AFS

- 1483

- E Exemption No. 15243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

THE BOEING COMPANY Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0702

for an ex emption from § 121.344(e)(1) and (f)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated September 2, 2014, Mr. Tim Hendrix petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an exemption from § § 121.344(e)(1) and (f)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Re gulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow U.S. operators of certain Boeing 717

- 200 aircraft to operate those aircraft without complying with the recording rate required for parameter 46 (§121.344(a)(46), Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency ) . The rec ording rate for that parameter is specified in Appendix M

to part 121

.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations

Section 121.344(e)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for all turbine

- engine

- powered transport category airplanes that are manufactured after August 18, 2000, the parameters listed in paragraph s (a)(1) through (57) of this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix M of part 121

. Section 121.344(f

)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for all turbine

- engine

- powered transport category airplanes manufactured after August 19, 2002, the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(88) of this section must be recorded within the ranges,

accuraci es, resolutions, and re cording intervals specified in A ppendix M to part 121

.AFS

- 483

- E 2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Boeing states that one 717

- 200 operator reported to Boeing that a portion of the data req uired by 14 CFR § 121.344(a)(46) was not being recorded correctly by the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR). As part of parameter 46, the 717

- 200 airplane's DFDR is requir ed to

record Automatic Direction Finder ( if equipped), Very High Frequency Omni

- Directional Range ( VO R ) , and Instrument Landing System ( ILS ) frequency selected. The ILS frequency selected is not being properly recorded.

The 717 has two interchangeable V ersatile I ntegrated A vionics (VIA) units that supply specified central computer functions for the airpl ane. The cause of the issue was identified by Boeing as a software coding error in the VIA which is sending unreadable data for ILS frequency selection from the Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit (DFDAU) to the DFDR.

Boeing states there are 84 U.S.

- regi stered 717 airplanes subject to the applicable regulations

.

Boeing provided an attachment to its petition including a flow chart outlining the time required for rectification of the VIA unit software anomaly. Boeing estimate s a total of 60 months will be required, stating that :

“T he 717 has been out of production for 8 years, therefore, the OEM VIA software supplier has no sustaining contract with Boeing. Changes to the existing VIA software require significant work scope an d costs due to the criticality of this function on flight operations. ”

Further, Boeing states :

“ Boeing has accumulated a significant number of VIA software changes that are committed to the FAA for corrective action. In addition, 717 operators have requested new features which were planned to be included in this future change activity. ”

Boeing cites the time required for certification of software revisions as a key factor in the modification schedule. Finally, Boeing states that some revisions to the software will require flight testing prior to certification. This will necessitate Boeing negotiating use of a 717

- 200 with one of the airplane’s operators.

Boeing lists the following as mitigating factors to the inability of the subject airplanes t o record ILS frequency selected:

 The 717 DFDR records Localizer (Parameter 27) and Glide Slope (Parameter 28) tracking data. This, combined with radar tracking data and/or other physical data, will provide post event investigative evidence of proper/impro per ILS frequency selection.AFS

- 483

- E 3

 The 717 has auto tuning of navigation frequencies from a database for activated flight plans within the flight management system , thus reducing manual tuning entry errors of ILS frequency

.

 The 717 has auto decoding of tuned nav igation station Morse code identifiers which is displayed to the pilots.

 No accidents/incidents where ILS frequency tuning errors were causal or contributed

to the event in the past 15 years, including all airplane types and models in part 121 operations. (NTSB data)

 The affected U.S.

- registered 717 fleet is relatively small at eighty

- four ( 84) airplanes or approximately one percent (1 %) of the total airplanes operating under part 121

.

Boeing states that a similar grant of e xemption has been issued by the FAA to another transport category aircraft manufacturer for a n unreadable parameter required under 14 CFR § 121.344 , for the purpose of enabling continued operation of airplanes for a limited time until needed airplane modifications could be accomplished.

Boeing states there is no direct impact on safety of daily flight operations stemming from the unreadable ILS selected frequency DFDR parameter

.

Boeing claims that a grant of its petition is in the public interest petition because it would

allow continu ed operation in revenue service of 84 U.S.

- registered model 717 airplanes, in service with three U.S. operators. It also claim s that a grant of exemption “...would prevent severe economic impact to scheduled commercial operators with 717 airplanes if operat ions were required to cease until this issue is corrected on each airplane.”

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing.

Boeing has requested this exemption on behalf of three U.S. part 121 operators of this aircraft. Boeing in dicated that 14 CFR §25.1549, an air worthi ness standard for transport category airplanes, “supports compliance to” the operating requirements of §121.344 and that B oe ing

is “ responsible to provide the source parameters and/or signals to interface with a fl ight recorder,” adding that the unreadable source data stream “resides within the Boeing 717

- 200 Type Design VIA.”

The FAA notes that the only other exemption to 14 CFR part 121.344 granted in response to a petition from another transport category air craft manufacturer is Exemption10611(a). Though that particular exemption was granted based on a petition from Airbus Industries, the exemption was granted to operators of the affected Airbus aircraft. Although similar in nature,AFS

- 483

- E 4

the present petition of B oeing and the referenced Airbus petition differ significantly in scope. Both manufacturers identified a problem meeting the recording requirements of a single parameter, and both showed that the required data could be sufficiently ascertained using

extrap olation of other recorded data in the event the need arose. Each manufacturer stated

that a service bulletin would be published that would correct the deficiency and bring the affected aircraft into compliance with applicable regulations. Such similariti es are common to many flight recorder exemption requests, but there are significant differences between the subject petition and the Airbus grant referenced.

Airbus identified 345 aircraft operated under p art 121 by 13 U.S. operators, all of which were directly affected by the condition described in its petition. All 13 U.S. operators and all 345 affected aircraft required exemption from certain p art 121 rules in order to continue operation.

B oeing , by contrast, has identified 84 air planes of U.S. regi stry that are affected . In its petition, Boeing identified three U.S. operators of the affected airplanes, but that number has

been reduced to two operators since the petition was filed by the merging of operators

.

The Airbus format exemption placed a more significant burden on the principal inspectors of the affected operators, which was balanced by the FAA’s need to process and oversee 13 exemptions affecting hundreds of daily flights and thousands of passengers. It was a decision by the FAA to use a different process based on the circumstances. It is not to be considered an option that a petitioner may request in every instance, especially when the number of aircraft and/or affected operators is relatively small.

Airbus demonstrated an ability to provide recorded data of the discrepant parameter, but at a rate insufficient to meet certain regulatory requirements. Through extrapolation, this information would still be useful to accident investigators. In its petit ion, Boeing presents mitigations that include other recorded parameters, but would not include the discrepant parameter at any rate or accuracy. While investigators would be able to see the localizer and glideslope indications being presented to the fligh t crew, via recorded data

, the y would not be able to determine, for example, whether the avionics were malfunctioning or if an incorrect ILS frequency had been entered by the flight crew.

In its petition, Boeing requested a 24 month exemption, but the flo w chart presented as an attachment to the petition shows, essentially, that the time will be used to determine what

work will be done

, primarily by the vendor, Honeywell. Indeed, fully a year is scheduled to

“ N egotiate with Honeywell” (6 months), “ Confirm S chedule with Honeywell” (3 months),

and “ Sign A greement wit h Honeywell and O perators” (3 months). At the end of the initial 24 months, Boeing has scheduled processing of another petition for exe mption of indeterminate length during which the actual soft ware modifications will be developed and implemented. In total, Boeing estimates 60 months are required to develop and implement software revisions to bring the affected aircraft into compliance with regulations. The FAA finds this schedule unacceptable.AFS

- 483

- E 5

In its petition, Boeing mentions that other revisions to the VIA software will be accomplished concurrent with the revisions needed to bring the aircraft into compliance with the applicable flight recorder regulations. The FAA rec ognizes that there ar e economic benefits of accomplishing multiple modifications concurrently, but that Boeing has not justified why it is in the public interest to allow its aircraft to remain out of compliance with §121.344 while other changes not affecting compliance are co mpleted.

While we appreciate the effort of Boeing to notify the FAA of a discovered noncompliance and to begin seeking relief for its operators, we do not find the circumstances warrant relief in the form requested. We suggest that Boeing notify the op erators of the affected aircraft of the flight recordation deficiency and lend necessary technical support (as detailed in its petition)

to those U.S. operators that apply for exemptions for affected airplanes that are listed on their operations specificat ions. The FAA does not grant exemptions to aircraft of foreign registry, nor is operation outside the United States automatically granted in any operational exemption.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exempti on would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113

and 44701 , delegated to me by the Administrator, I deny the petition of The Boeing Company for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.344(e)(1) and (f)(1)

.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on March 7 , 2016

.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service