Row44 Exemption Extension Request B777-200 Exemption No. 11071B Regulatory Docket FAA-2014-0402

1050 Oak Creek Drive

Lombard, IL 60148 Page 1 February 17, 2017 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

Re: Exemption No. 11071B - Regulatory Docket FAA- 2014-0402: Petition of Row 44 for Time Limited Exemption from § 25.571(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Row 44 Wireless Broadband System Antenna Provisions Installation in Boeing 777-200 Series Aircraft, ODA Project
ODA-GED-P143: Extension from 12 to 36 months

In accordance with 14 CFR Part 11, Row 44 hereby petiti ons for an extension to the referenced exemption from 14 CFR § 25.571(e)(1) (Amendment 25-132) as it rela tes to the above referenced certification project. For the reasons detailed below, Row 44 requests an immediate extension to this exemption from this rule and that it remain in effect for a period of an addition al 6 months from the amended date of approval. This six-month extension from the FAA bird-strike damage tole rance requirement is required to ensure that Row 44 has time to complete its development of a full compliance methodology with § 25.571(e)(1) that is acceptable to the FAA.

The specific regulation, § 25 .571(e)(1) is as follows:

Section 25.571(e)(1)

– Damage tolerance (discrete source) ev aluation. 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 required structural requirements for damage to the airframe from a bird strike.

Safety and the Public Interest

This petition for an extension to this exemption wo uld 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 Ai rcraft. 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 7500 satellite antenna r adomes installed on Southwest’s 737 aircraft fleet. These aircraft are accumulating substantial flight hours per year with no r eported bird strikes to the radome. Additionally, the following table below lists al l the exemption extensions granted for § 25.571(e)(1) for calendar years 2014/2015.Row44 Exemption Extension Request B777-200 Exemption No. 11071B Regulatory Docket FAA-2014-0402

1050 Oak Creek Drive

Lombard, IL 60148 Page 2 Exemption No. Applicant Aircraft type Regulatory Docket No.
10814B Plane Antennas and Security Systems Boeing 737-900 FAA-2013-0433 10817B Gogo, LLC Boeing 767 FAA-2013-0562 10845A Standard Aero Airbus A330 FAA-2013-0563 10847A Standard Aero Boeing 757 FAA-2013-0564 10848A Gogo, LLC Boeing 767-400 FAA-2013-0567 10850A DRB Aviation Consultants Boeing 777 FAA-2013-0660

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 bi rd strike to the radome. This includes well 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 14 CFR 91.11 7(a), aircraft are not to fly beyond 250 Knots at an altitude below 10,000 feet. This project had expected to use this “normal flight envelope” velocity when showing compliance to § 25.571(e)(1). It has been clar ified 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 (Aprox.360 Knots). This clarification changes the attitude of the aircraft when investigating the radome for bird strike potential. Under the operational rule for max 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 lan guage of § 25.571(e)(1), the aircraft design speed at sea level is used. This changes the attitude of the airc raft to level thus exposing the satellite antenna radome to a potential bird strike. This project’s STC was approved on December 18, 2014 and the updated analysis and testing required to show compliance to § 25.57 1(e)(1) has not been completed. Since the grant of extension, Row 44 had initiated multiple Bird Strike Test activities including A320 aircraft (EASA Approved) and B767 aircraft (FAA Approved) and are accumu lating a data base to validate our compliance methodology using a basis of similarity and analysis as all of our current installations use a common Radome and Antenna. We are currently in the final sta ges of completion of this validation for the B777 aircraft installation, due to interpretation of the results generated, it is believed an additional data point/data set is required to complete the analysis package to ensure compliance, this extension will allow Row 44 to complete the required testing and documentation of these compliance criteria.

The public interest is served in granting this exempti on extension 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 se rvices are also of great benefit to the leisure traveler by providing valuable connectivity and entertainment options.

Bird Strike Substantiation:

Row 44 has been reviewing § 25.571(e)(1) compliance options with the Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) and the Transport Aircraft Directorate (TAD) for over a year. A coordination meeting held in early November 2013 resulted in a method of showing compliance to § 25.571(e)(1) that was tentatively agreed to by all parties present and is summarized below. Row 44 is developing an analytical model to predict the effects of bird strikes on our satellite antenna radome and antenna installation methodology. The model will be developed by creating a modeled (digital simulation) and performing an actual bird strike te st on a satellite antenna radome and antenna installed onRow44 Exemption Extension Request B777-200 Exemption No. 11071B Regulatory Docket FAA-2014-0402

1050 Oak Creek Drive

Lombard, IL 60148 Page 3 a rigid instrumented test fixture. After testing, the di gital model response will be updated to incorporate the results obtained from the physical test. Next, the updated model will be validated by performing a bird strike analysis on a second (simulated) satellite antenna radome and antenna installation (different from the initial testing) and comparing this result with actual results of a second physical test of the actual structure with
the satellite antenna radome and antenna mounted. Phase one of this testing (initial testing on a rigid test fixture) is complete with positive results. Phase two has also been completed with digital simulation and validation via physical testing of the actual aircraft st ructure with positive results and predictable simulation prediction. The intent is to now use these data sets to apply the bird strike results by similarity to other aircraft types showing the results of the initial te sts are applicable to other aircraft model types by comparative analysis. The remaining task is demonstrat ing how the FAA witnessed test results for one aircraft type can be shown applicable to another aircraft type.

Once the compliance methodology is validated, the si mulation data along with the previous FAA witnessed test results can be used to show compliance to § 25.571(e)(1) on this and new FAA STC projects employing this particular satellite antenna radome and antenna installation methodology and allow the reuse of this methodology on new installations across mu ltiple fleets with consistent acceptance criteria.

International Operations:

Per § 11.81(h), Row 44 requests that the privileges of this Exemption be extended outside of the 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 777-2 00 aircraft is intended for the global marketplace.

The initial aircraft that has been modified has China regi stration and is currently the only aircraft operating under this exemption. The local airworthiness authorities are insistent that the United States airworthiness standards along with the CAAC airworthiness standards be followed for all modifications. This extension is requested to allow this aircraft to continue operation in its installed configuration.

Commercial Impact:

Row 44 will incur significant loss of revenue as a result of a not obtaining an extension of this exemption and will end our trial operations of the FAA approved Satellite System Installation on Boeing 777-200 series aircraft operated by China Airlines.

Good Cause Exists to Issue the Extension to this Exemption without Notice and Comment:

Row 44 requests that the FAA issue the exemption extension without publication for comment in the Federal Register. Section 11.87 lists four factors considered by the FAA in deciding whether or not to publish a summary of the petition and request comments. Row 44 ’ s response to each condition is shown
below in italics.

(a) Whether granting the petition would set a precedent.

According to the FAA’s Exemption database, at least five (5) exempt ion extensions have been granted to § 25.571(e)(1) in calenda r year 2014/2015 which allowed ai rcraft to operate for a limited period of time pending the successful resolution of a compliance issue.

(b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions granted previously.Row44 Exemption Extension Request B777-200 Exemption No. 11071B Regulatory Docket FAA-2014-0402

1050 Oak Creek Drive

Lombard, IL 60148 Page 4 The majority of the exemptions granted were for the same reason as stated in requesting this exemption. The applicant, Row 44 needs additional time to develop a specific comparative analysis coupled with current test data to demonstrate full compliance with the provisions of § 25.571(e)(1).

(c) Whether our (FAA) delaying action on your (Row 44) petition would affect you (Row 44) adversely.

The importance of the SATCOM Antenna radome installation to R ow 44’s core business cannot be overstated. Due to the rapid ly changing technology involved in this modification, coupled with the project’s advanced stage and the disruption to operator that have contracted for the Row 44 system, any delay would adversely affect Row 44.

(d) Whether you (Row 44) filed your petition in a timely manner.

The petition is timely filed. Row 44 and our agent have had discussions on this subject with the New York ACO and Chicago ACO and are planning additional discussions with these certification
offices.

In light of the above considerations, Row 44 submi ts that good cause exists not to delay action on this request.

Summary of Exemption Request:

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.81(f), Row 44 offers the following summary suitable for publication in the Federal Register in the event the FAA believes that good cause to waive publication has not been
established.

Row 44 petitions the FAA for an additional extension to this exemption from the discrete source damage tolerance (bird strike) requirements of 14 CFR § 25.5 71(e)(1) for an additional period of six months based on data that a bird strike encounter on a fuselage mounted satellite antenna radome is extremely remote, additionally the compliance methodology currently being dev eloped will benefit the future compliance of this requirement in support of the evol ving technologies being developed.

Please feel free to contact me by phone or email if additional information is required.

Respectively,

Director, Aircraft Certification DL +1 (732) 710 6414 Kreg.Doerr@geemedia.com

Row 44/GLOBAL EAGLE ENTERTAINMENT


### 1050 Oak Creek Drive

Lombard IL 60148, USA Respectively

,

Di re ctor, Airc ra f t Certi f i ca tion