diem.coni 

August 25,2009 

Midwest Helicopter Airways, Inc. 

525 Executive Drive 

WillowbrooIcIL 60527 

RE: FAA 

QUAD/GRAPHICS LIFT 10/31/08 

To Whom It May Concern: 

My name is Dick Wirt, and I have been in the HVAC business for over 30 years, witii the last 

tiiree years worldng for J. F. Ahem Co. In all my experience in this field, I have been able to 

witness numerous helicopter lifts in all types of areas, including downtown Milwaukee. I was 

at the lift for the Quad/Graphics Distribution Center, located at N58 W15350 Shawn Circle, 

Menomonee Falls, WI on October 31,2008. 

I was in charge of making sure all spectators, including myself, remained a safe distance from 

the operational area of the lift, which was approximately 1,100* away. This greatly exceeds 

the FAA guidelines to be at least a distance of 100' away iVom the helicopter flight path, set 

points, and all other operational areas. 

At no time did I feel the area of the lift was unsafe or that at any time there could be an ityury 

or dangerous situation caused by Midwest Helicopters, as the area was vacated per safety 

protocol. I felt the lift personnel were professional and provided a safe environment for those 

witnessing the event 

If you need any further information, please don't hesitate to call me directly at (262) 252-

6389. 

Sincerely, 

J. F. AHERNCO. 

Richards. Wirt 

Commissioning Team Leader 

HVAC Department 

RSW/cag 

Z:\MMIMIMC««>Ml«|AMIDttA»l -CLOSEDJOBSU2II2*.QuidOnpMMDI«ilb*llMCtiMrtWocdDair,\FAA>MldHWlH«RMplarDW MU M 

Bxperiencc the Ahern Advantage 

An Equal (^^MrtunByeitiftloyw 
Exhibi t 

GERRY F. VENTRELLA I R-4 

K J PILOT aSRVIOES I CP09GL0007 

O 

P.O.80X3178* . ChlO«0O,lLS0e31.07SS • Pho«;77S.7M.7388 • C^on«773494.2728 

Em«»:flv«rtrelta«wi.oom 

20 October 20D9 

Ousdgraphlcs External Uft Operation 

I am a former Federal Aviation Admlntatratlon Aviation Safety Inspector (Operation,), l was employed at 

DuPiga Flight Standards District Office from January 1978 through October 1979 and September 1987 

through September 1989. I wss abo the office helicopter epedallst. I wai trained by Theo Moore and 

Daniel Matuslewlsz In helicopter operstlons. They were both experienced helicopter pilot! that 

pertbrmad many different helicopter operations as well as external lifts, t am also an experienced 

helicopter pilot that has performed many different heflcopter operations as well as external lifts. w « 

would evaluate helicopter operator congested area plans for sefety concerning the publla 

The congested area plan is a requirement In «n area wher* pedestrians or workars may unknowingly 

place themselves In harms way because of an external load operation. 

First of all we will examine the term congested area, fn the context of a fixed wing aircraft It Is an area 

that Is defined on a sectional or class 6 chart ss yellow. An aircraft other than a helicopter must 

^ maintain minimum safe altitude because of It's requirement for a large space to land in an emergency. 

The more maneuverable helicopter Is exempt. The area we are addressing for an external load means 

congested In the context of the public having access where they may be In danger because of the 

external load operation. When I served as an Inspector I monltor«d many external load operations. 

There were numerous operations that did not require a congested area plan and did not need 

monltortng because they were not a hazard to the public, i have also served as a pilot on external lead 

operations. 

Performing this type of operation along public access streets requires a plan. The plan explains how the 

public will be prevented from walking near the load. It else outlines where the load may be dropped In 

itn emergency and where the helicopter may land or even crash If disabled. These areas must be 

guarded In case of unforeseen problems. When opentlng along public streets and sidewalks the area 

must be blocked from public access. There are also Jobs that take place on buildings that are occupied. 

A plan is required to Indicate how the building will be evacuated and secured until the Job is complete. 

The external lift operation performed by l^idwest Helicopter on 3 i Oct 2008 at Qusdgraphlcs In 

Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin was at a building that was under construction. The building was not 

operational and It wes in an area that is not raedlly accessible to the public. The people present were 

there tor the Job. The plant operations manager, Mr. Mark Benson was present at the job site. He 

indicated he was at the pick up point during the operation and would be able to Iritercept a pedestrian 

In the unlikely event that one would happen to pass by. 

The lift work was performed from the South parking lot. The road to the Soutl> of the lot was not 

completed and was barricaded. The west side of the building la bordered by «large field and then a 
I 

" ^ brkige that crosses over a railroad which borders the North side of the building. North of the tracks 

there Is an Industrial area. East of the building Is a large open field with a smell garage, south of the 

road on the South side of the building where the operation took place is a long pond. South of the pond 

is a thick tree Ibte. There are houses south of the tr«e (Ine but people living there would not be able to 

walk through the tree line and cross the pond and road to reach the job site. 

The enclosed photos will Indicate that this area is not eccesslble to the public, iviy opinion of this Job 

site Is that a congested area plan would not be necessary because of the location of the building and the 

natural barriers preventing access. 

Please feel firee to contact me If you have any questions, 

I will be out of the country until 25 January 2010. | can be reached at gventrell^^^;,| ^z^^. 

Xy^——. . 

Gerry < Ventrella