Petition for Rule Change 

14CFR21.197

Setember 20, 2011

1

I have been a DAR since 1993. Our guidance has changed a little over the years but there is 

one change to the issuance of Special Flight Permits that I would like to see happen soon.

The change would permit DAR’s to issue an SFP to conduct customer demonstration flights. 

These flights are also called “confidence flights” or “functional check” flights. Currently there is 

not a regulation that authorizes these types of flights. Part 21.197 falls short of allowing this 

type of flight.

My authority is for large transport category airplanes. I can issue SFP’s to fly over large bodies 

of water but not for a short flight to check systems prior to making that long range flight. Our 

guidance tells us to issue Point A to Point B permits. Some flight crews are under the 

impression that once they are in the air, they need to keep going to Point B under any 

circumstances. I actually overheard a Director of Maintenance tell a pilot that if he has a 

problem, keep going and get it fixed at the next stop.

There are a large number of leasing companies that are constantly moving transport category 

airplanes from one operator to another, from one country to another. When this change of 

operators takes place, the new operator wants to fly the airplane before he takes delivery. 

Many of the airplanes are coming out of heavy maintenance with fresh engines and new paint 

jobs. They need a Special Flight Permit because they are not on the operation specifications 

of the new operator yet. 

A high number of these exchanges take place on “N” registered airplanes receiving 

maintenance at foreign repair stations. The owners (lease companies) make application for a 

SFP to deliver an airplane to a new customer in the Ukraine (for example). A Special Flight 

Permit is issued for the Point A to B flight in accordance with Part 21.197. Flight plans are 

made and the overfly permission is granted and off they go. Two hours or so later the airplane 

returns to the point of origin. If all went well on the flight, the owner will deregister the airplane 

from the U.S. registry and the new operator will register the airplane in the Ukraine (for 

example). A new registration number is applied and the airplane is delivered to the new 

operator. 

If there was a rule change this flight could have been conducted without using loopholes. I’m 

surprised that the air traffic controllers don’t have more questions for all of these flights that 

look like cross border deliveries and end up at the point of origin. You would think it would be 

better to conduct a customer demonstration flight with an appropriate flight plan than to play 

games with the ineffective rules. 

There is another time when it would be appropriate to issue a functional check flight permit 

instead of a Point A to Point B permit. I think we are all aware that aircraft owners are in a 

hurry to register their airplanes in Bermuda. The process of registering an airplane in Bermuda 

requires a functional check flight. This requirement assures the basic airworthiness of the 

airplane. As a DAR I have issued several Special Flight Permits to meet these requirements. 

The SFP’s did not reflect the true nature of the flight. The permits were a Point A to Point B in 

accordance with the current rule. In my most recent experience in San Antonio Texas we were 
Petition for Rule Change 

14CFR21.197

Setember 20, 2011

2

handcuffed by a wannabe ASI who worked for a major repair station as Director of Quality. 

This person knew that the applicant had to accomplish a flight to demonstrate airworthiness to 

Bermuda for processing the registration application. I issued the typical A to B special flight 

permit only to find the Director would not release the airplane because he knew it was coming 

back to Point A for some cosmetic rework. His reasoning was that he didn’t want his company 

to participate in a fraudulent reason for the flight. He made the applicant find a reason to fly to 

a base where “repairs could be done”. After consulting with my manager, I issued a permit to 

fly a DC-8-72 across town to Kelly AFB. The repair station at Kelly met the airplane and 

signed the logbook to make it appear that work was done. During the first leg of this flight I 

drove to Kelly to meet the airplane. I issued another permit to fly back to San Antonio for the 

cosmetic rework. This has to be the dumbest thing I ever took part in. All of this waste could 

have been avoided if there was a rule change to accommodate this type of flight. 

Please add item (6) Conduct demonstration for used transport category airplanes.

Thank you,

Joseph A. Jennings

FAA DART100251WP