AFS

- 1 3

- 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

- 201 3

- 0651

fo r an exemption from § 43.3(h)(1)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTIO N

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 o f 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 s now

b affles 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.

Th e petitioner requests relief f rom 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 p art 135 of this chapter, o perating rotorcraft in a remote area, to allow a pilot to

perform specific preventive maintenance items provided t he 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 suspect ed

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

maintenanc e

, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations

- in essence it provides

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

Among the exceptions pertinent here are: § 43.3(b )

, authorizing certificated mechanics to

perform maintenanc e

, preventive maintenanc e

, and alteration s

, and§ 43. 3 ( g )

, authorizing

certificated pilots to perform preventive maintenance on aircr aft owned or operated by

them if the aircraft is not operated under parts 121, 12 9

, 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, howeve r

, i s 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 rel i e f 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 mechanic s 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 inst allation 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 dis connection of flight controls.

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

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

falling or blowin g snow, the snow could be i ngested 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 pers onnel are assigned to each base. Air Evac believes

installation and removal of snow baffles is necessary for safe op eration. 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 wo uld en hance

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 petiti oner 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 tha t 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 pi lo t 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 o per ations 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 1 35 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 1 4 C. F

. R

. § 11.101, Air Evac may pet ition the FAA w i t hin 60 days of the agency's

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

informatio n on the areas noted above that the agency addressed in support of the denia l

. These would include suppor ting information on how, if the relief were granted, Air Evac

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

exemption is sough t

, i.e.

, how a n equivalent lev e l of safety would be ensured when its

properly trained pilots (instead of certificate d mechanics) remove or r e

- install snow

baffies. This co u l d include providing information from the referenced STC and details of

how the pilots would be properly traine d

, both in the tasks and i n their documentation.

Also, Air Evac should include information on the circumsta n c es unde r which the

preventive maintenance ac t i ons would occur

- this could also include information on how

t hese c i r c umstances are uniq u e to Air Evac's operations compared to those encountered by

the gene ral class of similarly

- situated regulated persons to whom the requirement for

certificated mechanics to perform the work applies. Als o

, Air Evac should state why it

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

The FAA’s Decis ion:

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 th e Administrator, the petition for A ir 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

.