CORRECTED COPY

This is a correction to the Row 44 Grant of Time-Limited Exemption, docket no. FAA2013-1046, issued February 20, 2014. The initial release of this exemption listed an 

incorrect Exemption No. 10944. The correct exemption number is applied to this 

document. The FAA has made these changes in our records as of March 13, 2014. Please 

file this with the originally signed Grant of Time-Limited Exemption.

Exemption No. 10956

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

Row 44

for an exemption from § 25.571(e)(1) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1046

GRANT OF TIME-LIMITED EXEMPTION

By petition posted December 16, 2013 on the Regulations.gov website, Kreg Doerr, Manager, 

Aircraft Installation Design and Certification, Row 44, 820 Springer Drive, Lombard, Illinois, 

60148, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the 

requirements of § 25.571(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), at amendment 

25-96. This exemption, if granted, would grant a twelve month exemption from the FAA birdstrike damage-tolerance requirements to ensure that Row 44 has time to design, fabricate, and 

install a means of full compliance with § 25.571(e)(1) for Boeing Model 767-300 series

airplanes.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation(s):

Section 25.571(e)(1) – Damage-tolerance (discrete source) evaluation. The airplane must be 

capable of successfully completing a flight during which likely structural damage occurs as a 

result of –

(1) Impact with a 4-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane relative to the bird along 

the airplane’s flight path is equal to Vc at sea level or 0.85 Vc at 8,000 feet, whichever is 

more critical.
2

This section defines required structural requirements for damage to the airframe from a bird 

strike. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

This section quotes the relevant information from the petitioner’s request. The complete petition 

is available at the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management System, on the 

Internet at http://regulations.gov, in Docket No. FAA-2013-1046.

Safety and Public Interest

This petition for exemption would not adversely affect safety because of two primary 

factors. First, there have never been any documented bird strikes for large fuselage 

mounted satellite antenna radomes installed on Part 25 Transport Category Aircraft. 

Secondly, in the normal operational flight envelope, the fuselage shadows the radome and 

a bird strike is not possible due to the positive angle of attack of the airplane.

Row 44 currently has approximately 440 satellite antenna radomes installed on 

Southwest’s 737 aircraft fleet. These aircraft are accumulating over one million flight 

hours per year with no reported bird strikes to the radome. Additionally, the following 

table below lists all the exemptions granted for § 25.571(e)(1) for calendar year 2013.

Exemption No. Applicant Aircraft type Regulatory Docket No.

10760 Live TV Airbus A321 Series FAA-2013-0373

10761 Live TV Boeing 757-300 Series FAA-2013-0372

10762 Live TV Airbus A320 Series FAA-2013-0336

10763 Live TV Boeing 737-100 thru -900 Series FAA-2013-0338

10814 Plane Antennas &

Security Systems Boeing 737-900 Series FAA-2013-0433

10817 Gogo LLC Boeing 767-200 thru -400 Series FAA-2013-0562

10845 Standard Aero Airbus A330 Series FAA-2013-0563

10847 Standard Aero Boeing 757-200, -300 Series FAA-2013-0564

10848 Gogo LLC Boeing 767-200 thru -400 Series FAA-2013-0567

10849 Gogo LLC Boeing 777-200, -300, F Series FAA-2013-0569

10850 DRB Aviation

Consultants Boeing 777-200, -300, F Series FAA-2013-0660

10851 Star Aviation Airbus A320 Series FAA-2013-0570

In each exemption case listed above, the applicant has presented data that indicates on 

satellite antenna radome installations, which are similar to the satellite radome installed 

by Row 44 in both size and installation location, there has never been a documented bird 

strike to the radome. This includes over 10 million flight hours with satellite antenna 

radomes installed on all types of Part 25 Transport Category Aircraft.
3

In previous efforts to substantiate the Row 44 satellite antenna radome installation for 

bird strike, it was shown analytically that for normal flight operations below 10,000 feet, 

the fuselage shadows the radome and a bird strike was not possible. Per Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 91.117(a), aircraft are not to fly beyond 250 Knots at an

altitude below 10,000 feet. This project expected to use this “normal flight envelope” 

velocity when showing compliance to § 25.571(e)(1). It has recently been clarified by the 

FAA that the cruise velocity should be used for the flight envelope when investigating the 

potential for bird strike. This increased the speed used in the analysis from 250 Knots to 

360 Knots. This clarification changes the attitude of the aircraft when investigating the 

radome for bird strike potential. Under the operational rule for maximum velocity below 

10,000 feet (§ 91.117(a)), the aircraft would fly in a “nose up” attitude thus shielding the 

satellite antenna radome from a bird strike. However, under the language of 

§ 25.571(e)(1), the aircraft design speed at sea level is used. This changes the attitude of 

the aircraft to level thus exposing the satellite antenna radome to a potential bird strike. 

This modification is expected to be complete in January 2014 and the updated analysis 

and/or testing or design changes required to show compliance to § 25.571(e)(1) may not 

be in place.

The public interest is served in granting this exemption for the following reasons. There 

is keen interest, by the flying public, in having connectivity services while flying, 

particularly on long domestic and international flights. These services enable business 

travelers to remain engaged in their trade while flying, thus enhancing efficiency and 

productivity. The connectivity services are also of great benefit to the leisure traveler by 

providing valuable connectivity and entertainment options.

Row 44 has been reviewing § 25.571(e)(1) compliance options with the Chicago Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO) and the Transport Aircraft Directorate (TAD) for the past two 

months. A coordination meeting held in early November 2013 resulted in a method of 

showing compliance to § 25.571(e)(1) that was tentatively agreed to by all parties present 

and is summarized below.

Row 44 is developing an analytical model to predict the effects of bird strikes on our 

satellite antenna radome and antenna installation methodology. The model will be 

developed by creating a modeled (digital simulation) and performing an actual bird strike 

test on a satellite antenna radome and antenna installed on a rigid instrumented test 

fixture. After testing, the digital model response will be updated to incorporate the results 

obtained from the physical test. Next, the updated model will be validated by performing 

a bird strike analysis on a second (simulated) satellite antenna radome and antenna 

installation (different from the initial testing) and comparing this result with actual results 

of a second physical test of the actual structure with the satellite antenna radome and 

antenna mounted.

Once the model is validated, the simulation data will be used in the future to show 

compliance to § 25.571(e)(1) on new FAA Supplemental Type Certificat (STC) projects 

employing this particular satellite antenna radome and antenna installation methodology.
4

International operations

Per § 11.81(h), Row 44 requests that the privileges of this Exemption be extended outside 

of the United States. This extension of privileges is necessary for operations based within 

foreign countries having bilateral agreements with the United States accepting FAA 14 

CFR Part 25 as their airworthiness standards for transport category aircraft. The Boeing 

767-300 aircraft is intended for the global marketplace.

The initial airplane to be modified is Irish registered. However, the airplanes are 

American owned and the leasing company insists that the United States airworthiness 

standards along with the EASA airworthiness standards be followed for all modifications.

Good Cause Exists to Issue the Exemption without Notice and Comment

Row 44 requests that the FAA issue the exemption without publication for comment in 

the Federal Register.

Section 11.87 lists four factors considered by the agency in deciding whether a petitioner 

has shown good cause for the FAA not to delay action on the petition. Those factors are 

set forth below in italics along with the company’s response in plain text:

(a) Whether granting the petition would set a precedent: 

According to the FAA’s Exemption database, 12 exemptions have been granted to 

§ 25.571(e)(1) in calendar year 2013 which allows aircraft to operate for a limited period 

of time pending the successful resolution of a compliance issue discovered late in the 

certification process.

(b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions previously granted:

The majority of the exemptions granted in 2013 were for the same reason as stated in 

requesting this exemption. The applicant, Row 44, needs additional time to analyze 

and/or test and/or modify the existing radome to be fully compliant with the provisions of 

§ 25.571(e)(1).

(c) Whether delaying action would adversely affect Row 44:

The importance of the Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Antenna radome 

installation to Row 44’s core business cannot be overstated. Due to the rapidly changing 

technology involved in this modification, coupled with the project’s advanced stage and 

the disruption to operators that have contracted for the Row 44 system, any delay would 

adversely affect Row 44.

(d) Whether the petition was filed in a timely manner:

The petition is timely filed. Row 44 has had discussions on this subject with the Chicago 

ACO and is planning additional discussions with the Transport Airplane Directorate over 

the next several months.

In light of the above considerations, Row 44 submits that good cause exists not to delay 

action on this request.
5

Federal Register publication

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register

publication for public comment. While the request is not identical to previously granted requests, 

it will not set a precedent in the long-term. The reason for the exemption petition is due to recent 

FAA clarification on the intent of the rule, and the fact that the affected STC is nearing 

completion. Since the FAA guidance has now been widely circulated, we do not expect there to 

be any need for exemption requests in the future, except on current projects that are in the final 

stages. In addition, the exemption request is limited to one year. Lastly, we agree that any delay 

in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Row 44, and that this petition was filed in a 

timely manner.

The FAA’s analysis

The FAA recently became aware of the inconsistent application of bird strike requirement of 

§ 25.571(e)(1) to radomes installed on airplanes. Section 25.571(e)(1) requires the bird strike

assessment to be performed at Vc at sea level or 0.85Vc at 8,000 feet, whichever is more critical. 

Some applicants had been limiting the speed at which bird strike is assessed to ‘typical’

operational speeds. By limiting speed, an applicant could show that the airplane is always at a 

positive-pitch attitude, and that the radome will always be effectively “shadowed” by the crown 

of the forward fuselage. The FAA recently reiterated to all applicants that the rule requires 

consideration up to the design speeds stated in the rule.

In support of its petition, Row 44 presented an analysis showing that the probability of a bird 

strike to the radome is very low. We accept that the probability of a bird strike is low. However, 

the rule does not allow probability to be used to avoid assessment of the bird strike, and 

therefore, an exemption is necessary. Limiting the exemption to one year does further diminish 

the safety risk.

Probability cannot be applied to airspeed or to the probability of impact itself, because both the 

impact and the airspeed (Vc) are stated directly in the rule. The applicant must assume the bird 

strike will occur at Vc or 0.85Vc as stated in the rule, and then determine the likely structural 

damage that would result from that bird strike.

In consideration of the above, the FAA concludes that granting this exemption will not adversely 

affect safety. For the reasons stated earlier by the petitioner, the FAA concludes that granting this 

time-limited exemption would be in the public interest.

The FAA’s decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of time-limited exemption is in the public 

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, delegated 

to me by the Administrator, Row 44 is hereby granted an exemption from 14 CFR 25.571(e)(1).

The exemption is granted to the extent necessary to allow Row 44 to install Radomes on Boeing 

Model 767-300 series airplanes.
6

This exemption terminates one year from the date it is granted, unless sooner superseded or 

rescinded. On or prior to that date, Row 44 must demonstrate full compliance to the bird-strike 

requirements of § 25.571(e)(1), or the affected STC becomes void.

Issued in Renton Washington, on February 20, 2014.

/s/ John P. Piccola, Jr.

John P. Piccola, Jr.

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service