CORRECTED COPY

This is a correction to Grant of Exemption No. 10420, dated December 23, 2011. 

Limitation No. 6 is corrected to specify that, for Category 5 doors, a placard must be 

installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door requiring that the door 

be in the “closed” position during taxi, takeoff, and landing. This must be corrected 

in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual.

Exemption No. 10420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

Gore Design Completions, Ltd.

for an exemption from §§ 25.785(d), 

25.785(h)(1), 25.813(e), and 25.853(a)(1)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1056

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated June 8, 2011, submitted September 28, 2011, Mr. Steve Kincaid, ODA 

Administrator, Gore Design Completion, Ltd., 607 N. Frank Luke Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 

78226, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the 

following sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR): 25.785(d), 25.785(h)(1), 

25.813(e), and 25.853(a)(1). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the 

requirements of flight-attendant direct view, firm handholds in the passenger compartment,

interior doors between passenger compartments, and maximum heat-release and 

smoke-emissions flammability requirements for large interior panels. The proposed exemption is 

specifically for the installation of an executive interior on Airbus Model A340-211 airplanes, 

which would be designated as private use, not for hire, not for common carriage.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 25.785(d), Amendment 25-64, which requires a firm handhold along each aisle.
2

Section 25.785(h)(1), Amendment 25-64, which requires that flight attendant seats must be 

located to provide direct view of the cabin area.

Section 25.813(e), Amendment 25-46, which prohibits installation of a door in any partition 

between passenger compartments.

Section 25.853(a)(1), Amendment 25-66, which limits maximum heat-release rates and 

smoke emissions for large-panel cabin interior materials.

The petitioner supports the request with the following information: This section quotes the 

relevant information from the petitioner’s request with minor editorial changes for clarity. The 

complete petition is available in the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management 

System on the Internet at http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2011-1056.

Gore Design Completion, Ltd., (GDC) has been contracted for the completion of an 

executive business interior for an Airbus Model A340-211 airplane. The FAA 

Organization Management Team (OMT) has reviewed and accepted our ODA Project 

Number GDC-P515-STC for this project.

The certification basis for the Airbus Model A340-211 is part 25, Amendment 25-1 

through 25-63 inclusive plus Amendments 25-65, 25-66, and 25-77.

The airplane will be configured for a much lower passenger density compared to normal 

airline service. The airplane will not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage, 

although this will not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent 

consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, Subpart F, as applicable. The operation of the 

aircraft will be of a restricted nature as compared to a commercial transport, and the flight 

and cabin crews will have familiarity with the interior configuration.

For the reasons listed above, GDC has prepared a petition for exemption to the following 

regulations:

14 CFR 25.785(h)(1), Amendment 25-64—Flight attendant seats must be located to 

provide direct view of the cabin area.

14 CFR 25.813(e), Amendment 25-46—No door may be installed in any partition 

between passenger compartments.

14 CFR 25.785(d), Amendment 25-64—Requires a “firm handhold” along each aisle.

14 CFR 25.853(a)(1), Amendment 25-66—Limits maximum heat release rates for 

large panel cabin interior materials.

DISCUSSION:
3

14 CFR part 25 governs design certification of transport category airplanes. The primary

intent of these regulations, as written, are to be certain that airplane manufacturers 

provide the appropriate design features to meet the standards necessary to protect the 

traveling public. Clearly, there is a requirement “in the public interest” and in the interest 

of safety to provide regulatory guidelines for certification. However, it is also very clear 

these regulations are intended to regulate the certification of “commercial” airplanes, 

which are “for hire” to the general public.

While the greatest majority of these regulations represent a common sense inclusion for 

any aircraft regardless of its intended use, a few are obviously intended to regulate 

situations that are specific to an airline, or for-hire operation. When a transport category

airplane is operated under 14 CFR part 91 or part 125, some of the part 25 rules have 

acceptance criteria that are not compatible with the type of operation and the intended use 

of this airplane.

The FAA clearly recognizes these differences as evidenced by the issuance of Exemption 

Numbers 6820A, 6822, 7120A, 7489, and numerous others, which eliminate many of the 

more onerous regulations when applied to “private-use, not-for-hire” operations under 

14 CFR part 91 and part 125.

BASIS FOR EXEMPTION:

The airplane that is the subject of this petition is an Airbus Model A340-211. It is 

privately owned and will be operated under part 125 regulations or other equivalent 

non-US foreign national operational standard. In accordance with 14 CFR 11.81(h), we 

request to exercise the privilege of this exemption outside the United States since the 

operator of the airplane is located in Saudi Arabia.

The interior configuration being installed in this airplane will provide seating for 

77 passengers (see attached floor plan drawing)—5 passengers in the private lounge, 

5 passengers in the mid cabin lounge, 1 passenger in the main entrance, 11 passengers in 

the main Majlis, 12 passengers in the dining lounge, and 43 passengers in the guest 

seating area. There is one aft facing flight attendant style seat in the communication 

center (located at the center of the aircraft aft of the center seats in the guest seating area), 

but it will not be usable for taxi, takeoff, and landing. The remaining seats in the cabin 

are to be occupied by crew only—2 Cabin Attendants in door 1L area, 2 Cabin Attendants 

in the door 2L area, 1 Cabin Attendant each at door 3R and 3L, and 4 Cabin Attendants in 

the door 4 area. The maximum certified passenger count for this airplane is 375 seats. 

The passenger count of the subject airplane represents 24% of the capacity allowed for 

this airplane.

Regulation 14 CFR 25.785(h)(1)

Customers are buying these large airplanes as an extension of the office and are requiring 

privacy areas within the airplane sometimes spanning the whole cabin, such as board 

rooms, bedrooms, lavatories, and lounges rather than traditional airline type seating. An 
4

exemption to the flight attendant direct view requirement is therefore needed to allow the 

full use of the airplane capabilities. In addition, this requirement was incorporated into 

the FAA rules through Amendment 25-51. Out of the comments submitted to the FAA 

during the NPRM comment period, two said that, if galley doors were used as emergency

exits, the placement of an attendant seat near the exit precludes compliance with the 

requirement that the attendant be provided with direct view of the cabin area. To cover 

this situation, it was suggested that the requirement be conditioned to apply insofar as 

practicable and without compromising the proximity to required floor level exits. The 

FAA concurred and further stated in the preamble to the final rules that “location of the 

flight attendant seats near the floor level exits in this case is more important than the 

requirement to have a direct view of the cabin.” The final rule was revised from the 

NPRM proposal to address this relative importance.

Regulation 14 CFR 25.813(e)

There will be 11 mechanical “pocket” type doors located as follows: between the 

passageway and the private lounge, between the passageway and the main entrance, a 

double pocket door between the main entrance and mid cabin lounge, between the main 

entrance and main Majlis, between the dining lounge and VIP lavatory areas (2), between 

the center passageway and the RH/LH aft lounges (2), and a double pocket door between 

the aft lounge and the guest seating area.

There will be a swing door between the master bedroom and private lounge, and a swing 

door installed on the communication center (located at the center of the aircraft aft of the 

center seats in the guest seating area. However, these doors are not located between 

passenger compartments and these doors do not apply to this exemption request.

Doors between passenger compartments will have the following design features: dual 

latches (each of which are able to withstand the forces defined by 14 CFR 25.561) to 

secure the door in the open position, cockpit annunciation of the door position for taxi,

takeoff, and landing, and the doors will be frangible in the event that they should become

stuck in the closed position. Logic will be provided in the door annunciation system such 

that, if passenger(s) are located in the private lounge, the door to the hallway will be open 

for taxi, takeoff, and landing, and when there are no passengers in the private lounge this 

door will be closed. The master bedroom door will be placarded to be closed for taxi, 

takeoff, and landing, and this door will be frangible. The communication room door will 

be placarded to be closed for takeoff and landing, and this door should open in the 

direction that would be automatically closed by the evacuation flow.

Regulation 14 CFR 25.785(d)

Customers are buying airplanes because they wish to create a spacious and impressive 

atmosphere they are used to. The very wide body of the A340 satisfies these 

requirements. On the other hand, the requirement for firm handhold along the aisles 

cannot be met for certain areas in the passenger cabin due to the wide open spaces, 
5

specifically, the main Majlis and the dining/lounge room. On a typical “commercial” 

flight this requirement is met by the individual seat backs, which typically provide an 

adequate handhold for a passenger to stabilize themselves in the aisle during turbulence. 

In fact, due to the spaciousness of the interior, there is no readily identifiable “aisle” in 

the main Majlis and dining lounge. Any construction hanging from the ceiling would 

ruin the appearance of the high quality interior, is not acceptable to the customer, and may

add additional safety concerns.

It has been acknowledged by the FAA that the passengers on this type of airplane are 

typically the same people on most of the trips. Familiarity with the airplane layout and 

operation provides an addition benefit towards the level of safety.

Regulation 14 CFR 25.853(a)(1)

With the sudden growth in the VIP or executive transport airplane market together with

the simultaneous introduction of more stringent interior material flammability standards,

aircraft interior modifiers have been faced with a serious dilemma in resolving the styling

requirements of the private aircraft owner/operator of these executive aircraft and the

flammability requirements imposed by § 25.853. For the most part, modifiers have been

able to simultaneously satisfy both the styling and interior material flammability

requirements of § 25.853(a) and (c) with great effort and diligence; however, some of the 

materials required in these aircraft interiors cannot pass the 65/65 heat release

requirement of § 25.853(a)(1), no matter how diligent the designer is. It is not within the

grasp of current technology to make certain natural materials conform to these standards,

and the owners of these airplanes define, in fact demand, the use of these materials. It

should be understood that these aircraft must be outfitted in a style not unlike fine

executive board rooms or luxurious residences to satisfy their private users.

OCCUPANT SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:

14 CFR 25.785(h)(1)

The arrangement of the aircraft interior will provide that a majority of flight attendant 

seats will be oriented to face the passenger cabin. In the guest seating area, where a more 

traditional seating arrangement is used, the flight attendants will have a direct view of the 

cabin. Considering the smaller number of occupants in this aircraft, and the familiarity of 

the flight and cabin crews with the specific airplane, the passengers and the interior 

arrangement, and the wording of the existing rule that places the emphasis for safety on 

the proximity of the exit to the attendant 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.

14 CFR 25.813(e)
6

The risk for occupants due to the use of doors between passenger compartments should 

be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 All doors between passenger compartments will be frangible.

 The pocket doors installed between the aft lounge and the guest seating area will 

be placarded to be in the stowed position for taxi, takeoff, and landing.

 Mechanical pocket doors will be placarded to be open for taxi, takeoff, and 

landing, with the following exceptions: if passenger(s) are not located in the 

private lounge, the door to the passageway will be closed, and the pocket doors 

leading into the RH/LH aft lounges from the center passageway will be placarded 

to be closed during taxi, takeoff, and landing.

 The doors between passenger compartments will have dual means to retain them 

in the open position for taxi, takeoff, and landing, each of which will be capable 

of withstanding the inertia loads specified in § 25.561.

 The airplane will be operated under part 125 and will be not be operated for hire 

or offered for common carriage.

 The airplane flight manuals will provide procedures and limitations to ensure that 

the doors are in the proper position for taxi, takeoff, and landing.

14 CFR 25.785(d)

The risk for occupants due to the non-availability of direct handholds in certain areas of 

the airplane should be considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 All furniture in the passenger cabin has rounded corners and edges to avoid 

serious injury in case of turbulence.

 The installed seat and divans are heavily upholstered and will not cause injuries 

when contacted.

 In the main Majlis and dining lounge, occupants can use seat arms and seat backs 

to steady themselves in case of turbulence during flight. Tables and furniture are 

readily within reach with one or two steps.

 There will be a recommendation to passengers to remain seated with their seat 

belts fastened in case of turbulence during flight.

 Occupants are intimately familiar with the interior arrangement.

 The airplane will be operated under part 125 and will not be operated for hire or 

offered for common carriage.

14 CFR 25.853(a)(1)

The vast majority 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 prime

contributor to the rapid propagation of post-crash cabin interior fires and the generation of 

blinding smoke. Rapid fire propagation combined with the relatively slow rate of

passenger evacuation from densely packed air carrier airplanes has proven to be a deadly
7

combination during actual airline accidents. Since it is clear that material selection is 

being controlled by aesthetics in this application, we cannot exercise any real control over 

the actual heat release but the exposure time to this heat release is still within the

designer’s control. Therefore, it is proposed as a first step in mitigating the fire hazard 

that an evacuation analysis be performed to show that all souls on board can be safely

evacuated in less than 45 seconds. This would be possible because of excess emergency

exits for the airplane passenger capacity, smooth evacuation routes, and the small number 

of seats in the cabin. In addition, GDC will install fire detectors in the master bedroom, 

private lounge, and mid cabin lounge that would compensate for the potential for an 

increased in-flight fire threat.

PUBLIC INTEREST:

As in the cases of numerous already established exemptions, granting this petition for 

exemption would be clearly in the public interest for the following reasons:

 It allows efficient and safe carriage of Head of State and executives in the sought 

for environment that would otherwise not be possible.

 There is no degradation of safety involved with this request and, therefore, no 

detrimental impact to the public at large.

 Increased sales of these executive configured transport airplanes will ultimately

result in some portion of those airplanes being completed at US owned or 

operated aircraft completion facilities, providing improved financial performance 

and work force stability for those organizations as well.

 Improved financial performance of US owned or operated corporations, and 

increased work force stability translates into continued and improved tax revenue 

for all governmental organization involved.

 Improved financial performance allows US corporations to continue to invest in 

new R & D research, which will allow the US to maintain or improve its 

competitive position in the world economy.

 A large number of these types of sales can be predicted to be to “offshore” clients, 

improving the US balance of trade deficit.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

In accordance with 14 CFR 11.87, Gore Design Completions, ltd., requests that the period 

for public comment be waived because of numerous similar exemptions that have 

previously been granted.

Federal Register publication

A summary of this petition was not published in the Federal Register. The FAA determined that 

good cause existed for waiving the publication requirement because this exemption would not set 
8

a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Gore Design

Completions, Ltd.

The FAA’s analysis

The FAA considers that granting this petition is in the public interest for the reasons stated by the 

petitioner and because the FAA is directed to take into account the type of operation when 

establishing standards under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 44701(d)).

As more transport category airplanes have been configured (or re-configured) for private use, the 

FAA has given considerable attention to the issue of appropriate regulation of such airplanes. 

Some of the current regulations governing design certification of transport category airplanes are 

not compatible with private use of such airplanes. Because of this, we have received a number of 

petitions for exemption from certain regulations. We have granted such exemptions when we 

find that to do so is in the public interest and does not adversely affect the level of safety

provided by the regulations.

As a result of these previous exemptions, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation

109 (SFAR 109), Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes, which is

intended to alleviate the need for issuing exemptions from these requirements. In this case,

however, the airplane’s capacity exceeds the 60 passenger maximum limit set in SFAR 109; 

therefore, an exemption is needed.

Our analysis of this petition considered each of the following design features proposed by the 

petitioner:

1. Firm Handholds

We have considered the requirement for firm handholds in the context of private-use 

airplanes and have determined that it would be impractical for this type of operation and 

interior configuration.

2. Interior Doors

The placement of interior doors is clearly quite significant to the owner/operator of the 

airplane. The flexibility to partition the airplane into individual rooms, such as private 

meeting rooms or bedrooms, is paramount to an acceptable interior. The availability of 

private meeting rooms and bedrooms is essential. The FAA acknowledges the desirability of 

these features from the operator’s point of view.

When the regulations pertaining to interior doors were adopted, they did not consider 

“rooms.” They considered two possible types of interior doors in a passenger compartment. 

The first type is an interior door between passenger compartments. The second type is an 

interior door between an exit and the passenger compartment.
9

Until recently, only the first type of door was prohibited by § 25.813(e). However, part 25, as 

amended by Amendment 25-116, prohibits interior doors between the exit and the passenger 

compartment. In addition, Amendment 121-306 prohibits these doors in airplanes 

manufactured after November 27, 2006, operated under 14 CFR part 121. 

Amendments 25-116 and 121-306, titled Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes, were 

published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2004. Since Amendment 25-116 is not in 

the certification basis for the airplane and the airplane is not operated under part 121, the 

pocket door located between the forward exits and the passenger compartment is not subject 

to this exemption.

Airplanes configured for private-use, not-for-hire, not-for-common carriage typically use any

of five different categories of door in the passenger cabins:

Category 1. A door in a room and the room is less than the full width of the airplane. 

An aisle is outside the room. This type of room may be occupied during takeoff and 

landing, and only the occupants of the room must use the door to reach an exit.

Category 2. A door in a room and that is the same as Category 1, except a single 

emergency exit or pair of emergency exits is within the room.

Category 3. A door or doors in a compartment and the compartment is the full width of 

the airplane. Passengers are seated on both sides (fore and aft) of the door(s), and the 

main aisle leads out of, or passes through, the compartment. The compartment does not 

have emergency exits. This type of compartment may be occupied during takeoff and 

landing.

Category 4. A door in a room and the room is the full width of the airplane. Passengers 

are seated on both sides (fore and aft) of the door, and a pair of emergency exits is at one 

end of the room. This type of room may be occupied during takeoff and landing.

Category 5. A door in a room that may be the full width of the airplane. This type of 

room is not occupied during takeoff and landing. This room is only occupied during 

flight. Passengers are not seated on both sides of the door during taxi, takeoff, and 

landing. Passengers seated in taxi, takeoff, and landing seats must not need to pass 

through this door to get to any emergency exits.

Because not all interior doors between passenger compartments are equivalent, the FAA has 

determined that the following requirements will produce an adequate level of safety:

1. To maximize the level of safety, doors in Category 2, 3, or 4 installed across the main 

cabin aisle must open and close in a transverse direction. That is, the direction of 

motion of the door must be at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the airplane. A 

“pocket door” is one example of such a design. This will tend to minimize the chance 

that the inertia forces of an accident could force the door closed.
10

2. Redundant means are necessary to latch doors open for takeoff and landing. Each 

latching means must have the capability of retaining the door in the takeoff and 

landing position under the inertia forces of § 25.561.

3. Each interior door must be frangible, in the event that it is jammed in the closed 

position in flight or during taxi, takeoff, or landing. Frangibility is intended to ensure 

that if a door is jammed closed, occupants can escape in either direction and 

emergency equipment can be moved. Frangibility may be demonstrated in either of 

the following ways:

 A 5th percentile female can break through the door, creating a large enough 

opening that a 95th percentile (or larger) male can pass through. (See Advisory

Circular 25-17A, Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness 

Handbook, paragraph 43b(2)).

 A 5th percentile female can break a hinge on the door or a hinge on a smaller 

door within the door such that the door can swing, so as to allow a 95th 

percentile (or larger) male to pass through the opening with the door swung 

open. This evaluation must be made with any cabin furnishing or equipment 

installed that could limit the swing arc of the door and placed in the most 

adverse position. In using this approach, one must consider the possibility that 

the door is physically jammed in the closed position by distortion of the fuselage 

or furnishings. This possibility must be considered even if the door normally

translates into the open and closed positions.

4. Doors that fall into Category 1 must be in the open position during taxi, takeoff, and 

landing only when the room is occupied.

5. Doors that fall into Categories 2, 3, or 4 must be in the open position during taxi, 

takeoff, and landing, regardless of occupancy.

6. Doors that fall into Category 5 must be in the closed position during taxi, takeoff, and 

landing.

With respect to the possibility that a door remains closed when it should not be, we have 

determined that a higher level of awareness is required to address this issue. Due to the 

relative complexity of the cabin interior, we have determined that inspection by flight 

attendants prior to takeoff and landing is not sufficient to verify that interior doors are in a 

required open position. Consequently, some type of remote indication is considered 

necessary. The petitioner’s proposal to provide remote indication to the flightcrew is 

considered adequate.
11

3. Interior Materials

With respect to the flammability of interior materials, the petitioner has accurately

summarized the requirements. The petitioner correctly notes that the requirements are related 

to prolonging the time available for evacuation.

When the standards for heat release and smoke emissions of interior materials were 

developed, the FAA incorporated a discriminant based on passenger capacity. This approach 

was intended to address smaller airplanes where the ratio of exits to passengers is typically

quite good and the evacuation times are expected to be quite low. Under these conditions, 

the benefits of improved materials were expected to be negligible. The airplane type 

discussed in the petition was not envisioned by the rulemaking, insofar as the large size with 

low passenger count is concerned. We have considered the issue of the evacuation capability

of the airplane relative to the flammability of the materials, and find that some relief may be 

possible. However, the issue of flammability is not limited to post-crash scenarios; the 

in-flight fire threat must also be addressed. We note that the petitioner has not proposed an 

alternative to the heat-release and smoke-emissions standards, but rather an exemption from 

the requirement to assess the heat release and smoke emissions of certain materials.

Because the main benefit of improved interior materials is to lengthen the time available for 

evacuation, an arrangement that effectively provides the same evacuation capability would 

satisfy many of the concerns addressed by the requirement, albeit indirectly. The FAA has 

reviewed the full-scale, fire-test data used in developing the heat-release and 

smoke-emissions requirements, and also considered accident data relevant to this issue. This 

review is not complete, but it does suggest that a quantifiable improvement in evacuation 

capability could warrant a relaxation of the heat-release and smoke-emissions requirements.

The petitioner has proposed that an evacuation analysis be performed to show that all 

occupants, including crew, can be safely evacuated in less than 45 seconds. The FAA has 

determined that a 45-second evacuation time would provide an acceptable level of safety over 

that allowed by the regulation, and would allow a relaxation of the heat-release and 

smoke-emissions requirements. Precedents have been set for this decision and apply to other 

private-use airplanes.

The remaining issue of the in-flight fire scenario needs to be addressed as well. The major 

issue with respect to in-flight fires is timely recognition. On some airplanes, the interior 

includes isolated areas that do not lend themselves to timely detection of a fire. For the 

purposes of this exemption, an isolated passenger compartment is defined as a room that does 

not contain an egress path (e.g., main cabin aisle, cross aisle, or passageway), or is isolated by

a door. To address the in-flight case, the FAA believes that installing a smoke detector in 

such areas would compensate for the potential for an increased in-flight fire threat. 

Therefore, each isolated passenger compartment must incorporate a fire-detection system that 

meets the requirements of § 25.858. While this section is written for cargo-compartment 

fire-detection systems, the criteria contained therein are considered appropriate to this 

application.
12

4. Direct View

The petitioner has identified the requirement for flight attendant seats to be located to provide 

a direct view of the passenger cabin as not practical for compliance with the executive-type 

interior to be used on the Airbus Model A340-211 airplanes. The complexity of the interior 

arrangement, coupled with the need to retain proximity to emergency exits, is cited as the 

primary reason that compliance is impractical.

The FAA has considered the requirement for direct view in the context of private-use 

airplanes and agrees that much of the justification for the requirement is based on 

air-carrier-type operations. The practicality of locating flight attendant seats near emergency

exits so that there is a direct view of occupants inside the rooms is questionable, at best. In

this regard, we believe that some relief may be appropriate for airplanes intended for private 

use. However, we note that the justification for the requirement for direct view is not limited 

to observation of passengers who are not familiar with the interior. Flight attendant seats 

should be located so that a direct view is provided for the cabin area whenever practical. For 

example, flight attendant seats should not face away from the cabin. In those areas of the 

airplane where traditional seating arrangements are used, the FAA believes that a direct view 

should be provided.

In considering the need for direct view, the FAA agrees that the restricted nature of the 

operation of a private-use airplane mitigates much of the need. That is, the operator has 

control of, and can restrict the population of, passengers, unlike an air carrier. The risk of 

passengers engaging in hazardous or malicious activity is essentially eliminated, and the need 

for direct view is limited to those cases where a passenger might need assistance. We 

consider that this objective is met by requiring that a majority of flight attendant seats face 

the cabin.

5. Fire Extinguishers

The intent of the regulation as defined by § 25.851(a) is to ensure that there are a sufficient 

number and type of fire extinguishers available to address the kinds of fires likely to occur. 

Section 25.851 requires that the number of handheld fire extinguishers be proportionate to the

number of passengers. As with SFAR 109 “Special Requirements for Private Use Transport 

Category Airplanes,” this exemption would require the installation of a fire extinguisher for 

every pair of exits certified on the original type certificate, regardless of whether the exits are 

deactivated in the proposed configuration. This requirement is intended to maintain the 

currently established level of safety for large private-use airplanes by considering the size of 

the airplane as a factor in determining the number of handheld fire extinguishers rather than 

being only proportionate to the number of passengers. Since the assumption that the size of 

the airplane is proportional to the number of passengers onboard is inaccurate for an Airbus 

Model A340 airplane in private use, as such the standard method for determining the number 

of fire extinguishers is not adequate.
13

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. 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by

the Administrator, I grant the petition of Gore Design Completion, Ltd., for an exemption from 

14 CFR 25.785(d), 25.785(h)(1), 25.813(e), and 25.853(a)(1) to the extent necessary to allow 

installation of an executive interior on private, not-for-hire, not-for-common-carriage Airbus

Model A340-211 airplanes.

This exemption is subject to the following conditions, and limitation numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

must be documented in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual:

1. The airplane must not be operated for hire or offered for common carriage. This 

provision does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent 

consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, Subpart F, as applicable.

2. A majority of flight attendant seats must be oriented to face the passenger cabin.

3. Each door between passenger compartments must be frangible from both sides. A 

placard describing the frangibility procedure must be installed in a conspicuous location 

on both sides of the door.

4. Doors that fall into Category 1 must be latched in the open position during taxi, takeoff, 

and landing when the room is occupied. A placard requiring the door to be in the open 

position must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the door.

5. Doors that fall into Categories 2, 3, or 4 must be latched in the open position during taxi, 

takeoff, and landing, regardless of occupancy of the room. A placard requiring the door 

to be in the open position must be installed in a conspicuous position on both sides of the 

door.

6. Doors that fall into Category 5 must be latched in the closed position during taxi, takeoff, 

and landing. A placard requiring the door to be in the closed position must be installed in 

a conspicuous position on both sides of the door.

7. Appropriate procedures must be established to both signal the flightcrew in the event a 

door between passenger compartments is not in the proper position, and prohibit taxi, 

takeoff, or landing. Doors in Category 5 do not need to comply with this requirement. 

For Category 5 doors, placards located on or near the door, and indicating that the door 

must be closed for takeoff and landing, is acceptable.

8. Doors between passenger compartments must have dual means to retain them in the open 

position. Each means must be capable of withstanding the inertia loads specified in 

§ 25.561. Doors in Category 5 do not need to comply with this requirement because they

are required to be closed for takeoff and landing.
14

9. When materials are installed that do not comply with the requirements of appendix F, 

parts IV and V, it must be shown that the passengers and crewmembers can be evacuated 

in 45 seconds or less, under the conditions described in part 25, appendix J.

10. A means to signal the flightcrew, which meets the requirements of § 25.858(a) through 

(d), must be in place in the event of a fire in an isolated passenger compartment.

11. The number of hand-held fire extinguishers installed in the passenger cabin must be the 

greater of (1) that provided in accordance with the requirements of § 25.851, or (2) a

number equal to the number of originally type certificated exit pairs, regardless of 

whether the exits are deactivated for the proposed configuration. Extinguishers must be 

evenly distributed throughout the cabin.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 23, 2011.

/s/

John Piccola

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service