# f Lufthansa Technik AG

Petition for Exemption - Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T

FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 2 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 

### Table of Content:

Revision History ..................................................................................................................................3

Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................4

Basis for Exemption ............................................................................................................................4

14 CFR 25.785(h)(2) at amendment 25-88: Direct View ...................................................................5

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................5

Requested Relief

..........................................................................................................................5

14 CFR 25.785(j) at Amendment 25-88: Firm Handholds .................................................................6

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................6

Requested Relief

..........................................................................................................................6

14 CFR 25.791(a) and (d) at Amendment 25-72 and Special Condition 25-430-SC, condition 14: No

Smoking Placards ............................................................................................................................6

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................6

Requested Relief

..........................................................................................................................6

14 CFR 25.807(f)(4) at Amendment 25-114: Distance Between Exits ...............................................7

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................7

Requested Relief

..........................................................................................................................7

14 CFR 25.813(e) at Amendment 25-116: Doors Between Passenger Compartments ......................8

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................8

Requested Relief

..........................................................................................................................9

14 CFR 25.815 at Amendment 25-38: Width of Aisle .......................................................................9

Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................................9

Requested Relief

........................................................................................................................ 10

14 CFR 25.853(d) at Amendment 25-116 and Special Condition 25-368-SC: Heat Release and Smoke

Emission ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Safety Considerations ................................................................................................................ 10

Requested Relief

........................................................................................................................ 11

Public Interest ................................................................................................................................... 12

Future use and application of the exemption .................................................................................... 12

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 3 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 

### Revision History:

Revision No.: Revision Highlight:

IR Initial Issue

01 - FAA public docket no. added to header and front page.

- Revision number and date added to footer. - Revision history added. - Special Condition 25-430-SC added.

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 4 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 

### Discussion

Lufthansa Technik AG (LHT) in Hamburg (Germany) has been contracted by a customer for interior completion of VVIP business interiors in one Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has accepted LHT’s application for a STC-validation of a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) STC and has filed the project under Project Number ST7317NY-T. The certification basis for the Boeing 747-8 has been defined based upon the EASA Type Certification Data Sheet (TCDS) IM.A.196 and the validation basis has been defined based upon the FAA TCDS A20WE.

The EASA Certification Specifications (CS) as well as the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 25 govern type design certification requirements for transport category airplanes. The primary intent of the CS and the CFR, as applied to transport aircraft is intended for commercial or common-carriage applications. These regulations are to ensure that aircraft manufacturers provide the appropriate design features to meet the standards necessary to protect the traveling public. These requirements define the normal public interest and safety level and provide regulatory guidelines to meet them. When the individual aircraft is to be used in private service (e.g., not for hire or common carriage), it is appropriate to take into consideration the specific needs of a different population of more experienced users and the operations specific to those users.

Historically, the authorities have made adjustments to specific requirements based upon specific design and operational factors. As stated above, numerous exemptions and other regulatory changes have been granted to meet specific aircraft designs and applications. In like manner, LHT proposes to use mitigating design requirements and operational limitations to justify similar exemptions to the 747-8 aircraft modified for VVIP, not-for-hire or common-carriage service.

In addition the requested exemptions are or have already been discussed with EASA as the certifying authority for this aircraft modification.



### Basis for Exemption

The aircraft that is the subject of this petition is a Boeing Model 747-8 modified for noncommercial/non-common-carriage VVIP service. It is typically in the service of foreign Heads-of-State interests and will be operated under 14 CFR parts 91 and 125 regulations or equivalent foreign standard. For this reason the privileges of this proposed exemption will be

exercised outside the United States.

The interior configurations typically installed result in a very small passenger population compared to for-hire or common-carriage standards. These passengers are typically very experienced travelers. For this reason the crews and passengers who fly on this aircraft have a substantially higher familiarity with the aircraft and its systems than those envisioned by the writers of the original regulations (CS and CFR).

The exemptions proposed herein are justified based upon the following facts:

· This aircraft is intended for VVIP use and is not appropriately configured for or intended for use for hire or common carriage.

· This aircraft carries a lower amount of passengers compared to the originally type-approved passenger load.

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 5 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014

· SFAR 109 Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Aircraft was issued in 2009 to address these issues among others. This SFAR is limited to aircraft with passenger counts of 60 or less. These requested exemptions will apply the same or similar requirements to an aircraft with higher passenger counts.

· Similar exemptions have been routinely granted for VIP transport category aircraft for many years. For example: Exemptions 10339, 6820/6820A, 6881, 7317/7317A, 7609, and 8765 as well as others have been either fully or partially granted by FAA.

· These exemptions have been granted to both domestic and foreign applicantsand applied equally to both domestically-produced aircraft and foreignproduced aircraft.

· The Petitioner proposes mitigating requirements and conditions that establish acceptable levels of safety for the occupants consistent with previous grants.

With these justifications in mind, LHT requests relief from and proposes a petition for exemption from the following regulations:



### 14 CFR 25.785(h)(2) at amendment 25-88: Direct View

This aircraft interior is designed to accommodate VVIP personnel and staff members. These types of passengers require amenities such as meeting rooms, offices, bedrooms, lavatories, and lounges rather than traditional airline type seating. Furthermore they require a high level of privacy and security that is normally not available in airline-style interiors. An exemption to the flight attendant direct view requirement is therefore needed to allow the interior to meet these needs.

As discussed in FAA Exemption 6820, the Direct-View requirement was incorporated into the FAA rules at amendment 25-51. During the rulemaking process FAA concluded that the “. . . location of the flight attendant seats near the floor level exits . . . is more important than the requirement to have a direct view of the cabin.” The final rule was revised from the NPRM proposal to state this. Further SFAR 109 set more flexible standards for this type of intended usage.

Safety Considerations

Considering the smaller number of occupants in the VVIP aircraft, the familiarity of the flight and cabin crews with the specific airplane, its passengers and its interior arrangement, and the wording of the existing rule that places the proximity of the attendant to the exit over the ability of the attendant to view the cabin area, there should be no degradation in the passenger safety as a result of this requested exemption.

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

In lieu of the requirements of § 25.785(h)(2), to the extent practical without compromising proximity to a required floor level emergency exit, wherever possible the installed flight attendant seats shall be located to face the cabin area for which the attendant is responsible.

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 6 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 

### 14 CFR 25.785(j) at Amendment 25-88: Firm Handholds

The current layout for the proposed VVIP interior in some areas is quite different from the airliner-type interior envisioned by the original rule. The proposed interior includes some large rooms or meeting areas where the originally envisioned requirement for firm hand hold along the aisles cannot be met. A typical airliner interior meets this requirement by relying on the individual seat backs along the main aisle or aisles. Any ceiling mounted handhold would ruin the appearance of the high quality interior and has the potential to create additional safety concerns.

Safety Considerations

The risk for occupants due to the reduced number of direct hand holds in certain areas of the airplane should be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· in the various compartments seat backs, divan arms, tables, and furniture are readily within reach with one or two steps

· all furniture in the passenger cabin will not have sharp corners and edges in order to avoid serious injury in case of contact during turbulence

· the installed seats and divans are heavily upholstered and will not cause injuries when contacted,

· occupants are experienced travelers and are generally familiar with this

aircraft interior.

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

In lieu of the requirements of § 25.785(j), there must be means provided to enable persons to steady themselves in moderately rough air while occupying aisles or, where practicable, bordered by seats.



### 14 CFR 25.791(a) and (d) at Amendment 25-72 and Special Condition 25-

430-SC, condition 14: No Smoking Placards

The VVIP aircraft is declared as a “no smoking” aircraft.

Safety Considerations

There is no increase in occupants safety due to the special placement of “no smoking” placards.

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

Compliance with § 25.791 and Special Condition 25-430-SC is required except that for § 25.791(a) and (d) and Special Condition 25-430-SC, condition 14, when smoking is to be prohibited, notification to the passengers may be provided by a single placard so stating, to be conspicuously located inside the passenger compartment, easily

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 7 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 visible to all persons entering the cabin in the immediate vicinity of each passenger entry door.



### 14 CFR 25.807(f)(4) at Amendment 25-114: Distance Between Exits

The current layout for the proposed VVIP interior foresees the deactivation of passenger emergency exits no. 3. Due to this deactivation the distance between passenger emergency exits is more than 60 feet.

Safety Considerations

The risk for occupants due to the deactivated passenger emergency exit # 3 should be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· the airplane will be operated under 14 CFR parts 91 and 125 or foreign equivalent and will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage

· occupants are experienced travelers and are generally familiar with this aircraft interior and the location of the emergency exits

· no passenger seat that is certified for the used during taxi, take-off and landing is located more than 30 feet from the nearest emergency exit

· the number of passengers is substantially less (less than 33 percent) than the aircraft was originally certified for

· a distance of more than 60 feet between adjacent passenger emergency exits on the same side of the same deck of the fuselage , is only foreseen once on each side of the fuselage

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

For an airplane that is required to comply with § 25.807(f)(4), in effect as of July 24, 1989, which has more than one passenger emergency exit on each side of the fuselage, no passenger emergency exit may be more than 60 feet from any adjacent passenger emergency exit on the same side of the same deck of the fuselage, as measured parallel to the airplane's longitudinal axis between the nearest exit edges, unless the following

conditions are met:

(a) Each passenger seat must be located within 30 feet from the nearest exit on each side of the fuselage, as measured parallel to the airplane's longitudinal axis, between the nearest exit edge and the front of the seat bottom cushion.

(b) The number of passenger seats located between two adjacent pairs of emergency exits (commonly referred to as a passenger zone) or between a pair of exits and a bulkhead or a compartment door (commonly referred to as a ``dead-end zone''), may not exceed the following:

(1) For zones between two pairs of exits, 50 percent of the combined rated capacity of the two pairs of emergency exits.

(2) For zones between one pair of exits and a bulkhead, 40 percent of the rated capacity of the pair of emergency exits.

(c) The total number of passenger seats in the airplane may not exceed 33 percent of the maximum seating capacity for the airplane model using the exit

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 8 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014

ratings listed in §25.807(g) for the original certified exits or the maximum allowable after modification when exits are deactivated, whichever is less.

(d) A distance of more than 60 feet between adjacent passenger emergency exits on the same side of the same deck of the fuselage, as measured parallel to the airplane's longitudinal axis between the nearest exit edges, is allowed only once on each side of the fuselage.



### 14 CFR 25.813(e) at Amendment 25-116: Doors Between Passenger
Compartments

This discussion covers doors that separate passenger compartments from other areas throughout the aircraft. This discussion does not include doors that separate e.g. lavatories or bathrooms from passenger compartments and these doors do not apply to this exemption request.

The majority of the interior doors of the current layout for the proposed VVIP interior separate a passenger compartment from other areas (e.g. exit area). There are only two interior doors that directly separate two passenger compartments. These interior doors

are installed in:

· the upper deck forward of the emergency exit

· the main deck in the area between emergency exit #3 and emergency exit #4

Doors between passenger compartments and doors between passenger compartments and other areas (e.g. emergency exits) will have the following design features:

· all doors will be operated manually

· doors that need to be latched in the open position will have dual latches (each of which is able to withstand the forces defined § 25.561(b)) to secure the doors in the open position and to prevent inadvertent closing

· the doors will be frangible to allow egress in the event that they should become

stuck

· the doors will provide vent areas to allow free airflow in the event of a rapid decompression

· in case a locking mechanism is installed, these doors will provide features to unlock the door from either side without the use of a special tool

· cockpit indication of the door position for taxi, take-off and landing

· cabin crew indication of each individual door position to identify which door/doors is/are not in the correct position for taxi, take-off and landing

Safety Considerations

The risk for occupants due to the use of doors between passenger compartments should be considered acceptable due to the features mentioned above and for the following reasons:

· the airplane will be operated under 14 CFR parts 91 and 125 or foreign equivalent and will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 9 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014

· the Airplane Flight Manual Supplement (AFM-S) or other adequate manual will provide procedures and limitations to ensure that the doors are in the proper position for taxi, take-off and landing.

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

· In lieu of the requirements of § 25.813(e), interior doors may be installed between passenger seats and exits, provided the following requirements are

met:

- each door between any passenger seat, occupiable for taxi, takeoff, and landing, and any emergency exit must have a means to signal to the flight-crew, at the flight-deck, that the door is in the open position for taxi, takeoff and landing.

- appropriate procedures/limitations must be established in the AFM to ensure that any such door is in the open configuration for taxi, take-off and landing.

- each door between any passenger seat and any exit must have dual means to retain it in the open position, each of which is capable of reacting the inertia loads specified in § 25.561(b).

- each door between any passenger seat and any exit must be frangible in either direction. A frangibility test will be performed on each type of interior compartment door installation in the aircraft using a 5th percentile female subject.

- each door between any passenger seat and any exit must be operable from either side, and if a locking mechanism is installed, it must be capable of being unlocked from either side without the use of special

tool.

· When the aircraft is equipped with interior doors under this Exemption:

- the AFM must include appropriate limitation(s) to require a preflight passenger briefing describing the appropriate functions to be performed by the passengers and the relevant features of the airplane to ensure the safety of the passengers and crew.



### 14 CFR 25.815 at Amendment 25-38: Width of Aisle

LHT is installing seats that translate laterally and longitudinally and also recline. Translating and/or reclining of seats will occur in flight only but can encroach on the aisle width required by Section 25.815.

Safety Considerations

The risk for occupants in the passenger cabin due to reduced width of aisle in-flight should be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· the number of passengers is substantially less than the aircraft was originally

certified for

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 10 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014

· the passengers who use this aircraft are much more familiar with the aircraft interior and systems compared to passengers of a commercially operated

aircraft

· aisle width is only to be reduced during in-flight operation. For taxi, take-off and landing each individual seat position is clearly defined to provide the aisle width as required by § 25.815

· reduced aisle width does not restrict access to any cabin area because all areas of the cabin will be accessible by a crew member in the event of an emergency (e.g., in-flight fire, decompression) without excessive effort or

excessive loss of time

· procedures will be established and documented in the AFM-S or other adequate manual to ensure that the cabin will be restored to proper configuration for taxi, take-off, and landing

· the aircraft will not be operated for hire or common carriage

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

Compliance is required with § 25.815, except that the aisle width may be reduced to zero inches between passenger seats during in-flight operations only, provided that the applicant demonstrates that:

· all areas of the cabin are easily accessible by a crew member in the event of an emergency (e.g. in-flight fire, decompression)

· instructions are provided at each passenger seat for restoring the aisle width required by § 25.815

· the operation to return the cabin furnishings to their proper taxi, take-off and landing positions is easy to handle

· procedures must be established and documented in the AFM to ensure that the required aisle widths are provided during taxi, take-off, and landing



### 14 CFR 25.853(d) at Amendment 25-116 and Special Condition 25-368-SC:

Heat Release and Smoke Emission

Completion centers have been able to simultaneously satisfy both the styling requirements of customers and the interior material flammability requirements of § 25.853(a) and (c); however, many of the materials required in the aircraft interiors do not comply with the heat release and smoke emission requirements of § 25.853(d).

Safety Considerations

The vast majority of the heat release and smoke portion of the rule was driven by the post-crash fire experiences in airline operations. The 65/65 heat release regulation was specifically developed to reduce the likelihood of the flash-over phenomenon which was proven by tests to be a primary factor to the rapid propagation of post-crash fires and the generation of blinding smoke. Rapid fire propagation combined with the relatively slow rate of passenger evacuation from densely packed airplanes has proven to be a deadly combination during actual airline accidents. Since it is clear that

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 11 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 material selection is being controlled by aesthetics in this application, we cannot exercise any real control over the actual heat within the first 90 seconds. Therefore, it is proposed as mitigation to the fire hazard that an evacuation analysis be performed to show that all occupants can be safely evacuated in less than 45 seconds.

Requested Relief

LHT proposes to meet the requirements as stated similarly in SFAR 109 and various Exemptions as:

Compliance is required with the applicable provisions of Sec. 25.853, except that compliance with appendix F, parts IV and V, need not be demonstrated if it can be shown by analysis that the maximum time for evacuation of all occupants does not exceed 45 seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part 25.

### f Lufthansa Technik – Petition for Exemption – Summary

FAA-Project No.: ST7317NY-T, FAA Public Docket No.: FAA-2014-0136

Rev.: 01 Page 12 von 12 Mar. 31, 2014 

### Public Interest

As in the cases of numerous already established Exemptions, granting this petition for exemption would be clearly in the public interest of the people of the United States of America for the following reasons:

· Given the proliferation of VVIP configured Transport Category Airplanes, and anticipated in the near future, approval of these exemptions will enable the United States manufacturers of Transport Category Airplanes to effectively compete in this expanding market.

· Additional sales of components manufactured in the United States even for

VVIP interiors installed outside the United States will serve to increase supplying/supporting company’s profitability.

· Stability and improved financial performance of these United States companies gives greater job stability to the workers employed by the companies, causing a stabilizing influence to the greater United States economy, due to the consumer pending activities associated with stable

workers.

· Improved financial performance of United States owned and operated corporations, and increased workforce stability translates into continued and improved local, state, and federal tax revenues which in turn add to the stability of the total United States economy.

· Improved financial performance allows United States corporations to continue to invest in Research and Development, allowing the United States to maintain or improve its competitive position in the world economy.

· Foreign Heads-of-State operating US-manufactured aircraft strengthens the preeminent global position of the United States aircraft manufacturing.

· This aircraft will be operated under 14 CFR parts 91 and 125 or its foreign equivalent. This aircraft will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage inside the US and therefore there is no safety impact on the US flying public.



### Future use and application of the exemption

This Exemption is intended for use on one single 747-8 interior program by LHT. Use and applicability of the Exemption will be controlled in the project and will be submitted to the applicable FAA Certification Office (i.e. NYACO).

Exemptions to specific rules and associated mitigating requirements are to be individually applied. There is no requirement that all portions of this Exemption be applied simultaneously. When the approved exemption to a specific rule or rules is not used then full compliance to that rule or rules is required.

We request to exercise the privilege of this exemption outside the United States since the operator of the airplane is located in a foreign country.