Record of Conversation

I, Gregory J. Janosik (gjj), spoke with Evelyn D. Sahr (eds) and Jonathan T. Linde (jtl) of Eckert Seamans 

Cherin & Mellott, LLC., who represents Cargo Air Lines, LTD. (CAL). Ms. Sahr and Mr. Linde

submitted the petition for exemption on the behalf of CAL. The conversations were held on multiple 

occasions and were either telephonic or e-mail. All conversations were in reference to clarifying the 

information found in the petition. The following is an abbreviated record of the dates of the 

conversations, the media used, and the information gained from the conversations:

9/21/2015/Telephone: (eds, jtl) aircraft are being ferried to TLV, not LGG; question found in event #1 on 

first page was entered in error.

9/21/2015/e-mail: (eds) information for one aircraft – B747-412BCF, MSN 24227, N938BA; indicated 

second is forthcoming.

9/22/2015/e-mail: (eds) requested issue of exemption for first aircraft but no change to petition request for 

two aircraft.

9/22/2015/e-mail: (gjj) verified the following information, 1. The make/model/series/type for the first 

aircraft is B747-BCF, 2. The B747-BCF requires a B-747-4 pilot type rating, 3. The aircraft will not be 

ferried to LGG; it will be ferried to TLV, 4. The question posed in event #1 was a mistake. These 

comments were made by gjj to have in e-mail record. The following questions were asked, 1. What is 

being done to the aircraft in VCV? 2. Will a test flight be required at VCV? 3. What are the 

“demonstration flights” referenced four-times in the petition? 4. Are you aware that CAL must be the 

lessee of the aircraft before any petition could be exercised?

9/25/2015/e-mail: (jtl) 1. Confirmed the m/m/s/t of the aircraft; confirmed the pilot type rating 

requirement and stressed the experience level of CAL 747 pilots; confirmed the aircraft will be flown to 

TLV; stated the aircraft will undergo a C-check at VCV; stated no test flight will be performed at either 

MZJ or VCV; stated the demonstration flights are to check the aircraft, its systems, and performance. 

Stated previous exemptions were granted for “demonstration flights” in exemption #10061, dated 

5/7/2010; stated CAL has entered into a lease agreement with Boeing Aircraft Holding Company that 

shall commence on the date of aircraft delivery.

9/29/2015/e-mail: (gjj) Informed the petitioner that the exemption #10061, dated 5/7/2010, was granted 

for exemption to §§ 61.75 & 61.117, not for § 61.77. Demonstration flights are still in question. Still 

need the information for the second aircraft indicated in the petition.

9/29/2015/e-mail: (jtl) States the term “demonstration flight” is taken from the lease agreement and is 

being performed for the purpose of maintenance. Continued to emphasize the approved exemption 

#10061 to §§ 61.75 & 61.117.

9/30/2015/e-mail: (gjj) Stated that exemption #10061 for §§ 61.75 & 61.117 has no basis for approval of 

a petition for exemption to § 61.77. There are no historical exemption approval of § 61.77 for 

demonstration flights which is why a clear understanding of what they are must be attained. I also 

verified the sequence of events for the flights which is MCJ to VCV to TLV and gave a reminder to get 

the second aircraft information.

9/30/2015/telephone: (jtl) Stated the request for petition is now for one aircraft only.

9/30/3015/e-mail: (jtl) Stated that the demonstration flishts stated in the CAL/Boeing lease agreement are 

functionally equivalent to the test/acceptance flights cited in prior approvals of exemptions to § 61.77.

Verified the sequence of events and highlighted that the demonstration flights conducted at VCV are for 

evaluating the maintenance performed at VCV.

10/1/2015/e-mail: (gjj) Requested verification of the information of the one 747 now associated with the 

petition. (eds) Verified information of aircraft previously given is correct.

10/28/2015/e-mail: (eds) requested status update. (gjj) Informed the petitioner that a draft 

recommendation is completed and that the internal reviews are taking place. No time frame given for 

completion. Recommended advising CAL that the mid-November timeframe for a decision on their 

petition will not be met.

Nothing follows__________________________________________________________________

Gregory J. Janosik, Aviation Safety Inspector

Air Transportation Division, New Program Implementation Branch, AFS-240