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 Feder al 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, petiti oned 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 cont inue 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 unde r 14 CFR Part 135.

The petitioner s 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 certifi cate holder2

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 petitioner s support their request with the following information:

The in itial 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 waiti ng 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 inst all 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 accommoda te 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 unspeci fied 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, stati ng 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 i ndicates 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, numb er 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 update d 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 ADS

B 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 prohib iting flight data recording filtering in 2010, with four years for compliance. Materials submit ted by the petitioners indicate that they may have been unaware of the filtering taking place on their airplanes and the aircraft and avionics

manufacturers’ in ability 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 del ays 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 fli ght 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, a nd 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 fli ght 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 inclu des 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. Operat ors 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. 1 56(d).

All modifications to airplanes necessary to compl y 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 thes e 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 identif ied in this exemption, each operator of an affected airplane must, within 10 days of the issuance of this exemption but not later than April 18 th , 2014, submit a letter to its principal inspector requ esting 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 1 5, 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 mo difications are complete and each airplane complies with 14 CFR § 135.156(d).

9. Table of Affected Aircraft

M ake/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 1366

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 Au gust 31, 2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2014

.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service