### 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 C argo 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 conversation s w ere in reference to clarifying the i nformation 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; que stion found in event #1 on first page was entered in error
. 9/21/2015/e

- mail: (e ds ) information for one aircraft

– B747

- 412BCF, MSN 24227, N938BA; indicated second is forthcoming
. 9/22/2015/e

- mail: (e ds ) 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 l essee of the aircraft before an y 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 flig ht 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 ent ered into a lease agreement with Boeing Aircraft Holding Company that shall commence on the date of aircraft deli very. 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 per formed for the purpose of maintena n ce. 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 ha s no basis for approval of a petition for exemption to § 61.77. T here 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 a lso v erified the sequence of events for the flights which is MCJ to VCV to TLV and g ave a reminder to g et 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) R equested 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 recom mendation 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 p etition will not be met. Nothing follows

___________________________ _______________________________________ Gregory J. Janosik , Aviation Safety Inspector Air Transportation Division , New Program Implementation Branch, AFS

- 240