AFS-14-073-E

Exemption No. 10971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

OPERATERS OF CERTAIN Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1047

DASSAULT FALCON 900DX, 

900LX, 900EX EASy, 2000EX, 

2000EX EASy and 2000LX 

AIRPLANES 

 

for an exemption from § 135.156(d)(4) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated November 22, 2013, Greg Paxson, Director of Maintenance, TWC Aviation, 

Inc.(TWC), 16700C Roscoe Blvd., Van Nuys, CA, 91406, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) for exemption from § 135.156(d)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow one Dassault Falcon 2000EX 

EASy and three Dassault Falcon 2000LX airplanes to continue to operate without complying 

with the prohibition on the filtering fight recorder data of §135.156(d)(4).

Between December 11, 2013 and January 31, 2014, the FAA received nine more petitions for 

exemption for 14 similar Falcon aircraft operating under 14 CFR Part 135. 

The petitioners request relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.156(d)(4) requires in pertinent part that, after April 21, 2014, no aircraft flight 

data recording system may filter any specified parameter unless the certificate holder 
2

possesses test and analysis procedures and test results that have been approved by the FAA, 

and maintains that data as part of its required correlation documentation.

The petitioners support their request with the following information:

The initial petitioner, TWC Aviation, stated that compliance with the regulation requires an 

avionics system upgrade to the EASy II avionics load. Because of the “large amount of 

aircraft being retrofitted” the petitioner noted that there is a significant waiting time to be 

accepted into a facility that can complete the upgrade, and that supply of the equipment is 

equally limited. TWC also noted that there is significant down time associated with the 

installation of the equipment and that operators seek to install the upgrade during scheduled 

maintenance checks to “maintain reasonable operational use” of their airplanes. Honeywell, 

the manufacturer of the upgrade equipment, gave TWC retrofit dates between July 2014 and 

January 2015 as to when it could accommodate the petitioner’s four airplanes. 

Subsequent petitioners included the identical information and justifications, including 

differing retrofit availability dates that they have been quoted between April and September 

2014. One petitioner gave an unspecified time in 2015 for installation, and one requested 18 

months from the compliance date to account for schedule slippage by the service centers. 

At least one petitioner included as part of its submission a Dassault Falcon Service Advisory 

notice, stating that the petitioner’s airplane was filtering data and that Dassault and Honeywell 

would not be able to schedule an upgrade at a service center before the regulation takes effect 

on April 21, 2014. The materials sent by the manufacturers to petitioners indicates that four 

parameters are subject to filtering by software with a “cut-off frequency inside the operational 

bandwidth of the sensor.” These parameters are number 15, pitch control surface position, 

number 16, lateral control surface position, number 17, yaw control surface position, and 

parameter 88, cockpit control input forces, the last in certain 900EX airplanes. The Service 

Advisory indicated that operators should petition the FAA for an exemption, and provided the 

boilerplate language used by many of the subsequent petitioners. 

On January 31, 2014, William E. Cummins, Acting Chief Inspector, NetJets Aviation, Inc., 

4111 Bridgeway Avenue, Columbus, OH 42319 (Docket No. FAA-2014-0002) resubmitted 

its request indicating that Dassault had updated its Falcon Service Advisory FSA-31-30-006-

R04-B as of January 14, 2014, but did not include a copy of the advisory or describe what may 

have changed from the previous advisory. 

Each of the petitioners cited significant financial impact on its operation if it was unable to 

continue to operate the affected airplanes until they could install the upgrade. The petitioners 

also noted that the offered EASy II avionics upgrade offers other functionalities such as ADSB Out, FANS1A, ATNB1 and LPV. 
3

As a group, the petitioners noted that a grant of exemption “would not affect nor degrade the 

inherent safety of the aircraft” and that since it only affected recorded data, it would have “no 

impact on operational safety.” 

A summary of the petition of TWC Aviation, Docket No. FAA-2013-1047, was published in 

the Federal Register on January 21, 2014 (79 FR 3455). Comments on the petition were due 

February 10, 2014. No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA amended the regulations prohibiting flight data recording filtering in 2010, with four 

years for compliance. Materials submitted by the petitioners indicate that they may have been 

unaware of the filtering taking place on their airplanes and the aircraft and avionics 

manufacturers’ inability to schedule compliant equipment upgrades as late as October 2013. 

While each operator remains responsible for the operation of its airplanes and the equipment 

installed on it, the FAA understands that some operators have experienced unforeseen delays 

in scheduling their airplanes for upgrade for reasons not under their control.

The FAA finds that good cause exists to allow additional time to retrofit the subject aircraft 

with compliant equipment. The FAA does not agree with any assertion that flight recorder 

systems are not safety equipment simply because they do not affect the operation of a given 

flight. Flight recorder data are often the only evidence of airplane problems available to 

investigators following aircraft accidents and incidents, and filtered data were shown to have 

significantly inhibited the investigation of the cause of a well-known aircraft accident, 

possibly delaying the corrective action that was necessitated. However, because the subject 

airplanes will still be recording flight data and the limitations are known, the FAA agrees that 

a limited time to complete the upgrades is appropriate and that the public interest will be 

served by allowing continued operation of a limited number of airplanes. 

This grant of exemption includes a list of the identified airplanes that may take advantage of 

this exemption relief. Relief is limited to those airplanes identified in the list. Operators of 

other airplanes of the models noted may petition the FAA to be included in the relief, but must 

have written FAA approval before such relief may be exercised. All of the airplanes included 

on this list are subject to all of the conditions and limitations included in this petition even if 

they differ from a petitioner’s initial request. Operators that fail to comply with all of the 

listed conditions and limitations are prohibited from continued use of their airplanes after 

April 21, 2014, until the aircraft are fully compliant with §135.156(d).

All modifications to airplanes necessary to comply with the flight recorder filtering 

regulations of 14 CFR Part 135 must be completed as soon as possible, and no later than 16 

months from the date of this exemption. Once modifications are completed on an airplane, 

the relief provided by this exemption terminates. No extensions of this exemption will be 

considered. 
4

The FAA’s Decision

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701

delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition for an exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 135.156(d) is granted to the extent necessary to allow the operators of the Dassault Falcon 

airplanes described in item 9 below to temporarily operate these airplanes subject to the 

conditions and limitations listed herein. 

Conditions and Limitations

1. This exemption applies only to the airplanes listed in the table included in item 9 below. 

2. In order to continue the operation of any airplane identified in this exemption, each operator 

of an affected airplane must, within 10 days of the issuance of this exemption but not later 

than April 18th, 2014, submit a letter to its principal inspector requesting to use this exemption 

including:

a. A list of the airplanes that the operator has determined are subject of this 

exemption, identified by model, serial and current registration numbers; and 

b. Acknowledgement of the conditions and limitations listed in this exemption as the 

basis for continued operation of the airplane until it is modified.

3. The letter required in item 2 must also be filed concurrently in Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2013-1047 by the operator requesting the relief.

4. This exemption allows for the continued operation of affected aircraft with a DFDR that 

records filtered flight data for parameters 15, 16, 17 and 88 as described in 14 CFR Section 

135.152(h), as applicable. No other relief from any other parameter or other flight recorder 

provision of Part 135 is granted by this exemption. 

5. Use of this exemption is not transferable to a subsequent operator of an affected airplane 

without the prior written approval of the FAA. Use by a subsequent operator is subject to 

written request and FAA approval before the airplane may be operated. 

6. A copy of this exemption must be retained with the operator's DFDR correlation 

documentation as specified in 14 CFR Section 135.152 as applicable until the airplane 

identified in this exemption has been modified pursuant to this exemption. 

7. In the event of an accident or incident after which the DFDR data must be sent to the FAA 

or the National Transportation Safety Board, the operator must provide a copy of this 

exemption. 
5

8. Within 10 days of submission of the letter required in item 2. above, the operator must 

provide to its principal avionics inspector a schedule for the completion of the modifications 

required to bring each airplane into compliance with the applicable regulation. Such schedule 

may not extend beyond the date of termination of this exemption. Monthly updates of the 

modification schedule must be provided by each operator to its principal avionics inspector 

until the modifications are complete and each airplane complies with 14 CFR § 135.156(d).

9. Table of Affected Aircraft

Make/Model Serial Number

F2000EX EASy 35

F2000EX EASy 45

F2000EX EASy 46

F2000EX EASy 50

F2000EX EASy 53

F2000EX EASy 54

F2000EX EASy 55

F2000EX EASy 59

F2000EX EASy 69

F2000EX EASy 86

F2000EX EASy 91

F2000EX EASy 107

F2000EX EASy 110

F2000EX EASy 115

F2000EX EASy 141

F2000LX 151

F2000LX 155

F2000LX 158

F2000LX 168

F2000LX 170

F2000LX 200

F2000LX 207

F2000LX 241

F2000LX 248

F2000LX 250

F900LX 259

F900LX 261

F2000DX 601

F900EX EASy 97

F900EX EASy 132

F900EX EASy 136
6

F900EX EASy 139

F900EX EASy 152

F900EX EASy 160

F900EX EASy 174

F900EX EASy 181

F900EX EASy 193

F900EX EASy 199

F900EX EASy 232

This exemption terminates on the sooner of the installation of the software update correcting 

the problem as stated above, or August 31, 2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2014 .

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service