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 Bu ffington LGB-AEG, William Coveney ANM-130L, Steve Happeny TAD, Alan S inclair 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 com partment

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 an d nature of the mission all areas are accessible. They requested to use a mini mum 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 extin guished in all areas if a hand held extinguisher was used by a supernumerar y. i. Discussed hidden areas between side wall liner and the aircraft skin. Applicant noted there is the potential to a dd slots every 125” for fire fighting with a Halon hand held fire extin guisher. 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 a nd 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 flexibili ty on this STC.
i. Tried to define “flexibility” and put some boundari es 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 compli ance is not invalidated and assumptions are not negated. F or example if we have the 125” panels and wand accessi bility to saturate area with halon is not changed.
4. AC 25-9A, Table 1 and testing requirements were dis cussed.

a. Conclusion: Applicant has noted there will be the one minute sm oke detection and penetration test.
b. Discussed remote crew rests and other STC’s with su pernumeraries and testing and compliance requirements.
i. Conclusion: Placarding required to keep people out in flightNovember 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 t akes 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 update d
2. Details were discussed such as ventilation off when tested
and level of smoke. Noted that when the smoke detec tor 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 kee p in contact with the flight deck? FAA questioned how will this be accomplished and AE G
would like to see communication tools No conclusio n to date on this item.
d. Discussed importance communication between flight c rew and supernumerary (discussed use of a respirator, porta ble 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 communicatio n 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 starti ng point but the applicant would need to change then to suit their c onfiguration. 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 i n over head bins near
door
6. Conclusion: Team agreed a Method of Compliance (MOC) Issue Pap er (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 suc h as, fuel, flammable or toxic sources and “present threats” wi th 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 restr ictive 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 wha t changes will be made.

a. Discussed indications in cockpit noting the ICAS wi ll tell you a smoke detector alerted and providing a general area of wh ere to go look for smoke. Discussed adding this as part of training o n where to go.