UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter ofthe petition of Exemption No. 11071

Row44 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0402

for an exemption from§ 25.571(e)(l) of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations

GRANT OF TIME-LIMITED EXEMPTION By petitionposted June 24, 2014 onthe Regulations.gov website, Mr. Kreg Doerr, Manager, Aircraft Installation Design and Certification, Row44, 820 SpringerDrive, Lombard, Illinois, 60148, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the requirements of§ 25.571(e)(l) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR), at amendment 25-132. This exemption, ifgranted, would grant a twelve month exemption from the FAAbirdstrike damage-tolerance requirements to ensure that Row 44 has time to develop a means offull compliance with§ 25.571(e)(l) for its satellite antennaradome installation onBoeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. The petitioner requests relieffrom the following regulation(s): Section 25.571(e)(1)- Damage-tolerance (discrete source) evaluation. The airplane mustbe capable ofsuccessfully completing a flight during which likely structural damage occurs as a result of- (1) Impact with a 4-pound bird when the velocity ofthe 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. This section defines structural requirements for damage to the airframe from a bird strike. The petitioner supports its requestwith the following information: This section quotes the relevant information from the petitioner's request, with minor edits for clarity. The complete petition is available at the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System, onthe Internet at http://regulations.gov, inDocketNo. FAA-2014-0402.Safety and Public Interest This petition for exemption would not adversely affect safety because oftwo primary factors. First, there have never been any documented bird strikes for large fuselage mounted satellite antenna radomes installed onPart 25 Transport Category Aircraft. Secondly, inthe normal operational flight envelope, the fuselage shadows the radome and a bird strike is not possible due to the positive angle ofattack ofthe airplane.

Row44 currently has approximately 460 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.

No. Applicant Aircrafttype RegulatoryDocketNo. I 10760 Live TV Airbus A321 Series FAA-2013-0373 1076 757-300 Series FAA-2013-0372 Airbus A320 Series FAA-2013-0336 Boein 737-100 thru -900 S FAA-2013-0433 10817 ing 767-200 thru -400 Series FAA-2013-0562 10845 StandardAero FAA-2013-0563 10847 I StandardAero FAA-2013-0564 10848 Go oLLC FAA-2013-0567 10849 GogoLLC Boeing 777-200, -300, F Series FAA-2013-0569 10850 

## I DRB Aviation Consultants Boeing 777-200, -300, F Series FAA-2013-0660 10851 I StarAviation Airbus A320 Series FAA-2013-0570

In each exemption case listed above, the applicant has presented datathat indicates on satellite antennaradome installations, which are similarto the satellite radome installed by Row 44 inboth 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 ofPart 25 Transport Category Aircraft.

In previous efforts to substantiate the Row44 satellite antennaradome 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 notpossible. 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)(l). Ithas recently been clarifiedby 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 inthe analysis from 250 Knots to Vc (approx. 360 Knots). This clarification changes the attitude ofthe aircraft when

2investigatingthe 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 "noseup" attitude thus shielding the satellite antennaradome 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 ofthe aircraft to level thus exposing the satellite antennaradome to a potential bird strike. This project's supplemental type certificate (STC) modification is expectedto be complete in October 2014 and the updated analysis and/or testing or design changes required to showcompliance to§ 25.571(e)(l) may notbe inplace. The public interest is served in granting this exemption for the following reasons. There is keen interest, bythe flying public, inhaving connectivity services while flying, particularly on long domestic and international flights. These services enable business travelers to remain engaged intheirtrade while flying, thus enhancing efficiency and productivity. The connectivity services are also ofgreat benefitto the leisure travelerby providing valuable connectivity and entertainment options. International operations Per§ 11.81(h), Row44 requests thatthe privileges ofthis Exemptionbe extended outside ofthe United States. This extension ofprivileges is necessary for operations based within foreign countries having bilateral agreements with the United States accepting FAA 14 CFRPart 25 as their airworthiness standards for transport category aircraft. The Boeing 777-200 aircraft is intended for the global marketplace. The initial airplane to be modifiedhas Chinaregistration. However, they are insistent thatthe United States airworthiness standards, along with the Civil Aviation Administration ofChina (CAAC) 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 consideredbythe agency in deciding whether a petitioner has shown good cause for the FAA notto delay action onthe petition. Those factors are set forth below in italics along withthe company's response inplaintext: (a) Whether granting thepetition wouldsetaprecedent: According to the FAA's Exemption database, 12 exemptions have been grantedto § 25.571(e)(1) in calendaryear 2013 which allows aircraft to operate for a limitedperiod oftime pending the successful resolution ofa compliance issue discovered late inthe certificationprocess. (b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptionspreviouslygranted: The majority ofthe 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 withthe provisions of

3§ 25.571(e)(l). This exemption request is identical to a previous (granted) exemption request byRow 44 based onFAA Project ST08257CH-T. (c) Whether delaying action wouldadversely affectRow 44: The importance ofthe Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Antennaradome installationto Row44's core business cannotbe overstated. Due to the rapidly changing technology involved inthis 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 Row44. (d) Whether thepetition was filed in a timely manner: The petition is timely filed. Row44 has had discussions onthis subject with the New YorkACO and is planning additional discussions with the ACO and Transport Airplane Directorate overthe next several months. In light ofthe above considerations, Row44 submits that good cause exists not to delay action onthis request. FederalRegister 

### publication The FAAhas determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for FederalRegister publication for public comment. While the request is notidentical to previously granted requests, it will not set a precedent inthe long-term. The reason for the exemptionpetition is due to recent FAA clarification onthe intent ofthe rule, and the fact that the affected STC is nearing completion. Since the FAA guidance has nowbeen widely circulated, we do not expectthere to be any need for exemptionrequests inthe future, except on currentprojects that are inthe final stages. In addition, the exemptionrequest is limited to one year. Lastly, we agree that any delay in acting onthis petition wouldbe detrimental to Row 44, and that this petition was filed in a timely manner. 

### The FAA's analysis The FAArecentlybecame aware ofthe inconsistent application ofthe bird strike requirement of § 25.571(e)(l) to satellite antennaradomes installed on airplanes. Section 25.571(e)(l) 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 whichbird 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" bythe crown ofthe forward fuselage. The FAA recently reiterated to all applicants that the rule requires considerationup to the design speeds stated inthe rule. In support ofits petition, Row44 presented an analysis showing that the probability ofa bird strike to the radome is very low. We accept that the probability ofa bird strike is low. However, the rule does not allowprobabilityto be used to avoid assessment ofthe bird strike, and therefore, an exemption is necessary. Limitingthe exemptionto one year does further diminish the safety risk.

4Probability cannotbe applied to airspeed or to the probability ofimpact itself, because boththe impact and the airspeed (Vc) are stated directly inthe rule. The applicant must assume the bird strike will occur at Vc or 0.85Vc as stated inthe rule, and then determine the likely structural damage that would result from that bird strike. In consideration ofthe above, the FAA concludes that granting this exemption will not adversely affect safety. For the reasons stated earlier bythe petitioner, the FAA concludes that granting this time-limited exemption would be inthe public interest. 

### The FAA's decision In consideration ofthe foregoing, I find that a grant oftime-limited exemption is inthe 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 CPR 25.571(e)(l). The exemption is grantedto the extent necessary to allow Row44 to install radomes on Boeing Model 777-200 series airplanes. This exemptionterminates one year from the date it is granted, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. On orprior to that date, Row44 must demonstrate full compliance to the bird-strike requirements of§ 25.571(e)(l), or the affected STC becomes void.

Issued in Renton Washington, on 

# SEP IJZ014

Dionne Palermo Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service

5