Press Releases

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Representative Ed Case (HI-01) announced that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has denied a petition from Trident Adventures for an exemption to the FAA’s rules governing the use of aircraft safety belts and supplemental restraints which would allow the company to continue operating its so-called “helocast” jumps from helicopters into the ocean while hovering at low altitude above the water.

Case had joined many others in communicating his strong opposition to the petition. In his letter to the FAA, Case said that Trident Adventures “has temporarily suspended this activity and is seeking an exemption from applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations to resume conducting helocast jumps as part of its tour operations.

Case noted that the petition called for an exemption “that would allow temporary release of passenger restraints during a stabilized helicopter hover approximately 10 to 35 feet above open water for the purpose of conducting controlled water-entry operations.

“These provisions are critical to maintaining the safety of air travel, regardless of flight altitude or aircraft stability. Trident Adventures seeks to rely on its low-altitude, stable flight operations as grounds for an exemption from passenger restraint requirements and the resumption of helocast operations.”

“Any uncertainty regarding whether air-tour services such as those proposed by Trident Adventures are authorized to operate and comply with the applicable regulatory framework would place public safety at risk.”

The FAA noted that Trident Adventures was “not seeking a reduction in safety standards or operational oversight but believes that their operational history, documented procedures, training programs, and conservative performance based operating limitations together demonstrate an equivalent or greater level of safety” as called for in the agency’s rules.

However, in its analysis of the company’s helocast operations, the FAA noted that while the company made assurances for passenger safety “the operational and environmental controls do not provide an equivalent level of protection against slip, loss of footing, aircraft motion, turbulence, windblast, sudden control input, or human error that the regulation’s restraint framework is intended to provide.”

The FAA went on to say that “even under favorable conditions a participant remains exposed to the possibility of a fall caused by unexpected aircraft movement, momentary loss of balance, wet or unstable footing, downwash effects, or sudden participant movement.

“Therefore, although the controls put in place by Trident Adventures may reduce the probability of encountering a degraded operating environment and reduce the likelihood of an inadvertent separation of persons from the aircraft, the FAA finds that they do not provide for a level of safety at least equivalent to the restraint-based protections required by § 91.108 once the participant is no longer seated and restrained inside the aircraft.”

After reviewing the petition, the FAA in its 21-page ruling found that “a grant of exemption would not provide an equivalent level of safety” as defined in its rules “and therefore would not be in the public interest.”

• FAA denial of the petition is here
• Case letter opposing the petition is here

###