November 15, Rev A 

Meeting Minutes: SIE/Orbis Project ST14145LA-T Class E Cargo 

Compartment Compliance 

Attendee’s: 

SIE/Orbis: Will Kernkamp SIE Project Manager, Sham Hariam Orbis DER, Cole 

Eminger DER 

FAA: Myra Kuck ANM-150L FAA Project Manager, Tom Buffington LGB-AEG, 

William Coveney ANM-130L, Steve Happeny TAD, Alan Sinclair TAD 

1. Meeting Overview and Introduction accomplished 

2. Team discussed Cargo Compartment Classification CFR 25.857(e) Class E. 

Conclusion: Team Agreed this is a Class E cargo compartment

a. Conclusion: Everyone aft for the flight deck door is considered a 

supernumerary, to date there are 48 supernumeraries and 5 crew members 

in the cockpit 

3. The applicants proposed that due to the hospital and nature of the mission all 

areas are accessible. They requested to use a minimum of two supernumeraries to 

fight the fire similar to what is used on a Class B cargo compartment They note 

that normal cargo aircraft do not have this type of accessibility. 

a. Discussed how applicant would ensure fire was extinguished in all areas if 

a hand held extinguisher was used by a supernumerary. 

i. Discussed hidden areas between side wall liner and the aircraft 

skin. Applicant noted there is the potential to add slots every 125” 

for fire fighting with a Halon hand held fire extinguisher. It is also 

possible to climb on the roof of the containers. 

ii. Discussed how it would be beneficial to use service history of the 

Orbis aircraft and current operating requirements and note there 

are not the standard naive people but doctors and professionals 

iii. Conclusion: applicant will have to do a zonal analysis to look at 

the different areas for potential ignition sources; wiring, fuel, etc. 

b. Applicant noted that Orbis is looking for flexibility on this STC. 

i. Tried to define “flexibility” and put some boundaries on what is 

being accomplished and how to maintain the level of safety. 

1. Current hospital has some operational flexibility 

2. Will the aircraft remain pretty much the same with 

containers and sidewalls? Equipment changes? 

3. Conclusion: Applicant needs to provide a clear definition 

on what they are requesting so we can assure compliance is 

not invalidated and assumptions are not negated. For 

example if we have the 125” panels and wand accessibility 

to saturate area with halon is not changed. 

4. AC 25-9A, Table 1 and testing requirements were discussed. 

a. Conclusion: Applicant has noted there will be the one minute smoke 

detection and penetration test. 

b. Discussed remote crew rests and other STC’s with supernumeraries and 

testing and compliance requirements. 

i. Conclusion: Placarding required to keep people out in flight 
November 15, Rev A 

ii. Discussed additional testing that has been imposed on other STC 

applicants that use hand held fire extinguishers, (similar to remote 

crew rest). Usually applicants test for the time takes 

supernumeraries to suit up and locate smoke. Conclusion: Similar 

testing will be required 

1. Discussed what documents need to be revised. Conclusion: 

AFM and possibly Crew Manual will need to be updated 

2. Details were discussed such as ventilation off when tested 

and level of smoke. Noted that when the smoke detector 

went off then the supernumerary would go and locate the 

source of the smoke, more like the smoldering suit case and 

not the smoke penetration test. 

c. Applicant proposal noted that the supernumerary keep in contact with the 

flight deck? FAA questioned how will this be accomplished and AEG 

would like to see communication tools No conclusion to date on this item.

d. Discussed importance communication between flight crew and 

supernumerary (discussed use of a respirator, portable oxygen box, smoke 

goggles, some type of walking/talking item, etc.) Conclusion: Applicant 

will be looking into this. 

e. Conclusion: AFM needs to be changed to reflect the communication 

f. Discussion about a smoke hood ASE60 being used that has a 60 minute 

protection but no oxygen provided, not FAA approved. Should we use it? 

Conclusion: TAD will talk to tech center; concerns that person needs 

oxygen going back, since it is not FAA approved we may require 

additional testing. 

5. Discuss the proposal for supernumerary training 

a. Current types of training out in industry, there is a fire fighting video and 

an Advisory Circular. These would be a good starting point but the 

applicant would need to change then to suit their configuration. 

Supernumerary training would highlight that time is of essence. 

b. Discussed having a test at the end of the training 

c. Applicant noted that the equipment will be stored in over head bins near 

door 

6. Conclusion: Team agreed a Method of Compliance (MOC) Issue Paper (IP) is the 

appropriate path. 

a. Conclusion: Sham to write a one paragraph statement of issue. 

b. Conclusion: Applicant will need to address ignition sources such as, fuel, 

flammable or toxic sources and “present threats” with a focus on what this 

project is adding (lithium batteries, etc.) 

c. Discussed adding certain information to the weight and balance manual to 

keep the aircraft in compliance (ex: 125” slots). Future items may need to 

be looked at, however we do not want to be so restrictive that we go over 

into the operational side of the house. Conclusion: not enough information 

provided by applicant to determine what is needed. Applicant to define 

what they are looking for before proceeding.

7. Discussed the AFM procedure at a high level and what changes will be made. 

a. Discussed indications in cockpit noting the ICAS will tell you a smoke 

detector alerted and providing a general area of where to go look for 

smoke. Discussed adding this as part of training on where to go.