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 demon stration 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. W hen this change of operators takes place, the new operator wants to fly the airplane before he takes d elivery. 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 deregi ster 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 An tonio Texas we werePetition 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 applicatio n. 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 ma nager, I issued a permit to fly a DC

- 8

- 72 across town to Kelly AFB. The repair station at Kelly met the airpla ne 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 eve r 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 DART100251W P