Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4277 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

December 29, 2008. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–1177 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No: FAA–2008–1208] 

Helicopter Emergency Medical 

Services Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of consideration of 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice discusses 

comments received on proposed 

revisions to Operations Specification 

A021, pertaining to Helicopter 

Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) 

operations, and Operation Specification 

A050, pertaining to Helicopter Night 

Vision Goggle Operations (HNVGO) and 

changes made to the proposed revisions 

based upon comments received. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions regarding the A021 

and A050 Operations Specifications 

revisions contact: Dennis Pratte or Larry 

Buehler, FAA Flight Standards—Part 

135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, 

AFS–250, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8166; e-mail 

dennis.pratte@faa.gov or 

larry.buehler@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this notice, 

contact: Dean Griffith, FAA Office of the 

Chief Counsel, AGC–220, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; e-mail dean.griffith@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Action 

On November 14, 2008, the FAA 

issued a notice of availability of 

proposed revisions to Operations 

Specifications A021 and A050 

pertaining to HEMS operations and 

requested comments to the proposed 

revisions. The FAA received 25 

comments in response to the notice and 

has made changes to proposed 

Operations Specification A021 based on 

the comments. Operations Specification 

A050 will not be changed. 

Availability of Document 

Copies of Operations Specifications 

A021 (HEMS) and A050 (HNVGO) 

which are to be implemented can be 

found and downloaded from the 

Internet at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and search for the documents using the 

Federal docket number FAA–2008– 

1208. 

Discussion of Comments Received 

The FAA received 25 comments from 

industry, including HEMS operators 

(Omniflight Helicopters, Inc., 

Intermountain Life Flight, Air Evac 

Lifeteam, EMS Executive Forum of 

HEMS Common Carriers), North 

Memorial Medical Center North Air 

Care, Reach Air Ambulance, and 

Hospital Wing), trade associations 

(Helicopter Association International, 

the Association of Air Medical Services, 

and the National EMS Pilots 

Association), an equipment 

manufacturer (Max-Viz Inc.), and a 

designer of helicopter GPS approaches 

(STI, Inc.). The FAA also received 

comments from pilots, HEMS medical 

personnel, and other individuals. A 

summary of the comments received and 

the FAA response to the comments 

follows. 

A. General Support 

The FAA received numerous 

comments supporting proposed 

Operations Specifications A021 and 

A050. Commenters supporting the 

revisions included the EMS Executive 

Forum of HEMS Common Carriers, 

Helicopter Association International 

(supported by Life Flight of Maine, 

TriState Careflight, LLC, EMS Air 

Services of New York, Inc., Sanford 

USD Medical Center Trauma 1, Bell 

Helicopter, and other organizations that 

also submitted comments 

independently), the National EMS Pilots 

Association, the Association of Air 

Medical Services, Omniflight 

Helicopters, Inc., and several individual 

commenters. 

B. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Point in 

Space (PinS) Special Instrument 

Approach Procedures 

Several commenters recommended 

changes to proposed Operations 

Specification A021 paragraph ‘‘h,’’ 

regarding IFR PinS Special Instrument 

Approach Procedures, with a proceed 

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) transition to 

a heliport or landing area, and standard 

or special instrument approach 

procedures. The comments identified 

that the language proposed in the 

operation specification could lead to 

misunderstandings with respect to 

‘‘proceed VFR’’ transitions and the 

conduct of visual operations in 

accordance with visual minimums as 

noted in A021 Table 1. Commenters also 

noted that if an approved ‘‘proceed 

visually’’ segment exists as part of an 

approved Instrument Approach 

Procedure (IAP) or special IAP, the 

associated approach minimums would 

apply. 

The FAA acknowledges that proposed 

Operations Specification A021 made no 

distinction between the weather 

minimums associated with an 

instrument approach which ends in a 

‘‘proceed visually’’ versus a ‘‘proceed 

VFR’’ instruction. The FAA agrees with 

the commenters that the language in 

proposed A021 could lead to confusion 

for operators making visual transitions 

from instrument approaches and 

therefore intends to change A021 

paragraph ‘‘h,’’ to clarify the procedures 

to be followed when making VFR or 

visual transitions from instrument 

approaches. 

C. Weather Minimums 

Three commenters recommended 

different weather minimums from those 

in the proposed Operations 

Specification A021. Two generally 

supported higher weather minimums 

than the ones proposed by the FAA. The 

third stated that the 5 mile visibility 

standard in mountainous terrain would 

be too restrictive. 

Proposed Operations Specification 

A021 increases the weather minimums 

for part 135 VFR flight by raising 

ceilings and increasing visibility 

requirements. The FAA believes that the 

proposed weather minimums will 

enhance safety for HEMS operations by 

lessening the probability of 

encountering situations that could lead 

to inadvertent operation into instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC), pilot 

spatial disorientation, or lack of 

situational awareness, all causes of 

HEMS accidents. 

The first commenter who suggested 

higher weather minimums did not 

provide supporting information for why 

minimums higher than the ones 

proposed are warranted. The FAA 

agrees that as a general principle the 

likelihood of controlled flight into 

terrain, loss of control, and obstacle 

collisions decreases as weather 

minimums increase. However, the FAA 

understands that HEMS operators 

provide an invaluable service to the 

nation by providing crucial, safe, and 

efficient transportation of critically ill 

and injured patients. The FAA believes 

that the new weather minimums will 

help to prevent accidents by providing 

operators a greater margin of safety 

without unnecessarily impinging upon 

otherwise safe HEMS operations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4278 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

The second commenter suggested 

higher weather minimums in 

conjunction with the additional 

suggestion that pilots should have to 

maintain a minimum of 300 feet AGL 

day, or 500 feet AGL night. The 

commenter believes that the VFR flight 

planning requirement in proposed 

A021, that requires vertical clearance of 

terrain and obstacles by 300 feet during 

the day and 500 feet at night, would 

place HEMS aircraft in controlled 

airspace in high density traffic areas and 

in the flow of fixed wing and IFR traffic. 

The commenter further states that in 

controlled airspace the weather would 

have to be 500 feet above the aircraft’s 

altitude prohibiting flights although 

conditions are well above VFR. 

In response to the commenter’s 

suggested weather minimums which are 

higher than the proposed A021’s 

minimums for all but daytime local 

flight, the FAA refers to its response to 

the first commenter in this section. With 

respect to the concern about the 

proposed preflight planning 

requirement, paragraph ‘‘i’’ of proposed 

A021 does not require pilots to maintain 

the highest vertical clearance for the 

entire flight. Rather, pilots may vary 

altitudes over portions of the flight. 

Further, operators may plan flights so 

that major obstacles are not along the 

planned route. Finally, paragraph ‘‘i’’ 

notes that pilots may deviate from the 

planned flight path as required by 

conditions or operational 

considerations. 

The third commenter expressed 

concern that the 5 mile visibility 

requirement would unnecessarily 

restrict safe cross-country mountainous 

terrain operations because night 

visibility of 3 to 5 miles under clear 

skies due to haze is common in the 

Southeast United States during the 

summer months. The FAA notes that 

operators have several options that 

would allow them to operate under 

different minimums. These options 

include IFR flight, adopting NVIS (Night 

Vision Imaging System) or Terrain 

Awareness and Warning Systems 

(TAWS) technology, or establishing 

local flying areas. 

D. Technology on Board HEMS Aircraft 

One comment stated that the FAA has 

treated NVGs as a safety appliance not 

for use ‘‘to extend the ‘mission 

capabilities’ of HEMS aircraft’’ nor to 

‘‘justify the reduction of Night VFR 

weather minimums.’’ The commenter 

asked for an explanation for why, in 

light of the previous statement, the 

proposed A021 operations specification 

allows decreased visibility and ceiling 

minimums when using NVIS. 

The FAA acknowledges the 

discrepancy with FAA Order 8900.1 

which states FAA policy that NVGs are 

to be approved only for the purpose of 

enhancing operational safety. However, 

providing separate weather minimums 

for night operations with NVIS is 

justified by several factors. The 

Operations Specification A021 currently 

in effect, and which has been in effect 

since January 2006, provides that HEMS 

operators approved for NVG use may 

use high-lighting weather minimums in 

low-lighting conditions if using NVG. 

The current operations specification 

therefore permits NVG users to operate 

in weather conditions not available to 

non-NVG users. The proposed operation 

specification is essentially a 

continuation of current FAA practice as 

it relates to HEMS operators. Further, 

NVIS technology has become more 

sophisticated since the initial approval 

for operational use. Additionally, the 

FAA is pursuing changes to Order 

8900.1, which provides instructions to 

FAA field inspectors, that would 

approve agency grants of operational 

credit for NVG operations on a case-bycase basis. 

Another commenter supported 

adopting Helicopter Terrain Awareness 

and Warning Systems (HTAWS) rather 

than TAWS units which are not 

helicopter specific because TAWS may 

add additional risk factors such as 

distractions associated with nuisance 

warnings. 

The FAA disagrees that use of TAWS 

in helicopters creates additional risk 

greater than the benefit provided and 

intends to permit use of TAWS as 

initially proposed for Operations 

Specification A021. The commenter is 

correct that use of certain TAWS units 

in helicopters could potentially generate 

false alerts and ‘‘nuisance warnings.’’ 

However, the FAA supports voluntary 

implementation of TAWS in 

helicopters. Although not helicopter 

specific, TAWS does provide helicopter 

pilots with useful information 

pertaining to ground proximity, helping 

to avoid controlled-flight into terrain, 

and improve obstacle avoidance. In 

addition, the FAA has moved forward 

on establishing production standards for 

helicopter-specific TAWS systems. For 

example, the FAA published Technical 

Standards Order C194 to inform 

manufacturers of the minimum 

performance standards required for 

HTAWS for approval. HTAWS units 

developed to this standard will correct 

the unique issues created by use of 

TAWS in rotorcraft. Additionally, 

HEMS operators that wish to install 

HTAWS systems may do so; the terms 

of the proposed Operations 

Specification A021 are not limited to 

TAWS systems. 

One commenter objected to the use of 

the term ‘‘NVIS’’ in A021 Table 1, and 

stated that NVIS technology should be 

considered an advisory technology no 

different than TAWS rather than 

included as an associated technology 

with Night Vision Goggles (NVG). This 

commenter further stated that the only 

technology associated with the 

proposed operations specification that 

should require supplemental training or 

currency is NVG technology. 

The use of the term ‘‘NVIS’’ to include 

NVG is consistent with FAA usage. For 

example FAA Order 8900.1, Section 

4.1126, states ‘‘NVG is the common term 

used for [NVIS] operations.’’ 

Additionally, Radio Technical 

Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. 

(RTCA), an FAA Advisory Committee, 

states in Document 275, Minimal 

Operational Performance Standards for 

Integrated Night Vision Imaging System 

Equipment, that the term NVIS relates to 

the broader imaging system that 

includes the NVG goggles as well as the 

cockpit windows, internal and external 

lighting, and crew station design. 

Accordingly, the FAA intends to keep 

the term NVIS in A021, Table 1. Note 

that the FAA does not intend to extend 

NVIS to include systems other than 

NVG through this document. 

Another commenter suggested that 

aircraft equipped with Global 

Positioning System (GPS) moving map 

displays should be excluded from the 

requirement to document the highest 

obstacles along the flight path. 

A key component of the revisions to 

A021 is to ensure that pilots determine 

the minimum safe cruising altitude and 

required weather for the flight before 

takeoff rather than making such 

assessments during the flight. The FAA 

acknowledges that technologies, like 

GPS moving map systems, may assist 

operators with managing risks 

associated with HEMS operations. 

However, providing exceptions for 

technology to the preflight requirement 

would defeat the purpose of making 

pilots aware of the terrain and obstacles 

along the planned route of flight prior 

to departing. 

Additional commenters suggested 

other technological enhancements 

including requiring NVGs for all crew, 

and mandating satellite tracking, 

autopilot, and weather radar for all 

operators. 

The FAA encourages HEMS operators 

to adopt technologies that would 

provide additional safety measures; 

however, the revisions to A021 and 

A050 focus on safety enhancements to 

the operational aspects of HEMS 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4279 

operations rather than the equipment 

requirements for HEMS aircraft. 

E. Maintaining Part 91 IFR Flight 

One commenter requested the ability 

to continue to fly IFR under Part 91 

using Part 135 weather minimums. 

Proposed Operations Specification 

A021 does not prohibit part 91 IFR 

operations. As noted in A021 paragraph 

‘‘d,’’ operators equipped and approved 

to so may elect to fly IFR following the 

part 91 IFR, or more stringent, weather 

minimums. The weather minimums 

found in Table 1 apply to VFR flight 

segments in Class G airspace. 

F. Part 135 Compliance for All HEMS 

Flights 

One commenter suggested requiring 

all segments of HEMS flights to be flown 

under Part 135 operating requirements. 

This operations specification revision 

will increase safety for HEMS operators 

by requiring all VFR segments of flights 

that include a part 135 segment to 

adhere to increased weather minimums. 

This is an important factor in preventing 

controlled flight into terrain, obstacle 

collisions, inadvertent IMC, and spatial 

disorientation, or loss of situational 

awareness. The FAA believes that the 

increased weather minimums combined 

with the preflight planning 

requirements will provide an increased 

margin of safety for HEMS operations. 

Operators equipped and approved to do 

so may also elect to fly IFR which 

provides an additional measure of safety 

to VFR flight due to factors such as 

increased interaction with controllers, 

increased flight planning, and 

guaranteed obstacle clearance while in 

controlled airspace. IFR flight also 

provides the benefit of easier access to 

updated real-time en-route and 

destination weather as well as Notice to 

Airmen (NOTAMS). 

The FAA has chosen to focus on the 

enhanced weather minimums and 

preflight planning at this time because 

of the enhancements to safety created by 

the proposed operations specifications, 

and the breadth of the regulatory 

revisions required if the FAA were to 

require compliance with part 135 for all 

HEMS operations. 

G. Application to Public Aircraft 

Two commenters raised the issue of 

application of the proposed operations 

specifications to public aircraft: One 

asked whether the proposed operations 

specifications would apply to public 

aircraft, another recommended applying 

A021 to all HEMS transports, whether 

public or civil. 

The FAA intends to apply these 

operations specifications to part 135 

HEMS operators currently required by 

their part 135 certificate to obtain 

operations specifications, or to future 

HEMS operations that obtain a part 135 

certificate. The FAA will consider the 

public aircraft issue separately. 

H. Medical Personnel 

The FAA received several comments 

related to medical personnel that serve 

on board HEMS aircraft. These 

comments included limiting the nonpatient transport related duties assigned 

to air-medical crew, flight time and duty 

period limitations, incorporation of 

medical personnel into safety aspects of 

HEMS operations, training 

requirements, and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The FAA recognizes that the air 

medical personnel are an important part 

of a HEMS operation. However, these 

operations specifications revisions focus 

on the flight operations and planning 

aspects of HEMS operations; therefore 

requirements pertaining to medical 

personnel are outside the scope of the 

revisions. 

I. Other Comments 

The FAA received numerous 

comments on a number of other topics. 

Topics included: Requiring HEMS 

operators to be based at full-service 

airports; establishing regional dispatch 

centers for HEMS operations; Requiring 

Commission on Accreditation of 

Medical Transport Systems (CAMTS) 

certification for all operators; focusing 

on increased training rather than more 

stringent operations specifications; 

permitting landings only at preapproved 

landing sites; requiring two pilot crews; 

requiring two engine aircraft; pilot 

testing on local area hazards and 

procedures; operational credit for 

autopilot operations; use of common 

radio frequencies; prohibiting HEMS 

operators from selling memberships; 

establishment of obstacle free corridors; 

concern over pressure exerted on flight 

crew to engage in operations by forprofit operators; the FAA’s role in 

making medical determinations; and 

continuing current exemptions for 

operators. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of the operations specifications 

revisions, relate to business decisions by 

HEMS operators, or are already 

addressed by the operations 

specification. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 

2009. 

John Duncan, 

Manager, Air Transportation Division, AFS– 

200. 

[FR Doc. E9–1448 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Twelfth Meeting—Special Committee 

215—Aeronautical Mobile Satellite 

(Route) Services, Next Generation 

Satellite Services and Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special 

Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile 

Satellite (Route) Services, Next 

Generation Satellite Services and 

Equipment. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public of a meeting of 

RTCA Special Committee 215, 

Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route) 

Services, Next Generation Satellite 

Services and Equipment. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

February 17, 2009, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 

February 18, 2009, 9 a.m. to 12 noon. 

ADDRESSES: RTCA Headquarters, 1828 L 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036; 

USA, Tel: + 1 202 833–9339, Fax: + 1 

202 833–9434, http://www.rtca.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 

Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; 

telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 

833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org 

for directions. For additional details 

contact: Kelly O’Keefe, Tel: + 1 202 

772–1873, e-mail: 

Kelly@accesspartnership.com. 

Note: Dress is business casual. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is 

hereby given for a Special Committee 

215 meeting. The agenda will include: 

February 17 (continued February 18 as 

necessary) 

• Opening Plenary Session 

(Greetings, Introductions, 

Administrative Remarks). 

• Review and Approval of Agenda for 

12th Plenary. 

• Review and Approval of 11th 

Meeting Summary (RTCA Paper No. 

004–09/SC215–038). 

• DO–262 Normative Appendix. 

• Program Management Committee 

(PMC) Approval of Final Draft. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES