Exemption No. 9999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIA nON ADMINISTRA nON

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057·3356

In the matter of the petition of

Airbus

for an exemption from § 25.562(b)(2) of

Title 14, Code-of Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA·2009·I053

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter LR25 IOM09015452 , dated April 2, 2009, Mssrs. Jean Francois Petit, Certification

Manager, and Jelm~Claude NANCHE, A350 Chief Airworthiness Engineer, Airbus, 1 Rond~

Point Maurice Bellante 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, petitioned for exemption from

§ 25.562(b)(2), Title 14, Code afFederal Regulations (14 CFR), as amended by Amendment

25-64. The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the floor ~.'arpage testing

requirement for flight deck seats on Airbus Model A350 airplanes.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 25.562(b)(2), Amendment 25~64, requires the floor tracks used to attach the seat

to the floor be misaligned with respect to the adjacent seat tracks by at least 10 degrees

vertically (i.e., out of parallel) with one rolled 10 degrees. The misaligmnent is used

during the forward loading dynamic test condition and applies to all seats occupiable for

takeoff and landing.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

This information is quoted from Airbus' petition, with minor edits for darity.

Airbus seeks exemption ham the requirement to demonstrate compliance by

testing the flight deck seats. The reason Airbus seeks this relief is that FAA has
dctemllned that such !csting is unnecessary. Since 1992 FAA has taken the

position (see, e.g. Docket 26649, Exemption Grant 5436 dated April 1, 1992)

that ·there has not been a problem with flight deck seat scparations due to floor

buckling on narrow body and larger airplanes which have a minimum of

40 inches of frangible structure between the flight deck floor and the lower

fuselage contour. The FAA now considers that requiring testing of pilot seats

with floor WalVagc carmot be justi Red 011 Ilanow body and larger airplanes.'

Since that position was first taken, FAA has granted numerous exemptions from

the floor warpage testing requiremcnts for flight deck scats to both U.S. and nOI1-

U.S. applicants. Airbus seeks the same relief that has been granted to other

similarly situated applicants. (See, e.g., exemptions 6425, 6425A, 6600, 6819.

6887, and 6935, all granted to applicants seeking the same relief under similar

circumstances_)

Airbus submits that granting this exemption is in the public interest because such

action will:

I. Not adversely affect flight safety, as the FAA itsel r has stated;

2. Improve Ihe erricicllcy of tile Airbus A350;

3. Tend to reduce air transp0l1ation and air cargo fares ror all users; and

4. Reduce the cost of the aircraft to U.S. operators.

FAA has analyzed past requests from numerous petitioners as noted above. These

requests were similar in all material respects to the request of Airbus. Simply put,

using FAA words (see Exemption 6887), 'Subsequent to the adoption ofthi5

requirement by Amendment 25-64, it was detemlined that, although some cockpit

floor dist0l1ions have occurred during accidents, there has not been a problcm

with night dec-k seat separations due to noor buckling on 'nanow body" and larger

airplanes having al least 40 inches or frangible struclUre between the flight deck

noor and the extended lower fuselage contour [as does the A350]. Consequently,

the r:AA has concluded that requiring the testing of flight deck seats under

conditions of floor warpage cannot be justi fied on airplanes of this minimum

size.

Although the A350 fuselage will be largely made ofCFRP [carbon fiber

reinforced plastic], the nose section and 1110reespecially the structure below the

cockpit floor is mainly made of aluminum alloy like 011traditional metallic

fusclages_ More specifically. circumferential frames, skin, nose landing gear bay

box structure, and vertical rods are constructed of aluminulll alloy materia!. The

figure below shows the 40 lI1chreference orthe frangible structure between the

night deck floor and the extended lower fuselage contour. Although a minor

portion orthe skin within the 40 inch zone below the observer seats are made of

CFRP, Ihis is nOIlrelevant compared 10the aluminum nose landing gear bay

structure and vertical rods.

2
Federal Register publication

The FAA determined that good cause existed for waiving the requirement for Federal

Register publication. This ae-tion will not set a precedent, and we did not receive any

comments on previous similar actions that were published in the Federal Register.

The FAA's analysis

The petitioner requests exemption from the requirement in § 25.562(b)(2) to conduct

dynamic testing with the scat tracks misaligned. This request is limited to seats on the

flight deck.

The petitioner notes that the FAA has previously granted numerous exemptions from this

requirement. While such exemptions must be reviewed for precedent, the fact that other

exemptions have been granted does not ensure that further exemptions will be granted.

The conditions and rationale must be established in each case, in order to justify relief

from a requirement.

The petitioner's request for relief from the requirement to misalign the seat tracks is

limited to the Airbus Model A350 flight deck seats. These seats are individually mounted

single scats with both floor and wall mounting, to accommodate both flightcrew and

observers. Crew seats arc required to be fairly rigid in order to withstand the pilot

reaction forces from the flight controls. Wall mounted seats are generally not subject to

floor misalignment requirements, no matter where installed, since they do not mount

directly to the floor.

The FAA has reviewed the arguments presented by the petitioner and concluded that the

service history of night deck scats on larger airplanes supports the petitioner's request and

it is in the interest of the public for the reasons given by the petitioner. The A350 is

largely constructed from composite materials; however, the flight deck area is an

exception. Thus, although the crashworthincss assessment of the A350 in total has not

been completed, the behavior of the flight deck should be consistent with other airplanes

of similar size. Although some flight deck floor distortions have been observed after

accidents, there has not been a problem with llight deck seat separations due to floor

buckling on narrow body and larger airplanes that have a minimum of 40 inches of

frangible structure between the flight deck floor and the lower fuselage contour.

As noted in the other exemptions referenced by the petitioner, the FAA is considering

rulcmaking to change the regulation relative to seats on the flight deck. However,

because there are other safety initiatives that are more urgent, there is no schedule for this

action at present.

3
The rAA's decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public Il1terest, and

will not adversely affect safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.c.

§§ 40 I J 3 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Airbus is hereby granted an

exemption from the Ooor warpage testing requirements of § 25.562(b)(2), Amcndmellt 25-64, to

the extent required to permit type certification of the Airbus Model A350 for seats mounted in

the flight deck. The fol1owing limitations apply to this exemption:

1. This exemption is limited to the Airbus Model A350 series airplanes and applies only to

the seats 111 the night deck. The scats art of thc flight deck are not exempted.

2. The night deck scats are exempted from compliance with the J 0 degrees of track

misalignment required under § 25.562(b)(2). Compliance with al1 other requirements of

§ 25.562 is required.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

JAN 22 2010

Ali Bahrami

Manager, Transp0l1 Airplane Directorate

Aircraft CeJ1ification Service

4