rti--IIDEIND 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

October 16, 2013 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attention: Federal Aviation Administration 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-I 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 

Seattle, WA 98124-2207 

Subject: Petition for Renewal of Exemption No. 9669 from 14 CFR Section 21.197, 

Special Flight Permits 

References: (a) Boeing Letter B-X81B-90-028, dated January 22, 1990 

(b) Exemption No. 5600, dated February 8, 1993 (Enclosure 1) 

(c) Exemption No. 9669B, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-8898, dated 

March 26, 2012 (Enclosure 2) 

The Boeing Company hereby petitions for are-issuance of its existing exemption from 14 CFR, Section 

21.197, Special Flight Permits. Reference (a) contained the original petition for exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 21.197 permitting Boeing to conduct tlightcrew training in aircraft operated under a special flight permit 

issued for production flight testing of new aircraft. Reference (b) [Enclosure 1] granted that request with an 

expiration date of February 28, 1995. Reference (c) [Enclosure 2] is the most recent extension of the 

exemption to 14 CFR § 21.197 with an expiration date of March 31, 2014. 

The requirements for, and the rationale in support of, the exemption remain unchanged and valid. The 

Boeing Company requests a two year extension of the previously granted Reference (c) exemption. 

Since the existing exemption will expire on March 31, 2014, an expeditious handling of this petition would 

be greatly appreciated. If additional information is required pursuant to this petition, please contact Colin S. 

Fender at 206-544-197 4. 

Regards, 

Brooke D. Shindler 

Acting Supervisor, FAA Coordination 

Boeing Flight Test Engineering 

9R-TE-BBXA M/C: 14-KF 

Tel. (206) 544-9818 

Enclosures (2) 
Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 1 of 4 

Exempt[ 1 ). txt 

Exemption No 5600 

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. 26149 

* 

for an exemption from Section 21.197 • 

of the Federal Aviation Regulations • 

• 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated January 22, 1990, Mr. R.D. Grantham, Unit Chief, 

Engineering Support, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing 

Company), P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, and 

letters dated October 4, and November 21, 1990, Mr. William M 

Broadhurst, Supervisor, Boeing Company, petitioned for an 

exemption from Section 21.197 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(FAR) to allow the Boeing Company to conduct flight crew training 

of Boeing flight crews while operating under a special fhght 

permit. 

The petitioners request relief from the following section: 

Section 21.197 states, in pertinent part, that a special 

flight permit may be issued for an aircraft that may not 

currently meet applicable airworthiness requirements but IS 

capable of safe flight for certain purposes, including 

production flight testing of new production aircraft. 

The petitioners' supportive information is as follows: 

The petitioners state that the Boeing Company conducts 

production flight testing of new production aircraft under 

special flight permits issued under the provisions of 

Section 21.197 of the FAR. 

The petitioners state that the Boeing Company presently has 

only one aircraft being operated under an experimental 

airworthiness certificate that could be used for training, 

but its availability is very limited due to other test 

program requirements. 

AIR-90-193-E 

The petitioners state that present operations encompass 

production testing of Boeing Models 737-300/-400 757-200 

Page 1 
Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 2 of 4 

Exempt(1].txt 

767-200/-300, and 747-300/-400 and a new model 737-500, 

introduced in February 1990, all conducted under special 

flight permits under Section 21.197. With the pressing 

demand for new aircraft, the Boeing Company is operating its 

manufacturing facilities at full capacity in order to meet 

this requirement. As a result, production flight testing is 

now running full time, allowing Boeing pilots little time 

for other flying activities, includmg training. 

The petitioners further state that the Boeing Company is 

delivering approximately 35 aircraft per month in the four 

models currently in production. This will increase to over 

40 per month as soon as the Boeing Company has the capacity 

The Boeing Company backlog of orders stretches into the mid1990's. The reason for this unprecedented production effort 

is to satisfy the world airline demand for new equipment. 

The petitioners state that because of the extremely limited 

availability of training aircraft, its best direction at 

this time is to provide training time during the latter 

phase of the final production flight. Under the present 

limitations of Section 21.197, the Boeing Company states it 

is unable to provide any flight crew training during the 

production flight phase. Boeing Company pilot requirements 

are very stringent and require qualifications and experience 

levels equivalent to those of Part 121 operations. The 

training of Boeing pilots, particularly the newly hired, has 

become a serious problem that is beginning to impact the 

Boeing Company operations in training costs, flight 

operations cost, and in customer delivery schedules. 

The petitioners state that a prospective pilot is required 

to have an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate with a 

multi-engine type rating (preferably in a Boeing airplane) 

before being considered for employment as a Production 

Flight Test pilot. After joining the Boeing Commercial 

Airplane Company, the pilot is sent through Boeing Company's 

Customer Support Training Program. The pilot receives the 

same curriculum given to customer airlines who contract to 

have their crews trained by Boeing. This includes classroom 

and flight simulator training. After successfully 

complebng this training, the pilot is put in the Production 

Flight Test organization as first officer in the type 

aircraft for which he or she has completed training. 

The petitioners state that if a pilot were in need of 

initial type rating in one of the Boeing Company's aircraft, 

the training flight would take place in an aircraft which 

had completed the flight profile described in Boeing 

Company's FAA-approved Production Flight Test document on an 

airplane which was scheduled for a subsequent flight to 

clear up flight squawks from a previous flight 

The petitioners further state that the Boeing Company has 

approximately 30 pilots engaged in production flight testing 

Page 2 
Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 3 of 4 

Exempt[1].txt 

and has recently experienced a 60 percent turnover in 

personnel. Of these pilots, approximately 12 are qualified 

in all four airplane models currently in production; the 

others fly fewer models. The Boeing Company estimates that 

there is a potential to do crew training of some type either 

initial, type rating, recurrent, or refresher on 15 percent 

of the 300 airplanes to be delivered this year. This would 

be almost one usage of the crew training exemption per week. 

The petitioners further state that leasing of customer 

aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate prior to 

delivery is costly, and with customer demand and tight 

delivery schedules, this is no longer a viable option. 

Additionally, leasing, insurance, maintenance costs, and the 

uncertainty of lease availability makes this option too 

expensive. Under pressure to deliver new airplanes, the 

Boeing Company cannot obtain permission from its airline 

customers to delay delivery of new airplanes to schedule 

additional flights for crew training. 

The petitioners assert that this exemption will not 

adversely affect safety and will be in the public interest 

by reducing the number of flights dedicated to training 

purposes. Additionally, there would be a reduction of noise 

pollution at two areas of operation, Boeing Field, Seattle, 

Washington; and Paine Field, Everett, Washington; due to 

fewer flights. In addition, there would be a conservation 

of resources such as aviation fuels and oils, tires, and 

other aircraft parts. 

Finally, the petitioners contend that granting this 

exemption relief will permit the Boeing Company to provrde 

more efficient service and delivery to domestic and nondomestic customers and at the same time assist the carriers 

to better serve the public. The sales to non-domestic 

customers are a significant factor in reducing the trade 

deficit balance according to the petitioner. 

The petitioners, therefore, request this exemption to allow 

Boeing to conduct pilot crew training of its flight crews 

during production flight testing of new production aircraft 

A sum mary of the Boeing Aircraft Company's petition was 

published in the Federal Register on April3, 1990 {55 FR 12439). 

No comments were received. 

The Federal Aviation Administration's analysis is as follows· 

The purpose of the requirements in Section 21.197, special 

flight permits, is to allow an applicant for an 

airworthiness certificate to operate an aircraft that may 

not currently meet applicable airworthiness standards but is 

in condition for safe flight. Special flight permits are 

issued for a number of purposes, including allowing an 

applicant to perform functions with an aircraft necessary to 

Page 3 
Enclosure 1 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 4 of 4 

Exempt[1].txt 

demonstrate compliance with applicable airworthiness 

standards for the purpose of certification. 

Exemptions have been previously issued by the FAA to permit 

the issuance of special flight permits for purposes other 

than those specified in Section 21.197(a). An exemption was 

granted to Douglas Aircraft Company in 1988 for exactly the 

same reason as requested by the Boeing Company (Exemption 

No. 4936). The FAA has encountered no difficultie~ or 

safety problems resulting from this exemption and the 

benefits described by the petitioner have been realized. 

The FAA is considering rulemaking in this area to extend the 

required relief. In the meantime, the agency has determined 

that the requested action can be taken without safety being 

compromised, and the public interest as indicated by the 

petitioners will also be served, provided the petitioners 

comply with the conditions and limitations as set forth 

below. 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of 

exemption is in the public interest and will not adversely affect 

safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 

Sections 313(a) and 601(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 

delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFR 11.53), the Boeing 

Company is granted an exemption from Section 21.197 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations to the extent necessary to permit 

training of flight crews while operating with special flight 

permits issued for the purpose of production flight testing new 

production aircraft, subject to the following conditions and 

limitations: 

1. All pilot flight crews to be trained must be Boeing 

Company employees. 

2. Each special flight permit incorporating the provisions 

of this exemption will be effect1ve only for the period 

of time specified in the permit and only so long as the 

aircraft are owned, operated, and registered by the 

Boeing Company. 

3. Flight training performed under this exemption wm not 

serve to meet the requirements of Parts 121 or 135 of 

the FAR. 

This exemption IS effective until February 28, 1995, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded 

/s/ Thomas E. McSweeny 

Acting Director, Atrcraft Certification Service 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 1993. 

Page4 
0 

US.Oepanmant 

d 'tcJnspor1ctkln 

Ftderal Alllatlon 

AdmUs1nlllan 

March 26, 2012 

Ms. Caitlin M. Randles 

Supervisor. FAA Coordination 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 

Seattle, W A 98124-2207 

Dear Ms. Randles: 

Enclosure 2 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 1 of2 

Exemption No. 9669B 

BOO~Ave. SW 

WUhinglon, DC. 20!91 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2001-8898 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Ex.emption No. 9669, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect 

Tbe Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated Febru.acy 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 9669, as 

amended. That exemption from§ 21.197 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

allows Boeing to conduct flightcrew training in aircraft operated under a special flight permit 

issued for production flight testing of new aircraft. 

In your petition, you indicate that there bas been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA bas determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in t'he Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set e. 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing. 

Our Dec:lslon 

The FAA bas determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9669, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701. which tbe FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me. I grant your petition. 

AIR·ll--229-£ 
Tbe Effect of Onr Decision 

Enclosure 2 to Boeing Letter 

9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-13-0584 

Page 2 of2 

Our decision extends the termillation date of Exemption No. 9669, 83 amended, to 

March 31. 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9669, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9669. 

Sincerely, 

y~cf~_, 

Frank P. Paski~cz Acting D~puty Director, Aircraft Cercification 

Service 

2