Exemption No. 9779B

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADl\IINISTRATION

RENTON, WASHINGTON 98057-3356

In the matter of the petition of

THE BOEING COMPANY

for exemption from §§ 25.7850), 25.857(e),

and 25.1447(c)(I) of Title 14, Code ofFederal

Regulations

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0323

DENTAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated March 8, 2010, Jordan B. Zundell, Lead Project Administrator, Production and

Retrofit Projects, The Boeing Company, PO Box 3707, Seattle" Washington, 98124-2207,

petitioned for an amendment to Exemption No. 9779A. The proposed amended exemption, if

granted, would allow the installation of a locking feature on the access doors between the

supernumerary seating area and the Class E cargo compartment on Boeing Model 777F

airplanes. It would also alia\\'- in~flight access from the supernumerary seating area into the

Class E cargo compartment during night for the purpose of attending to cargo types requiring

care or inspection, or both (e.g., live animals and/or hazardous materials).

The petitioner requests relief from the following re~ulations:

Section 25.857(e), at Amendment 25~93, requires, in p~rtinent part, that when a Class E cargo

compartment is installed on the airplane, the airplane is used for carriage of cargo only.

Related regulations:

Section 12l.S83(a) contains, in pertinent part, a listing of categories of persons who may be

carried aboard an airplane in part 121 service without complying with all the requirements of

part 121 pertaining to carriage of passengers.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

This section quotes the relevant information tram the ~etitioner's request, with editorial changes

for consistency and clarity. The complete petition is allailable at the Department of

Transportation's Federal Docket Management System, on the Internet at http://regulations.gov,

in Docket No. FAA~2007-0323.
Revision ofthe Exemption [9779AJ is requested to include changes affecting

supernumerary access to the Class E cargo compartment during flight. Exemption

9779A, as written, does 110taddress the effects of 10,ckableRigid Cargo SalTier Access

Doors or the conditions required to permit access to the cargo compartment when such

devices are installed on the airplane.

Existing Excmption 9779A allows, in part, access t6 the main deck cargo compartment

during flight. Up to eleven (11) supernumeraries can be inside the compartment provided

live animals needing their care/attention are being c,arried. If only regular cargo is being

carried, the exemption limits the number to three (3) [supemumeraries]. Any person

entering the compartment must take a portable oxygen bottle (with full face mask) with

them.

When Boeing originally petitioned the FAA, an optional airplane configuration (currently

limited to one customer) was not described, that includes a lock feature added to the rigid

cargo barrier (RCB) access doors that separate the ~upernumerary area and the Class E

cargo compartment. The customer required the locfable doors in order to preclude a

potentially harmful stowaway inside the cargo compartment from gaining access to the

flightdeck. It is an airplane security issue with this birline. As such, the sliding access

doors can only be either locked or unlocked from the forward side of the RCB. The

supernumerary seating area is immediately forwardlofthe ReB, and the flightdeck is

forward of that.

This request for an amendment to Exemption 9779A is not regulation specific. When the

Exemption was developed prior to certification of the first 777F airplane, a lock on both

RCS doors and access to the Class E cargo compartment by supernumerary personnel

was not envisioned. Consequently, further review, bonsideration, design solutions, and

limitations are required to ensure safety of the supefnumerary personnel.

SuppOlting lnfonnation:

The addition of a lock to the cargo access doors serres to address contractual obligations

between the airline operator and its pilots' union. TIle lock is added to address pilot

concerns regarding the potential for stowaways to apcess the supernumerary compartment

and flightdeck from the cargo compartment when np lock is in place.

The intended operations would be for the access doors to be locked at all times unless the

cargo compartment is occupied. There is past precedence where locks have been added

to cargo access doors (MD~10, MD-Il, 767, 747, a?d 777F). In general, the primary

difference in these designs is that access to the cargp areas is prohibited during taxi, takeoff, flight and landing. Flight Manual instructions and placards installed in those

configurations prohibit access to the Class E cargo ?ompartments during those phases of

flight. One significant difference in this statement j'sin regard to an MD-l I configuration

that was developed and certified for UPS, which in¢luded a lock all the RCB access door

and also allowed access to the cargo compartment.

2
A safety concern has been identified concerning supernumerary entrapment. Personnel

could be inadvertently entrapped in the Class E cargo compartment if a crewmember or

other supernumerary were to lock the door because they did not know the compartment

was occupied, or, if they locked the door out ofbabit.

Discussion regardiug risk of entrapment

A functional hazard assessment has been completed! to assess and categorize specific

hazard scenarios associated \\lith the locking RCB access doors.

Justification for amendment to exemption

To provide an acceptable level of safety that addres,;;esthe concern of entrapping an

individual in the Class E cargo compartment, additional precautions will be implemented.

Flightcrew and supernumerary communication protocols will be improved. The

supernumeraries will be required to announce their intent to enter the Class E cargo

compartment To ensure all personnel on the airplane are awme that personnel will be in

the Class E cargo compartment, the flightcrew will be notified prior to entry. In the case

where multiple supernumeraries are on the airplanel a "buddy" system may be employed

where each supernumerary can be paired with a bU9dy and will be responsible to be

aware oftheir buddy's whereabouts. Prior to entry into the cargo compartment, if there is

one or more supernumeraries remaining in the supeh1Umerary compartment, at least one

of the remaining supernumeraries will be designated to ensure the access doors remain

unlocked. Lastly, the f1ightcrew must be advised when all personnel have exited the

Class E cargo compartment.

Flightcrew and supernumerary communications bet\veen the Class E cargo compartment

and flightdeck will also be improved through techn6logy.

I

1. Two new Cargo Assist push button switches will be installed aft of and within six feet

(2 to 3 [Tames) of the Rigid Cargo Barrier Doors. Tpe cargo assIst push button switches

will be located within the left and right sidewall lim~rs

2. Th, '"'go assist alening system will pmvide an fuca I annunciation", well as a visual

indication on the flightdeck in order to raise awareness of the flightcrew regarding the

need for assistance in the cargo compartment.

Public interest

The demand for shipment of goods by air cargd continues to grow worldwide. The 777F

freighter airplane is being built to support this ihcreasing demand in a manner that is very

economical to air cargo operators. The 777F c6nfiguration provides main deck cabin

seating for supemumeraries (who must meet th~ criteria defined in §§ 121.583(a)(1)

through (a)(7)). Having necessary supernurnerJries inunediately available for cargo

handling and management reduces operational basts by not having supernumeraries take

separate commercial f1ights to the cargo destinJtion, which also reduces the turn-around

I

-,"
time for the cargo carrier. Granting access to the cargo compartment eliminates certain

limitations for the operators when transporting hazardous materials or live animals. This

serves the overall public interest by virtue of the net cost savings for cargo shipment,

resulting in lower costs for goods and material transported as air cargo, as ultimately

reflected in lower consumer costs for goods transported as air cargo.

The addition of a locking feature on the RCB doors safeguards the llightcrew and

supernumerary areas against potential intrusion. Though this feature is not intended for,

or qualified as a security item, the introduction of such a featrne could serve the overall

public interest by virtue of an enhanced security benefit.

Federal Register publication

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 20 I0

(75 FR 15771). The FAA did not receive any comments.

The FAA's analysis

The originaJ version of this exemption aHowed access into the Class E cargo compartment during

flight for three types of operation. In this petition to amend the exemption, the petitioner

requested that the FAA continue to grant access to the Class E cargo compartment in flight, and,

in addition, allow the installation of a lock on both of the access doors to the cargo compartment.

The stated reason for requesting permission to install the locks is to address contractual

obligations between an airline operator and their pilots' union. The lock is intended to address

the union's concern regarding the potential for stowaways to access the supernumerary

compartment from the cargo compartment and then the flightdeck. While the FAA recognizes

the importance of contractual obligations between the airline operator and its pilots' union, our

focus is on the safety aspect of the proposal. Per our request, Boeing made several attempts to

have the operator engage in discussions to explore alternatives to the locking feature. We were

told that the operator preferred to have Boeing discuss:the issue with us. Recognizing the safety

concern of the proposed design we explored alternative design features with Boeing but were

unsuccessful in identifying an acceptable alternative.

tn analyzing this request we weighed the harmfuJ stowaway issue against the possibility of

accidentally locking an occupant in the Class E cargo compartment. We have carefully reviewed

the position of the petitioner and determined that the potential negative ramifications on

supernumeraries locked in the cargo compartment far outweigh the potential gain in security.

Below is a discussion on how we arrived at this decision.

The issue of a secure door to protect the flightdeck on cargo airplanes was discussed in the

FAA's final rule, request for comment, Security Considerations in the Design o/the Flightdeek

on Transport CategolY Airplanes, Amendment No. 25-106, Docket FAA-200 1-11032

(67 FR 2118, January IS, 2002). We received several comments during the public comment

period and after considcrable discussion determined that if an operator has an approved

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security program a locking door is not needed. At

that time, we stated lhat improvements in security are rtecessary for all-cargo operations that

I

4
permit the carriage of persons, whether on the flightdeck or aft of it. As such, the FAA issued

the final nile for Flightdeek Security 0/7 Large Cargo Airplanes, Amendment Nos. 12]-299 and

129-38, Docket FAA-2003-15653 (68 FR 42882, July 18,2003). We also stated that we did not

intend to pursue any additional rulemaking regarding this issue.

The petitioner stated that this amended exemption was necessary because of a security issue

raised by the pilots' union ",ith one operator. Its purpose is to preclude a stowaway in the cargo

compartment fTom gaining access to the supernumerary compartment and then to the flightdeck.

The operator in question has an approved security program that is designed to prevent, among

other things, a potentially harmful stowaway from gaining access to the airplane. The TSA has

implemented a broad Air Cargo Strategic Plan that employs a layered approach to security

critical elements of the entire air cargo supply chain. The plan incorporates a threat-based risk

management approach to ensure that all cargo deemed high risk is inspected. It focuses on

strategies to secure air cargo perimeters, facilities, equipment, and personnel who have access to

cargo or cargo aircraft. For security reasons we will not go into further details of this approved

program. However, each operator of an all-cargo airplane is required to maintain such a

program, and nothing in the petition explains why this particular operator is in a situation that

requires an additional security feature. In fact, this Model 777-200F is but a small percentage of

the operator's fleet. We are not aware of the locking door being an issue with this union and the

other models in the operator's fleet.

With respect to the proposed additional security feature, the FAA notes that the benefit that is

gained when the cargo compartment access doors are closed and locked is immediately lost as

soon as either access door is opened by a supernumerary entering the cargo compartment to tend

to the cargo. Any stowaway hidden in the cargo compartment could then immediately rush

through the unlocked door. Further, the FAA notes that the security that is gained when the

cargo compartment access doors are closed and locked is of indeterminate value, since there are

no standards for resistance to forcible intrusion or ballistic penetration for these doors or cargo

smoke barriers, as compared to flightdeck doors on passenger airplanes (see: § 25.795(3)(1) and

(2)). The petitioner did not propose to require similar or identical design standards for the cargo

compartment access doors. Finally, if a person or pcrsbns can stowaway undetected in the cargo

compartment, it is reasonable to believe that they would have resources at their disposal to

counter a locked door.

After determining that the locking feature on the access door is, at best, of minimal value in

addressing the proposed security threat, we analyzed what the likelihood and impact of a locking

feature on the access door ·would have with regard to an occupant accidentally being locked in

the Class E cargo compartment.

First, we analyzed the current cargo fleet to determine to what extent the combination of a

locking feature on the access door and concurrent approved access into the Class E cargo

compartment is used. The petitioner did acknowledge that, with one exception, the addition of a

locking feature on the access door to the Class E cargo compartment was only for designs where

in-flight access to the Class E cargo compartment was specifically prohibited. We agree that

there is one configuration for the MD-Il identified by the petitioner which is an exception to

cargo fleet operations and the current level of safety allowed by various FAA-issued exemptions.

5
In the case of the MD-l1, however, we note that the exemption itself (No. 6753, Partial Grantof

Exemption, issued April 21, 1998) does not authorize a lock and specifically prohibits access

into the Class E cargo comparhnent during all phases offlighl. In 2001 the FAA approved a

design change for tllis one MD-l1 that permitted access into the Class E cargo compartment, but

this design change was approved in error because it conflicts with the limitation included in

Exemption No. 6753. We wi! I re-examine this approval and determine if corrective action is

appropriate. For airplanes where in-flight access into tbe Class E cargo compartment is

prohibited, we will continue to allow a locking feature.

Second, we evaluated what the potential safety impact of the proposed locking feature would be.

Under the current regulations, an exemption is needed for a cargo airplane to have additional

occupants (supernumeraries) other than crew and, separately, for those individuals to have access

to the Class E cargo compartment Allo\ving supernumeraries in-flight access to Class E cargo

compartments does not provide a level of safety equal to that provided when access is not

allowed, i.e., the level of safety is reduced. We have mitigated the increased risk by requiring

additional equipment, alerts, and procedures, which provide an acceptable level of safety for

persons in the categories listed in § 121.583(a).

The addition of a lock on each of the cargo access doors has the potential of trapping one or

more supernumeraries in the cargo compartment if the doors were to become locked for any

reason. The doors are not capable of being unlocked from the cargo compartment side of the

door. Additionally, because there are no cargo loading instructions which would establish clear

crossover paths in the cargo compartment, it is possible that a supernumerary entering the

compartment from One door could not exit through the :other door, even if it were unlocked.

As means to mitigate the increased tisk to supernumerq.ries in the cargo compartment during

flight, the petitioner offered the following:

1. Having the supernumeraries who would enter the cargo compartment announce their

intent to the flightcrew and other supernumeraries and installing a placard to remind

supernumeraries to do so.

2. Having the supernumerary entering the cargo C0mpartment designate another

supernumerary (if present) to ensure the door locks remain unlocked.

3. Installing placards to advise that the doors should remain unlocked if persons are inside

the cargo compartment.

4. Installing placards on how to lock and unlock d\e doors.

5. Installing a "cargo assist" system that includes an activation switch on the cargo

compartment side near each access door, which would sound an aural annunciation and

light an indicator in the .t1ightdeck.

The FAA notes that there is no device or system on the: airplane to determine whether or not a

supernumerary is in the cargo compartment or through which door he or she entered the

compartment. Also, relying on a sLlpernumerary to remember another supernumerary saying

they were going into the c-argo compartment, which mJy have been made an hour or more ago, is

not an infallible system. Finally, since the intent ofthd locks on the doors is to keep the doors

locked as much as possible, the tendency for the supenrumeraries would be to lock each door

6
Issued in Renton. Washington, on

Therefore, we do not agree that all risk of inadvertently locking the door would be mitigated by

the proposed placard and procedures. As for the cargo assist system, we agree that this should

provide a clear indication to the flightcrew. However, such indication may come at a time when

the flightcrew is extremely busy addressing major flight issues. This would significantly delay

the crew's ability to effect action to unlock the appropriate access door and release the trapped

supernumerary.

Therefore, the FAA's assessment is that the negligible increase in security does not offset the

increased risk for supernumeraries if they are allowed to enter the cargo compartment in flight

when locks are installed on the access doors.

The FAA's decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is not 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 deny the petition of The Boeing Company to amend Exemption No.

9779A to allow the installation of the proposed locking feature on the access doors between the

supernumerary seating area and the Class E cargo compartment on Boeing Model 777F airplanes

if access into the Class E cargo compartment is allowed during flight.

AU conditions and provisions of Exemption Nos. 9779 and 9779A remain in effect.

J

\-., ,. n lO- JI'. j 1I ••!Jill

,~aTodd Dixon

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

7