Exemption No. 10255 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0167

 

for an exemption from § 121.291 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated February 16, 2011, Captain Don Gunther, Staff VP Safety, Continental 

Airlines (Continental), P.O. Box 4607 HQSSY, Houston, Texas 77210-4607, petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Continental for an exemption from 

§ 121.291 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would allow Continental to combine its operating certificate with United Air Lines’ 

(United) operating certificate without having completed the emergency evacuation procedures 

demonstrations as prescribed by § 121.291. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 121.291 Demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each certificate holder must conduct 

an actual demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of appendix D to this part to show that each type and model of airplane with a seating 

capacity of more than 44 passengers to be used in its passenger-carrying operations allows the 

evacuation of the full capacity, including crewmembers, in 90 seconds or less. 

(1) An actual demonstration need not be conducted if that airplane type and model has 

been shown to be in compliance with this paragraph in effect on or after October 24, 

1967, or, if during type certification, with § 25.803 of this chapter in effect on or after 

December 1, 1978. 

AFS-11-186-E 
2

(2) Any actual demonstration conducted after September 27, 1993, must be in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of appendix D to this part in effect on or after that date 

or with § 25.803 in effect on or after that date. 

(b) Each certificate holder conducting operations with airplanes with a seating capacity of 

more than 44 passengers must conduct a partial demonstration of emergency evacuation 

procedures in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section upon: 

(1) Initial introduction of a type and model of airplane into passenger-carrying 

operation; 

(2) Changing the number, location, or emergency evacuation duties or procedures of 

flight attendants who are required by § 121.391; or 

(3) Changing the number, location, type of emergency exits, or type of opening 

mechanism on emergency exits available for evacuation. 

(c) In conducting the partial demonstration required by paragraph (b) of this section, each 

certificate holder must: 

(1) Demonstrate the effectiveness of its crewmember emergency training and 

evacuation procedures by conducting a demonstration, not requiring passengers and 

observed by the Administrator, in which the flight attendants for that type and model 

of airplane, using that operator’s line operating procedures, open 50 percent of the 

required floor-level emergency exits and 50 percent of the required non-floor-level 

emergency exits whose opening by a flight attendant is defined as an emergency 

evacuation duty under § 121.397, and deploy 50 percent of the exit slides. The exits 

and slides will be selected by the Administrator and must be ready for use within 

15 seconds; 

(2) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding district office before 

conducting the demonstration; 

(3) Use flight attendants in this demonstration who have been selected at random by 

the Administrator, have completed the certificate holder’s FAA-approved training 

program for the type and model of airplane, and have passed a written or practical 

examination on the emergency equipment and procedures; and 

(4) Apply for and obtain approval from the certificate-holding district office before 

commencing operations with this type and model airplane. 

(d) Each certificate holder operating or proposing to operate one or more landplanes in 

extended overwater operations, or otherwise required to have certain equipment under 

§ 121.339, must show, by simulated ditching conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of 

appendix D to this part, that it has the ability to efficiently carry out its ditching procedures. 

For certificate holders subject to § 121.2(a)(1), this paragraph applies only when a new type 

or model airplane is introduced into the certificate holder’s operations after January 19, 1996. 
3

(e) For a type and model airplane for which the simulated ditching specified in paragraph (d) 

has been conducted by a part 121 certificate holder, the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2), 

(b)(4), and (b)(5) of appendix D to this part are complied with if each life raft is removed 

from stowage, one life raft is launched and inflated (or one slide life raft is inflated) and 

crewmembers assigned to the inflated life raft display and describe the use of each item of 

required emergency equipment. The life raft or slide life raft to be inflated will be selected by 

the Administrator. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has approved the 

purchase of Continental by United, and the sale has been completed. United and 

Continental have provided a transition plan which was accepted by the FAA and for 

which Operations Specification A502 has been issued. 

The petitioner requests exemption approval to ensure a smooth transition to a single 

operating certificate (SOC). The petitioner notes that while the current plan is for the 

final operating certificate to be the current Continental air carrier certificate, the 

discussion provided in the petitioner’s request is applicable regardless of which 

certificate were to be the merged carrier’s certificate. 

In its request, the petitioner states that each carrier has accomplished the required 

evacuation demonstrations at the time each aircraft type was added to their respective 

operations specifications (a table with relevant dates was provided). 

The petitioner states that the flight deck and cabin crewmembers currently flying the 

aircraft in question are the same flightcrews that will operate the aircraft the day after 

the issuance of the SOC and will use the same procedures on both of those days. The 

petitioner notes that the stated purpose of § 121.291(c)(1) is to “demonstrate the 

effectiveness of its crewmember emergency training and evacuation procedures by 

conducting a demonstration....” The petitioner states that it appears the intent of the 

regulation is for demonstrations to be conducted prior to carrying the traveling public. 

The petitioner states that during a merger, existing procedures are used with minor 

changes which would not require these demonstrations to be repeated. The petitioner 

states that the emergency evacuation procedures will be identical for both carriers, 

barring necessary aircraft-specific differences, effective April 2011. 

The petitioner states that the emergency training curriculums incorporate “hands on” 

emergency drills required by regulation every 24 months. These drills ensure each 

crewmember maintains proficiency in the procedures used during these demonstrations 

and actual evacuations. 

The petitioner notes that any changes related to standardization of evacuation 

procedures between aircraft types or between carriers are completed under the FAA 

approval process for such procedures and supported by the appropriate training 

programs. 
4

The petitioner states that any changes to interior seating configurations that might 

occur are subject to the normal FAA review process regarding the possible impact 

related to emergency evacuation procedures. 

The petitioner notes that each carrier has extensive operating history with these aircraft 

types. The carrier’s demonstrated experience in the areas of cockpit, cabin, and 

maintenance crew training and maintenance of the equipment provide strong examples 

of the carrier’s ability. The petitioner argues this experience far exceeds that which 

might be proven through such demonstrations as prescribed in § 121.291. Repeating 

these demonstrations does not provide added value to the flying public. Additionally, 

the petitioner argues it would not be cost effective to accomplish the same procedures 

that have already been completed at the time the aircraft were originally introduced and 

would add additional burden to those FAA personnel currently involved with 

supporting the merger effort. 

Finally, the petitioner states that the addition of the aircraft to the combined operating 

certificate presents little if any risk, and the performance of such demonstrations would 

do little to reduce that risk and further enhance safety. 

 The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to 

Continental. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

To grant an exemption, the FAA must find that such an exemption from the specific 

section would not adversely affect safety and be in the public interest. The petitioner’s 

unique interest is not the same as public interest. Additionally, the petitioner should 

give particular attention to the reasons why granting the request will be in the public 

interest and how actions by the petitioner will provide an equivalent level of safety. 

The intent of compliance with § 121.291(b) and (d), before establishing an SOC is to 

demonstrate through a witnessed partial demonstration and ditching demonstration that 

emergency practices and procedures are adequate. Safety considerations include 

operating an airplane type and model for the first time on the Continental certificate; 

changing the number, location, or type of emergency exits or type of opening 

mechanism on the emergency exits used for aircraft evacuation; or a significant change 

in the number of flight attendants, seating location, evacuation duties, or emergency 

procedures. 

The fact that each pre-merger carrier has performed evacuation demonstrations 

required by § 121.291 is not relevant. The validation of the merged practices and 

emergency evacuation procedures for these two legacy air carriers will be as a result of 

the FAA-witnessed partial evacuation demonstration. 
5

The conditions described in Operations Specification A502, Appendix A – FAA 

Transition Plan, will be used to integrate changes to programs, policy, and procedures 

under the purview of regulatory authority and approved by the United – Continental 

Joint Transition Team (JTT). The comprehensive timeline and analysis of these 

changes have not been presented to the JTT. 

Additionally, the flightcrew and cabin crewmembers’ emergency procedures 

differences have not been reviewed and evaluated to ensure compatibility between 

flight deck and cabin procedures by the JTT. Finally, the petition does not identify the 

crew scheduling controls needed to prevent crewmembers who are operating the premerger Continental aircraft from operating pre-merger United aircraft until procedures 

are published in a single operating manual and transition training is completed. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Continental Airlines for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.291 is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 2, 2011. 

/s/ . 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service