DINCAN 

AVIATION 1 ^ 1 ;• : '^•'•'^'j i 

I i • •' 

I I • 

February 16,2010 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomWl2-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington. D.C 20590 

¥="ft^-2.oic>-o\5 7 

SUBJECT: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §2S.813(e) 

EMERGETSCY EXIT ACCESS 

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Duncan Aviation hereby submits its Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §25.813(e) entitled "Emergency Exit 

Access" in Dassault Aviation Myslere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft. 

Please note that much of the text contained in this petition is identical to those contained in similar Exemptions, 

No's: 7590, 7668, 8123, and 8722. 

14 CFR §1 l.8I(fl) Contact Information 

Lyle Schueth 

Certification Coordinator 

Duncan Aviation, Inc. 

3701 Aviation Road 

Lincoln, Ne 68524 

Ph: (402)479-4174 

Fax:(402)479-1694 

e-mail: Iyle.schueth@dunc3navlati0n.com 

14 CFR §11.81(b) Specific Section from Which Exemption Is Requested 

14 CFR §25.813(e) 

Lincoln Airport 

P.O. BoxSiSf'? 

Lincoln. Nchtaika 

402.415.261 i 

Fa.-; 402.475..SMI 

wvm.duncandviuiiiin.i-'i.'iTi 
14 CFR §11.8l(c) Extent of Relief and Reason for Seeking Relief 

Thepiupose of this Petition is to request an exemption ft-om 14 CFR §25.813(e) in order to permit the 

installation of door in partitions between passenger compartments of the Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 

and Falcon 900EX aircraft which arc registered in the US and used for private/corporate transport. Since the 

Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft have intercontinental range, and are operated 

in many countries around the world, we request that the exemption allow for operation outside of the US as 

well. In support of this request, Duncan Aviation is proposing alternative design requirements to provide an 

equivalent level of safety appropriate to the operation of such aircraft equipped with door in cabin partirions. 

This relief is being sought because "private" areas in corporate aircraft have been and are continuing to be 

requested by a number of aircraft operators. The Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX 

aircraft compare with similar types of aircraft outfitted at completion and modification centers in the US and 

abroad that are able to offer this feature. 

The cabin of the Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft is approximately 7 feet wide 

with a maximum cabin height of approximately 6 feet. In order to provide a private area of the cabin, it is 

necessary to divide the passenger cabin fiill width (laterally) with a sliding pocket door that extends from the 

cabin partihons because a side corridor is impractical. 

The Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft have the same size and layout for the 

passenger cabin and have the same type interior. The Falcon 900EX is a derivative of the Mystere-Falcon 900. 

The Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft have the same Type Certificate, No. 

A46EU. 

14 CFR §11.81(d) Reason Why Granting Relief would be in Public Interest 

Duncan Aviation firmly believes that the design of the Dassault Aviarion Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 

900EX aircraft pocket door with its dual latching sliding door and cabin partition, meets or exceeds the level of 

safety required by 14 CFR §25.813(e) in that it permits absolute access to all of the aircraft's normal and 

emergency exits by all passengers. It is Duncan Aviation's opinion and belief that the restriction contained in 14 

CFR §25.813(e) was primarily aimed at the large commercial transport category aircraft used in Part 121 

operations. Unlike those larger aircraft, all Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft 

passengers are only steps away from the nearest emergency exit, thus permitting ready access to those 

emergency exits, should the need for emergency evacuation arise. 

Also, it is Duncan Aviation's firm belief that the installation of the dual latching sliding door and cabin partition 

is in the public's best interest. It will permit the conduct of important business meetings, which because of their 

sensitivity require an atmosphere of complete privacy. It is a well established fact that an enormous amount of 

commercial activity occiu^ on board the United States general aviation fleet. Such commercial activity, 

including private business meetings where important commercial decisions are made, are vital to maintaining 

the competitiveness and overall strength of the U.S. economy. For these reasons, we believe the exemption 

requested is clearly warranted. In addition, sick or infirmed passengers can be more comfortably transported 

with the divided cabin configuration. 

2.i f 20 
14 CFR §ll.81(e) Reason Why Exemption would Not Adversely Affect Safety 

The effect of the safety features described below vnll ensure that there is always a clear path through any 

partition to an emergency exit. However, even if some extreme condition should result in a door being closed or 

partially closed after an accident, there are still simple, failsafe means to get through the door and reach an exit. 

The frangibility feature will be tested using a 5* percentile female, with the resulting aperture demonstrated to 

be large enough to allow for a 95 percentile male to pass through. 

Because the basic issues concerning a passenger finding and reaching an exit in an emergency are addressed by 

the below features, as well as the previously described safety parameters inherent in corporate operation, it is 

our position that the cxen^tion as requested would provide a level of safety for the passengers in Dassault 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft, which is equal to that required for commercial carrier 

aircraft. The following provisions would apply: 

1. The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision does not preclude 

the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR Part 125 and 14 CFR 

Part 91, subpart F, as apphcable. 

2. Each door between passenger compartments must be frangible. 

3. Each door between compartments must have a means to signal the flight crew when the door is closed. 

An amber annunciator light will be installed in the cockpit for the purpose of alerting the crew when 

the door is stowed or not stowed. The annunciator will be controlled by the cockpit "Fasten Seat Belt" 

sign switch and will be illuminated whenever the "Fasten Seat Belt" signs are on and the door is 

closed. The annunciator will remain illuminated until the door is secured in the open position at which 

time it will extinguish. Appropriate procedures/limitations must be established to ensure that takeoff 

and landing is prohibited when such con^artments are occupied and the door Is closed. 

4. Each door between passenger compartments must have a dual means to retain it in the open position, 

each of which must be capable of reacting the inertia load specified in 14 CFR §25.561. A placard 

stating "Doors must be stowed on taxi, takeoff and landing" must be placed on both sides of door. 

5. When door arc installed in transverse partition, they must translate laterally to open and close. 

6. Each door between passenger compartments (regardless of where it is located in relation to the 

emergency exits) must allow persons on ether side of the door to unlock or unlatch the door without 

the use of tools. 

14 CFR §11.81(0 Summary for Publication in Federal Register 

Duncan Aviation, Inc. seeks an exemphon from 14 CFR §25.813(e) with respect to Dassault Aviation MystereFalcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft operated in accordance with 14 CFR Parts 91 and 125 to allow Petitioner 

to install dual-latching sliding door that can be stowed in a cabin partition during taxi, takeoff, landing and 

emergency conditions. When latched open, the door permits totally free access to the cabin aisle and emergency 

exits. 

14 CFR § 11.81(g) Additional Information to Support Request 

It is Duncan Aviation's understanding that other competitors have received similar exemptions for installing 

door in the Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft. Exemption No. 8123 Issued to 

Midcoast Aviation, Inc. and Exemption No. 7668 issued to Garrett Aviation Services is attached. The Dassault 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft with the Duncan Aviation pocket door Installation is a 

direct competitor with these other completion centers. Denial of Duncan Aviation's Petition for Exemption to 

14 CFR §25.813(e) as set forth in this petition, would place Duncan Aviation at a distinct disadvantage in the 

competitive general aviation marketplace for executive aircraft sales. 

nr2(l 
14 CFR §11.87 Good Cause for Not Publishing in Federal Register 

Duncan Aviation kindly requests relief from the standard public comment period for the following reasons: 

(a) Granting this petition would not set a precedent since the FAA has previously granted exemptions to 

this regulation for the same model aircraft (e.g. Exemptions No. 7590, 7668, 8123 and 8722 for the 

Dassault Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX) as well as several other models of private use aircraft 

(e,g. Exemption No. 6820A for Boeing Model 737-700 TGW. Exemption No. 7107 for Boeing model 

757, and Exemption No. 7455 for Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10). The FAA previously published 

other petitions for exen^tion on this same issue and received no adverse comments 

(b) The relief being requested is identical to exemptions that were granted previously to Dassault Falcon 

Jet Corporation, Garrett Aviation Services and Midcoast Aviation, Inc. for the Dassault Aviation 

Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX. 

(c) Delaying action on this petition would have significant adverse affect on Duncan Aviation by causing 

delay in certification which, in turn, would delay the delivery and collection of revenue from Dassault 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft customers who have ah^eady requested the 

installation of door dividing their passenger cabin. 

Duncan Aviation believes that the above arguments fiilly support an exemption to permit a door to be installed 

in partitions which divide the passenger cabin in Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX 

aircraft. Duncan Aviation respectfully requests that this exerrqjtion be promulgated prior to May 14, 2010, 

which will enable Duncan Aviation to meet customer commitments related lo aircraft delivery. 

Please contact the undersigned if you have any technical questions or non-technical questions regarding this Petition 

or the design of the shding door in question. 

Respectfully yours. 

Lyle Schueth 

Certification Coordinator 

Duncan Aviation, Inc. 

Ph: (402)479-4174 

Fax:(402)479-1694 

e-mail: lyie.schuelh@duncanaviation.com 

Attachment 1 Typical floor plan of Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft 

Attachment 2 Previous exemptions granted. 

A or:(i 
tr 

o 

o 

Q h- Ui 

a 

R "5 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

a o u 

a 

o 

'•0 01 

•5: 

< 

9 «• 

M cn 

« 

"53 u 

o 

O 
Attachment 2 

Exemption No. 8123 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRA.NSPORTATIO.X 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-4056 

In the matter of the petition of 

Midcoast Aviation, Inc. 

for an exemption from § 25.813(e). of Tide 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. KAA-2003-15585 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated July 7, 2003, Ms. Dawn M. Wingfield, Certillcation Manager, Midcoast Aviation 

Inc., #14 Archview Drive. St. Louis Downtown Airport, Cahokia, Illinois 62206-1445, 

petitioned for an exemption from the requirements of § 25.813(e) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). The petitioner has requested the exemption in order to permit the 

installation of interior doors between passenger compartments on the Dassault Aviation airplane 

models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 25.813(e) prohibitii the installation of doors between passenger compartments. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

"Please consider the following petition for exemption from 14 CFR 25.813(e) submitted by 

Midcoast Aviation. Inc. to permit the installation of interior doors between passenger 

compartments in Dassauh Aviation Myslere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft used for 

corporate transport In support of this request, Midcoast Aviation. Inc., is proposing alternative 

design requirements to provide a level of safety appropriate to the operation ot'corporale 

aircraft equipped with partitions in doors. 

(ioi:i i 
"Tlie Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900E\ have the same size and layout 

for the passenger cabin and have the same type interior. The Falcon 900EX is a derivative of 

the Mystere-Falcon 900. 

"Please note that much of the text contained in this petition is identical to thai contained in 

Exemption Numbers 7590 and 7668. 

"14 CFR 11.81(a) Contact Information 

Dawn Wingfield 

Certification Manager 

Midcoast Aviation, Inc. 

''14 Archview Drive 

St. Louis Downtown Airport 

Cahokia, IL 62206-1445 

Ph: (618)646-8010 

Fax:(618)646-8851 

e-mall: dwingfieldfSJmidcoast-avra<ion.com 

**U CFR 11.Sl(b) Specific Section From Which Exemption Is Requested 

14 CFR 25.813(e) 

**14 CFR 11.81(c) Extent of Relief and Reason for Seeking ReUef 

Relief from 14 CFR 23.813(e) is being requested for all Dassault Aviation MystereFalcon 900 and Falcon 900EX model aircraft altered by Midcoast Aviation, tnc. This 

relief is being sought because "private" areas in corporate aircraft have been and are 

continuing to be requested by a number of aircr^ operators. The Dassault Aviation 

Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft compare with similar types of aircraft 

outfitted at completion and modification cerrters in the U.S.A. and abroad that are able to 

ofTer this feature. 

"The cabin of the Dassauh Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX is 

approximately seven feet wide with a maximum cabin height of approximately six feet. 

In order to provide a private area of the cabin, it necessary to divide the passenger cabin 

full width (laterally) with siding pocket doors that extend from the cabin partitions 

because a side corridor is impractical. 

"14 CFR n.81(d) Reason Why Cnuiline Relief Would be In Public Interest 

In response to Exemption No. 7590 previously granted to Dassault lo Dassault Falcon Jet 

Corporation for Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft, the FAA acknowledged thai: 

'While the FAA is not aware of any specific incidents of economic harm as a result of 

different standards being applied to different private use airplanes, the F.AA recognizes thai 

significant upgrading ofthe occupant safety standards in recent years has made this a 
distinct possibilitj'. Further, as more airplanes are used in executive operations, differences 

in certification bases will become more significant in terms ofthe burden of compliance. 

This issue is generally not a factor for conmicrcial operation, because the operation rules 

are typically upgraded along with the type design standards, making the requirements 

effectively the same for all manufacturers. For privately operated airplanes, however, this 

in not the case. Thus while a grant exemption is clearly in the interest ofthe segment ofthe 

public for which it is requested, the FAA agrees that the public at large has the potential to 

benefit by granting increased flexibility to the manufacture and modification ofthe 

Dassauh Falcon Jet airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX.' 

*it is the contention of Midcoast Avialton, Inc. that the above referenced FAA argument 

is general in nature and is applicable to all private use airplanes, including the Dassault 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX for which this petition is being 

requested. 

"14 CFR 11.81(e) Reasons Why Exemption Would Not Adversely Affect Safety 

While a grant of exemption as requested by this petition could not be said to provide the same 

level of safety that would be afforded where strict compliance with the regulations, the 

resultant level of safety would be consistent with other private airplanes. In addition, the level 

of safely that would result irom this exemption is specifically requested and desired by that 

segment ofthe public, namely the owners that will fly on these airplanes. 

"Il is noted that the FAA has previously granted exemptions to this regulation for the 

Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX (Exemptions No. 7590 and 

7668) as well as several other models of private use aircraft with larger passenger 

capacity and more complicated floor plans than the Dassauh Aviation Mystere-Falcon 

900 and Falcon 900EX. h is also noted that the FAA has previously published other 

petitions for exemption on this same issue and received no adverse conunents. 

"^It is the intent ofthis petition that, whether or not operations are "scheduled^', this exemption 

will not permit fares to be collected in exchange for transportation. It is also the intent ofthis 

petition that the airplane will not be used to transport the general public (common carriage) 

even if fares are not collected. This exemption, if granted, should not restrict one party from 

collecting fees from another party, as long as the airplane is operated for private use. That is. 

the airplane's owner may lease the airplane to another party, who in turn operates it as a 

private, not-for-hire airplane. 

"Where flight deck annunciation is provided to indicate improper position ofthe door(s), the 

petitioner proposes that amber lights (as opposed to white or blue) will be used. This is 

consistent with FAA responses to earlier exemptions from ihis regulation. 

"Previous exemption,"; have required an additional limitation when an interior door is iiKlalled 

aft ofthe mid-cabin exit. The limitation is such that persons seated aft ofthe door can enter the 

compartment forward of it. even if the door is latched from the forward side. This petilion also 

S ol'^O 
recognizes that a cabin door (regardless of where it is located in relation to tlie emergency 

exits) must not prevent the crew from gaining access to the aft section ofthe cabin. This is 

necessary' to allow the crew to render assistance to passengers who may have become 

incapacitated in the aft section ofthe cabin as well as to allow the crew to investigate and 

extinguish small fires (hat may occur in those areas. This additional requirement would be 

similar to existing requirements for lavatory doors and doors to Class B baggage 

compartments. Requiring that the interior door could be unlocked or unlatched from either side 

without the use of tools would ensure that the door does not prevent access in any condition. 

"In consideration ofthe preceding discussions and those contained within the referenced 

exemptions, Midcoast Aviation, Inc. is requesting relief from the requirements of 14 CFR 

25.813(e) to allow the installation of interior doois between passenger compartments on 

the Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX airplanes with the 

following provisions: 

1. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision 

does not preclude the operator form receiving remuneration to the extent consistent 

with 14 CFR Part 135 and 14 CFR Part 91, subpart F, as applicable. 

Each door between passenger compartments must be frangible. 

Each door between passenger compartments must have a means to signal the flight 

crew when the door is closed. Appropriate procedures/1 imitations must be established 

to ensure that takeoff and landing is prohibited when such comparunents are occupied 

and the door is closed. 

Each door between passenger compartments must have a dual means to retain it in the 

open position, each of which must be capable of reacting the inertia load specified in 14 

CFR 25.561. 

When doors are installed in transverse partition, they must translate laterally to open 

and close. 

When doors are installed in specified egres$ path, each passenger must be informed that 

the airplane does not comply with the occupant safety requirements mandated for the 

airplane type in general. TTiis notification is only required the first time that a person is 

a passenger on the airplane. 

Each door between passenger compartments (regardless of where il is located in 

relation lo the emergency exits) must allow persons on either side ofthe door to unlock 

or unlatch the door without the use of tools. 

"14 CFR 11.81(f) Summao For PubUcatlon In Federal Register 

Midcoast Aviation. Inc. seeks exemption from 14 CFR 25.813(e) to allow the installation 

of a door dividing the passenger cabin in Dassault Aviation model Mystere-Falcon 900 

and Falcon 900EX aircraft. Certain design features would be required to ensure that the 

door would not adversely aflect safet>'. 

') n\'20 
**14 CFR 11.81(g) Additional Information To Support Request 

Exemption No. 7590 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-96I9-3) Issued to Dassault 

Falcon Jet Corporation on August 10, 2001, and Exemption No. 7668 (Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA-2001-10870-2) issued to Garrett Aviation Services on November 27, 

2001, is attached. These exemptions are provided as evidence that the FAA has 

previously granted exemption from the same regulation, with the same provisions, for the 

same type aircraft as that which is being requested by this petition. 

"14 CFR 11.87 Good Cause For Not PubttsUng hi Federal Register 

Midcoast Aviation, Inc. believes thst there is good cause for not publishing this petition 

for exemption in the Federal Register for the following reasons: 

1. Granting this petilion would not set a precedent since the FAA has previously 

granted exemptions to this regulation for the same model aircraft (e.g. 

Exemptions No. 7590 and 7668 for Dassault Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 

900EX) as well as several other models of private use aircraft (e.g. Exemption 

No. 6820A for Boeing Model 737-700 IGW. Exemption No. 7107 for Boeing 

model 757, and Exemption No. 7455 for Bombardier Model BD-700-1 AlO). The 

FAA previously published other petitions for exemption on this same issue and 

received no adverse comments. 

2. The relief being requested is identical to exemptions that were granted previously 

to Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation and Garrett Aviation Services for the Das.<;aull 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX. 

3. Delaying action on this petition would have significant adverse ail'ect on 

Midcoast Aviation, Inc. by causing delay in certification which, in tum, would 

delay the delivery and collection of revenue from Falcon 900/900EX aircraft 

customers who have already requested the installation of doors dividing their 

passenger cabin. 

"Midcoast Aviation, Inc. believes that the above arguments fully support an exemption to 

permit doors to be installed in partitions which divide the pa.<^senger cabin in Dassauh 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft. Midcoast Aviation. Inc. 

respectfully request that you review the above and consider this petition for exemption 

from 14CFR 25.813(c) on behalf of Midcoast Aviation, Inc." 

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

pubhcation and coimnent because the e.^temption. if granted, would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Midcoast Aviation. Inc. 

10 lit :(i 
The FAA*s analysis/summary is as follows: 

The FAA has reviewed the applicant's petition for exemption and the proposed 

exemption limitations that have been submitted. We concur with the applicant's petition 

and the proposed exemption limitations, except one. We do not agree that the proposed 

exemption limitation No. 6 is necessary and therefore have not included it in this Grant of 

Exemption document. 

In consideration ofthe foregoing, I fmd that a grant of exemption is in the pubic interest and will 

not adversely affect the level of safety provided by the regulations. Therefore, pursuant to the 

authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the 

petition of Midcoast Aviation, Inc., for an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 

§ 25.813(e), to allow installation of interior doors between passenger compartments, on the 

Dassault Aviation airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX, is granted, with the 

following provisions: 

1. The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision 

does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR 

part 125 and 14 CFR part 91, subpart F, as applicable. 

2. E^ h door between passenger compartments must be frangible. 

3. Each door between passenger compartments must have a means to signal to the 

flightcrew when the door is closed. Appropriate procedures/limitations must be established to 

ensure that takeoff and landing is prohibited when such compartments are occupied and the door 

is closed. 

4. Each door between passenger compartments must have dual means to retain it in the 

open position, each of which must be capable of reacting llie inertia loads specified in 14 CFR 

§25.561. 

5. When doors are installed in transverse partitions, they must translate laterally to open 

and close. 

nr2l) 
6. Each door between passenger compartments (regardless of where it is located in 

relation lo the emergency exits) must allow persons on either side ofthe door to unlock or 

unlatch the door without the use of tools. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 3, 2003 

/ j ^ 

Ali Bahrami 

Acting Manager, 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service, ANM-100 

12 nr:o 
Exemption No. 7668 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-4056 

In the matter ofthe petition of 

Garrett Aviation Services 

for an exemption from § 25.813(e), of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-200M0870 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated October 15, 2001, Mr. Aaron J. Duncan, Manager, Engineering, Garrett Aviation 

Services, 1200 North Airport Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62707-8417, petitioned for an 

exemption from the requirements of § 25.813 (e) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The exemption, if granted, would permit the Installation of interior doors between 

passenger compartments on the Dassault Aviation airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and 

Falcon 900EX. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Section 25.813(e) prohibits the installation of doors between passenger compartments 

The petitioner supports its request with the following informMtion: 

This petition for exemption from 14 CFR § 25.813(e) submitted by Garrett Aviation 

Services, 1200 North .Airport Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62707-8417, would permit the 

installation of doors in partitions between passenger compartments in Dassault Aviation 

Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft used for corporate transport In support 

ofthis request, Garrett Aviation Services is proposing alternative design requirements to 

provide a level of safety appropriate to the operation of corporate aircraft equipped with 

partitions with doors. 

ANM-02-O5O-E 

]^- ('t: n 
The Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and the Falcon 900EX (a derivative ofthe 

Mystere Falcon 900) have the same passenger cabin size and layout. They will be 

refc/red to collectively as Falcon 900/900EX throughout the rest ofthis petition. 

"Extent of relief and reason for seeking relief 

"Relief from 14 CFR § 25.813(e) is being requested for all Dassault Aviation MystereFalcon 900 and Falcon 900EX model aircraft as modified by Garrett Aviation Services. 

This relief is being sought because private areas in corporate aircraft are being requested 

by an increasing number of aircraft operators. The Falcon 900/900EX aircraft compares 

with similar types of aircraft outfitted at completion and modification centers in the 

U.S.A. and abroad that are able to offer this feature. 

"The cabin ofthe Dassault Falcon 900/900EX is approximately seven feet wide with a 

maximum cabin height of approximately six feet In order to provide a private area ofthe 

cabin, it is necessary to divide the passenger cabin ftill width (laterally) with sliding 

pocket doors that extend from the cabin partitions because a side corridor is impractical. 

"In response to Exemption No. 7590 previously granted to Dassault Falcon Jet 

Corporation for Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft, the FAA acknowledged 

that: 

While the FAA is not aware of any specific incidents of economic harm as a result of 

different standards being applied to different private use airplanes, the FAA 

recognizes that significant upgrading ofthe occupant safety standards in recent years 

has made this a distinct possibility. Further, as more airplanes are used in executive 

operations, differences in certification bases will become more significant in terms of 

the burden of compliance. This issue is generally not a factor for commercial 

operation, because the operating mles are typically upgraded along with the type 

design standards, making the requirements effectively the same for all 

manufacturers. For privately-operated airplanes, however, this is not the case. Thus, 

while a grant of exemption is clearly in the interest ofthe segment ofthe public for 

which it is requested, the FAA agrees that the public at large has the potential to 

bcneiit by granting increased flexibility to the manufacture and modification ofthe 

Dassauh Falcon Jet airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX. 

"It is Garrett Aviation Services contention that the above referenced FAA argument is 

general in nature and is applicable to all private use airplanes, including the Dassault 

Falcon 900/900EX for which this petition is being requested. 

"Why This Exenjption Would Not Adversely Affect Safety 

"While a grant of exemption as requested by this petilion could not be said to provide the 

same level of safety that would be afforded were there strict compliance with the 

regulations, the resultant level of safely would be consistent with other private airplanes. 

14 nr:(i 
In addition, the level of safety that would result from this exemption is specifically 

requested and desired by that segment ofthe public, namely the owners that will fly on 

these airplanes. 

"It is noted that the FAA has previously granted exemptions to this regulation for the 

Falcon 900/900EX aircraft (Exemption No. 7590) as well as several other models of 

private use aircraft with larger passenger capacity and more complicated floor plans than 

the Falcon 900/900EX (e.g. Exemption No. 6820A for Boeing model 737-700 IGW; 

Exemption No. 7107 for Boeing model 757, and Exemption No. 7455 for Bombardier 

model BD-700-1 AlO). It is also noted that the FAA has previously published other 

petitions for exemption on this same issue and received no adverse comments. 

"It is the intent ofthis petition that, whether or not operations are 'scheduled,' this 

exemption will not permit fares to be collected in exchange for transportation. It is also 

the intent ofthis petition that the airplane will not be used to transport the general public 

(common carriage) even if fares are not collected This exemption, if granted, should not 

restrict one party from collecting fees from another party, as long as the airplane is 

operated for private use " That is, the airplane's owner may lease the airplane to another 

party, who in turn operates it as a private, not-for-hire airplane. 

"Where flight deck annunciation is provided to indicate improper position of the dooits), 

the petitioner proposes that amber lights (as opposed to white or blue) will be used This 

is consistent with FAA responses to earlier petitions for exemption from this regulation. 

"Previous exemptions have required an additional limitation when an interior door is 

installed aft of the mid-cabJn exit so that persons seated aft ofthe door can enter the 

compartment forward of it, even if the door is latched from the forward side. This 

petition differs slightly from previous petitions in that the petitioner also recognizes that a 

cabin door (regardless of where it is located in relation to the emergency exits) must not 

prevent the crew from gaining access to the aft section ofthe cabin. This is necessary to 

allow the crew to render assistance to passengers who may have become incapacitated in 

the aft section ofthe cabin as well as to allow the crew to investigate and extinguish 

small fires that may occur in ihose areas. This additional requirement would be similar to 

existing requirements for lavatory doors and doors to Class B baggage compartments. 

Requiring that the interior door could be unlocked or unlatched from either side without 

the use of tools would ensure that the door does not prevent access in any condition." 

In consideration ofthe preceding discussions and those contained within the referenced 

exemptions. Garrett Aviation is requesting relief from the requirements of 14 CFR 

§ 25.813(e) to allow the installation of interior doors between passenger compartments on 

the Dassault Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX airplanes with the 

following provisions. 

"I. The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision 

does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneralJon to the extent consistent with 

14 CFR part 125 and 14 CFR pan 91, subpart F, as applicable 

1.^ (ilj n 
"2. Each door between passenger compartments must be frangible. 

"3. Each door between passenger compartments must have a means to signal the flight 

crew when the door is closed. Appropriate procedures/limitations musi be established to 

ensure that takeoff and landing is prohibited when such compartments are occupied and 

the door is closed 

"4. Each door between passenger compartments must have a dual means to retain it in 

the open position, each of which must be capable of reacting the inertia loads specified in 

I4CFR§25 561. 

"5. When doors are installed in transverse partitions, they must translate laterally to open 

and close. 

"6. When doors are installed in specified egress paths, each passenger must be informed 

that the airplane does not comply with the occupant safety requirements mandated for the 

airplane type in general. This notification is only required the first time that a person is a 

passenger on the airplane. 

"7. Each door between passenger compartments (regardless of where it is located in 

relation to the emergency exits) must allow persons on either side ofthe door to unlock or 

unlatch the door without the use of tools. 

"Additional Information To Support Request 

"Exemption No. 7590 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9619-3) issued to Dassault 

Falcon Jet Corporation on August 10, 2001 is attached, [available in the Docket] This 

exemption is provided as evidence that the FAA has recently granted exemption from the 

same regulation, with the same provisions, for the same type aircraft as that which is 

being requested by this petilion. 

"Good Cause For Not Publishine In Federal Register 

"We believe that there is good cause for not publishing this petition for exemption in the 

Federal Register for the following reasons; 

" 1 . Granting this petition would not set a precedent since the FAA has previously 

granted exemption to this regulation for the same model aircraft (e.g. Exemption No. 

7590 for Dassault Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX) as well as several other 

models of private use aircraft (eg Exemption No. 6820.A for Boeing model 737-700 

IGW, Exemption No. 7107 for Boeing model 757, and Exemption No 7455 for 

Bombardier model BD-700-1 A10). The FAA previously published other petitions for 

exemption on this same issue and received no adverse comments 

"2. The relief being requested is identical to exemptions that were granted previously to 

Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation for the Dassauh Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and 

Falcon 900EX 

loui :o 
"3. Delaying action on this petition would have a significant adverse affect on Garrett 

Aviation Services by causing a delay in certification which, in turn, would delay the 

delivery and collection of revenue from multiple Falcon 900/900EX aircraft customers 

who have already requested the installation of doors dividing their passenger cabin. 

"Garrett Aviation Services believes thai the above arguments fully support an exemption 

to permit doors to be installed in partitions which divide the passenger cabin in Dassault 

Aviation Mystere-Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX aircraft. Garrett Aviation Services 

respcctfijlly requests that you review the above and consider this petition for exemption 

from 14 CFR § 25.813(e) on behalf of Ganett Aviation Services." 

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

publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Ganett Aviation Services. The FAA granted an 

exemption from the same regulation and the same model airplane as the petitioner is requesting 

to the Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Exemption No 7590. The FAA has also granted the 

following exemptions from this regulation. Exemption No 6820A for Boeing Model 737-700 

IGW; Exemption No. 7107 for Boeing Model 757; and Exemption No. 7455 for Bombardier 

Model BD-700-1A10. 

The FAA's Analysis/summary is as follows: 

As noted by the petitioner, there are differences between commercial and private use 

operation (whether by an individual or a corporation) of transport category airplanes that 

warrant consideration ofthe appropriate level of safety that is warranted. The FAA is 

giving great attention to the issues raised when these airplanes are operated in private use. 

In recognizing the differences between commercial and private use operations, the FAA 

has identified several regulatory requirements, including the subject ofthis petition, that 

may need to be revised to address the safety issues revealed by these differences. The 

FAA is currently reviewing the adequacy ofthe current regulations and in the ftiture may 

propose revisions to the requirements, where appropriate. 

The current regulations allow the installation of interior doors, provided that passengers 

cannot be seated on both sides ofthe door during takeoff and landing The FAA has 

safety concerns regarding doors that are located between passengers and exits. The FAA 

has proposed to prohibit such installations in future designs, as detailed in Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 96-9 (61 FR 38551. July 24, 1996) However, until the regulations 

are revised, such doors may continue to be installed without the need to process a petition 

for exemption. Additionally, the FAA has recently issued exemptions for private use 

airplanes that would permit installation of doors between passenger compartments, 

provided that certain limitations are met. The petitioner has proposed most of these 

limitations as part ofthis petition. 

i"i>r:n 
As noted in previous dispositions of similar petitions, the FAA does not agree that all 

interior doors are equivalent and has made a specific distinction between. 

• doors whose failure affects only the occupants of a room, and 

• doors whose failure affects other occupants as well. 

This issue is significant to the segment ofthe public operating these airplanes in private 

use. These operators prefer to have the flexibility to partition the airplane in any manner 

as they consider necessary for their particular objective or enterprise The FAA 

acknowledges the operators' point of view, but maintains that, even with the limitations 

proposed, an equivalent level of safety cannot be provided when doors span the main 

cabin aisle. Even the petitioner essentially acknowledges that the level of safety may not 

be the same; although, the petitioner states that the planned arrangement of doors is 

appropriate for the type of operation involved and would be consistent with other private 

use airplanes. In recognition ofthe apparent conflict, the FAA is pursuing separate 

rulemaking directed at private use airplanes that will be used to reconcile these regulatory 

issues. 

With respect to the Dassault Aviation airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 

900EXthat are the subject ofthis petition, there is the potential for some occupants to be 

seated aft of the two emergency exits in the airplane and some occupants to be seated 

forward of an interior door. The applicant has con-ectly identified the need for the 

latche&Zlocks on these doors to be unlatched/unlocked from either side ofthe door 

regardless of which side ofthe door has been latched/locked to allow the crew to respond 

to emergencies in the airplane. The FAA has addressed this issue and has proposed a 

design that could be unlocked or unlatched from either side without the use of tools. 

The approach to flight deck annunciation proposed by the applicant is acceptable. 

While the FAA is not aware of any specific incidents of economic harm as a result of 

different standards being applied to different private use airplanes, the FAA recognizes 

that significant upgrading ofthe occupant safety standards in recent years has made this a 

distinct possibility. Further, as more airplanes are used in executive operations, 

differences in certification bases will become more significant in terms ofthe burden of 

compliance. This issue is generally not a factor for commercial operation, because the 

operating rules are typically upgraded along with the type design standards, making the 

requirements effectively the same for all manufacturers. For privately-operated airplanes, 

however, this is not the case. Thus, while a grant of exemption is cleariy in the interest of 

the segment ofthe public for which it is requested, the FAA agrees that the public at large 

has the potential to benefit by granting increased flexibility to the manufacture and 

modification of ihe Dassault Aviation airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 

900EX. 

Nevertheless, there exists the possibility thai persons will be carried as passengers on 

these airplanes who, by virtue of their employment or some other relationship to the 

airplane's owner, may be compelled to fly. These persons will not be aware ofthe 

s or:( 
specific grants of exemption, and might assume that these airplanes are effectively 

equivalent to commercially operated airplanes. For this reason, the FAA considers it 

necessary for each passenger to be made aware that the particular airplane does not 

comply with all of the occupant safety standards mandated for the airplane type in 

general. The FAA will allow each operator to determine how best to accomplish this 

notification, but will require that procedures be developed to ensure that each passenger 

is so informed prior to Hying on the airplane for the first time. The notification to any 

individual need only be accomplished once. This limitation is in addition to those 

proposed by the petitioner. 

While this grant of exemption cannot be said to provide the same level of safety that 

would be afforded were there strict compliance with the regulations, the resultant level of 

safety is consistent with other private use airplanes In addition, the level of safety that 

results from this exemption is specifically requested and desired by that segment ofthe 

public, namely the owners, that will fly on these airplanes. 

After considerable deliberation, the FAA has concluded that the installation of interior 

doors, with certain limitations, can be accepted. In order to maximize the level of safety, 

the FAA will require that certain limitations, including some as proposed by the 

petitioner, be made mandatory to permit such installations. As noted previously, there 

are precedents for this decision involving other private use airplanes. 

Finally, regarding the type of operation permitted under the terms ofthis exemption, the 

FAA notes that the petitioner refers to "non-scheduled" commercial operation. It should 

be noted that, whether or not operations are scheduled, this exemption does not permit 

fares to be collected in exchange for transportation. It is also the intent ofthis exemption 

that the airplane is not used to transport the general public (common carriage) even if 

fares are not collected. This exemption does not restrict one party from collecting fees 

from another party, as long as the airplane is operated for private use. That is. the 

airplane's owner may lease the airplane to another party who, in tum, operates the 

airplane. 

In consideration ofthe foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the pubic interest and will 

not adversely affect the level of safety provided by the regulations. Therefore, pursuant to the 

authority contained in 49 U.S.C 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the 

petition of Garrett Aviation Services for an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 

§ 25.813(e), to allow installation of interior doors between passenger compartments on the 

Dassault Aviation airplane models Mystere Falcon 900 and Falcon 900EX, is hereby granted 

with the following provisions" 

1. The airplane is not operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This provision 

does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR 

part 125 and 14 CFR part 91. subpart F, as applicable. 

2 Each door between passenger compartments must be frangible 

') I't :i i 
3. Each door between passenger compartments must have a means to signal to the flight 

crew when the door Is closed. Appropriate procedures/limitations must be established to ensure 

that takeoff and landing is prohibited when such compartments are occupied and the door is 

closed. 

4. Each door between passenger compartments must have dual means to retain it in the 

open position, each of which must be capable of reacting the inertia loads specified in 14 CFR 

§25.561. 

5. When doors are installed in transverse partitions, they must translate laterally to open 

and close 

6. When doors are installed in specified egress paths, each passenger must be informed 

that the airplane does not comply with the occupant safety requirements mandated for the 

airplane type in general. This notification is only required the first time that a person is a 

passenger on the airplane. 

7. When doors are installed between passenger compartments, it must be possible for 

persons forward or aft of the door to unlock orunlatch the door without the use of tools. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 27, 2001. 

s Ail Bahrami 

Ali Bahrami 

Acting Manager 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

:()nl'2( i