AFS-13-473-E

 Exemption No. 10936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AIR EVAC EMS, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0651

 

for an exemption from § 43.3(h)(1)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated July 17, 2013, Mr. Darryl J. Bates, Assistant Director of Maintenance, 

Air Evac EMS, Inc, (Air Evac), 1001 Boardwalk Springs Place, Suite 250, O’Fallon, MO 

63368, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Evac for an 

exemption from § 43.3(h)(1) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Air Evac

holds a part 135 certificate and operates Bell 206 and Bell 407 aircraft. The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow Air Evac’s trained pilots to remove and install snow 

baffles from the engine air intakes at remote locations when company mechanics are not 

present. Pilots would be allowed to approve the aircraft for return to service after 

accomplishing the task. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 43.3(h)(1) which provides an exception to § 43.3(g), and states that notwithstanding 

the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section, the Administrator may approve a certificate 

holder under part 135 of this chapter, operating rotorcraft in a remote area, to allow a pilot to 

perform specific preventive maintenance items provided the items of preventive maintenance 

are a result of a known or suspected mechanical difficulty or malfunction that occurred en 

route to or in a remote area.
2

The petitioner would require relief from the following regulation:

Section 43.3(h)(l), however, is not the regulation that is relevant to the relief petitioner is 

seeking. That regulation applies only to instances involving known or suspected

mechanical difficulties or malfunctions. § 43.3 prescribes who is authorized to perform

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations-in essence it provides

that no person, except those listed in its paragraphs (b)(j), may perform those activities. 

Among the exceptions pertinent here are: § 43.3(b), authorizing certificated mechanics to

perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations, and§ 43.3(g), authorizing

certificated pilots to perform preventive maintenance on aircraft owned or operated by

them if the aircraft is not operated under parts 121, 129, or 135. If this paragraph did not

include operations under part 135, clearly Air Evac's pilots could perform the preventive

maintenance at issue. That paragraph, however, is a permissive exception to the restrictive

requirements of who may perform preventive maintenance set forth in§ 43.3(a) and it

appears that relief from that section would accomplish petitioner's objective. 

Nevertheless, as discussed below, the FAA has determined that this relief is not warranted

under the circumstances presented by the petitioner.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Air Evac EMS, Inc., conducts helicopter emergency evacuation service under 14 CFR 

part 135 as a single pilot operation with 9 or fewer passengers. Air Evac seeks relief from 

§ 43.3(h)(1) to allow company trained and authorized pilots to install and remove snow 

baffles from the engine air intakes at remote locations when company mechanics are not 

available.

The petitioner states the snow baffles used are produced under Supplemental Type Certificate 

No. SR00401DE, issued to Paravion Technology, Inc., and are approved for Bell Helicopter 

206 and 407 aircraft. The petitioner states the installation and removal of the baffles is not a 

complex operation, and it implies the operation is considered to be preventative maintenance

under part 43, Appendix A, paragraph (c), item 19, Replacing any cowling not requiring 

removal of the propeller or disconnection of flight controls.

The petitioner believes its request would be in the public interest since its operations are 

conducted under visual flight rule (VFR) conditions and should the helicopter encounter 

falling or blowing snow, the snow could be ingested and cause the engine to fail. The 

petitioner states that due to reduced performance at higher temperatures, it is recommended 

that snow baffles be removed above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F). The petitioner states its 

aircraft fly to hospitals and makes scene pick-ups that require maximum performance be 

available.

The petitioner states it operates 113 remote bases that provide a significant service to the 

community. Its maintenance personnel are assigned to each base. Air Evac believes 

installation and removal of snow baffles is necessary for safe operation. The petitioner agrees

that installation and removal of the baffles is not a “known or suspected mechanical difficulty 

or malfunction”; however, it believes the use and removal when necessary would enhance 

safe operations and allow the helicopter to continue its emergency medical service.
3

The petitioner believes an exemption would be a benefit to the public as a whole because it 

provides air medical transport service to rural America. The petitioner believes without its 

available aircraft at remote locations some of its customers may not get the needed medical 

treatment to survive.

 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s supporting information and finds that a grant of 

exemption is not in the public interest. In addition, the FAA finds the petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate how a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation from which 

relief would be required would be maintained if any pilot employed by Air Evac, is allowed to 

remove and install snow baffles from the engine air intakes.

The FAA has determined that requiring preventative maintenance be performed by an 

appropriately certificated person creates a higher level of safety for operations conducted 

under part 135. Air Evac has provided no information on what the removal and re-installation 

procedures would consist of or how its pilots would be trained to ensure the task would be 

done properly. The FAA also finds that other part 135 operators are able to maintain their 

aircraft under similar conditions. The petitioner has failed to show it is unique from the 

general class of regulated persons so as to justify relief through an exemption.

Under 14 C.F.R. § 11.101, Air Evac may petition the FAA within 60 days of the agency's 

issuing this denial to reconsider it. Under paragraph (a), Air Evac should provide additional

information on the areas noted above that the agency addressed in support of the denial. 

These would include supporting information on how, if the relief were granted, Air Evac

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which the

exemption is sought, i.e.,how an equivalent level of safety would be ensured when its

properly trained pilots (instead of certificated mechanics) remove or re-install snow

baffies. This could include providing information from the referenced STC and details of

how the pilots would be properly trained, both in the tasks and in their documentation. 

Also, Air Evac should include information on the circumstances under which the

preventive maintenance actions would occur-this could also include information on how

these circumstances are unique to Air Evac's operations compared to those encountered by

the general class of similarly-situated regulated persons to whom the requirement for

certificated mechanics to perform the work applies. Also, Air Evac should state why it

did not present the additional information in its original petition.
4

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public’s

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition for Air Evac EMS, Inc. for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 43.3(h)(1) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2014.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

.