UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356 

In the matter of the petition of 

Exemption No. 11071 

Row44 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0402 

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

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

GRANT OF TIME-LIMITED EXEMPTION 

By petition posted June 24, 2014 on the Regulations.gov website, Mr. 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)(l) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), at amendment 

25-132. 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 develop a means of full 

compliance with§ 25.571(e)(l) for its satellite antenna radome installation on Boeing Model 

777-200 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. 

This section defines 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, with minor edits for 

clarity. The complete petition is available at the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System, on the Internet at http://regulations.gov, inDocket No. FAA-2014-0402. 
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 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 Aircraft type Regulatory Docket No. I 

10760 Live TV Airbus A321 Series FAA-2013-0373 

1076 757-300 Series F AA-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 Standard Aero F AA-20 13-0563 

10847 I Standard Aero FAA-2013-0564 

10848 Go oLLC F AA-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 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 radom e. This includes over 10 million flight hours with satellite antenna 

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

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)(l). 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 Vc (approx. 360 Knots). This clarification changes the attitude ofthe aircraft when 

2 
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 project's supplemental type certificate (STC) modification is 

expected to be complete in October 2014 and the updated analysis and/or testing or 

design changes required to show compliance to§ 25.571(e)(l) 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. 

International operations 

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

ofthe 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 777-200 aircraft is intended for the global marketplace. 

The initial airplane to be modified has China registration. However, they are insistent 

that the United States airworthiness standards, along with the Civil Aviation 

Administration of China (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 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 

3 
§ 25.571(e)(l). This exemption request is identical to a previous (granted) exemption 

request by Row 44 based on FAA Project ST08257CH-T. 

(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 New 

York ACO and is planning additional discussions with the ACO and 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. 

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 ofthe inconsistent application ofthe bird strike requirement of 

§ 25.571(e)(l) to satellite antenna radomes 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 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. 

4 
Probability cannot be applied to airspeed or to the probability of impact itself, because both the 

impact and the airspeed (V c) 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 CPR 25.571(e)(l). 

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

Model 777-200 series airplanes. 

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)(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