AFS

- 14

- 294

- E Exemption No. 11054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

BOM BARDIER AEROSPACE Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 14

- 0327

for an exemption from § 135.152 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated May 15, 2014, John K otnjek, Manager, Airworthniness, Bombardier Aerospace , 400 Cote

- Vertu Road West, Dorval, Quebec, Canada, H4S 1Y9, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Bombardier Aerospace ( Bombardier ), for an exemption from § 135.152, Appendix F, parameter No. 5 (Normal Acceleration (Vertical))

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow U.S. operators of certain CL

- 600

- 2B16 aircraft to opera te those aircraft without complying with the recording rate required by Appendix F for that parameter. While the petition requests relief from Appendix F requirements, relief is actually required from §135.152 , which requires compliance with Appendix F. T he FAA has considered the petition as requesting relief from

those requirements.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation :

Section 135.152 prescribes, in pertinent part, that e xcept as provided in paragraph (k) of th at section, no per son may operate under part 135 a multi

- engine, turbine

- engine powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats, that was either brought onto the U.S. register after, or was

r egistered outside the United States and added to the operator's U.S. operations specifications after, October 11, 1991, unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium.2

All of the airplanes identified in Appendix A to the petition were manufactured after August 18, 2000, making the airplanes subject specifically to § 135.152(i) (1) , or after August 19, 2002, making those airplanes subject to §135.152(j).

Section 135.152(i)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that , f or all turbine

- engine powered airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30 passenger seats, manufacture d after August 18, 2000 , t he parameters listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(57) of th e section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix F to part 135.

Section 135.152(j) presc ribes, in pertinent part, that f or all turbine

- engine powered airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30 passenger seats, manufactured after August 19, 2002

, the parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(88) of the section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix F to part 135.

Appendix F to Part 135 prescribes that t he recorded values must meet the designated range,

resolution and acc uracy requirements provided in the Appendix during static and dynamic conditions. Dynamic condition means the parameter is experiencing change at the maximum rate attainable, including the maximum rate of reversal. All data recorded must be correlated

in t ime to within one second. Parameter 5, Normal Acceleration (Vertical) requires a sampling interval of 0.0125, or 8 times per second. Airplanes subject to §135.152(i) or (j) have the same recording requirement for parameter 5.

The petitioner supports it s request with the following information:

The petitioner states that, upon learning of a potential issue with the sampling rate of one of the parameters for its CL

- 604 aircraft operated under Part 135, Bombardier conducted an

internal review that revealed a non-compliance with a single sampling rate. Specifically, Bombardier found that although the normal acceleration sampling rate is recorded by the FDR at the required rate of 0.125 seconds (8 times per second), the source data is only provided at a

rate o f 0.2 seconds per sampling (5 times per second). Bombardier states the data can be correlated to match the sampling requirement without compromising the information recorded and that it is the only parameter found to be affected. Upon completion of its inv estigation, Bombardier began working on a solution with the manufacturer of the equipment, Rockwell

Collins.

Bombardier states that it is fully aware that Part 135 applies to aircraft operators, not manufacturers and that the FAA does not typically grant exemptions to manufacturers for operational requirements. Bombardier also references a specific exemption granted to operators of certain Airbus airplanes (Exemption 10611(a)) and suggest that its circumstances are similar enough to warrant a grant of exe mption to Bombardier. Bombardier states that it is committed to providing a comprehensive solution for its U.S. customers, including3

publication of a Service Bulletin for operators to use to replace the Data Concentrator Unit (DCU) in order to meet the s ampling requirements.

Bombardier requests that the FAA waive publication of its petition in the Federal Register because the exemption applies to a limited number of their aircraft, would not a set a precedent if granted, and because a delay in acting wou ld “unnecessarily delay

i mplementation of the solution for Affected US Operators.”

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, if gran ted, would not set a precedent. The FAA does not accept Bombardier’s reasoning that the number of airplanes affected determines whether a request for exemption needs to be published in the Federal Register

. Nor does the FAA consider publication to be the cause of a delay in accomplishing a f i x that is totally in the control of the manufacturer regardless of the FAA’s decision on a petition for exemption.

Although s imilar in nature, the present petition of Bombardier and the referenced Airbus petition di ffer significantly in scope. Both manufacturers identified a problem meeting the recording requirements of a single parameter and both showed that the required data c ould be sufficiently ascertained using extrapolation of other recorded data in the event the need arose.

Each manufacturer stated its intent to publish a service bulletin that would correct the deficiency and bring th e affected aircraft into compliance with applicable regulations. Such

similariti es are common to many flight recorder exemptio n requests, but there are significant

differences between the subject petition and the Airbus grant referenced

.

Airbus identified 345 aircraft operated under 14 CFR part 121 regulations by 13 operators , all

of which were directly affected by the conditi on described in its petition

. All 13 U.S. operators and all 345 affected aircraft required exemption from certain part 121 rules in order to continue operation

. Bombardier , by contrast, has identified 31 aircraft of U.S. registry that

are affected and th at may be operated under part 135 , but may also be operated under part 91

rules . The actual number of aircraft being operated under part 135 was not ascertained by the petitioner, nor was the number of U.S. operators. Unlike the Airbus situation, the FAA has no way of knowing how many part 135 operators may need relief, nor how many Bombardier

air craft are involved.

The particular Bombardier aircraft affected may be, as stated by the petitioner, operated under part 91; such aircraft have different flig ht recorder requirements and would not need a part 135 exemption nor would they be eligible to receive one. An exemption granted to the aircraft, as the Airbus exemption was, would seriously confuse that issue and prese nt a larger

burden on the FAA. Both of these circumstances were relieved by the format of the Airbus exemption, not caused by it as it would be here. The Airbus format exemption placed a more significant burden on the principal inspectors of the affected operators, which was balanced by

the FAA’s need to process and oversee 13 exemptions affecting hundreds of daily flights and4

thousands of passengers. It was a decision by the FAA to use a different process based on the circumstances. It is not to be considered an option that a petitioner m ay request in every instance, especially when the number of aircraft and affected operators are not presented.

Further, Bombardier included in its petition a request that the exemptions be transferable between operators, since the aircraft are often swap ped between part 135 operators, or presumably, between a part 91 operator and a part 135 operator because the aircraft is qualified to operate under either part. The FAA rarely grants transferable exemptions. We

w ould not allow transferability in these c ircumstances even if requested by an individual operator. The swapping of aircraft between operators is a safety issue , a significant burden on the agency , and serves no purpose other than as a convenient business practice for some
operators. If an opera tor acquires a new aircraft, it may apply for relief.

While we appreciate the effort of Bombardier to notify the FAA of a discovered noncompliance and to begin seeking relief for its operators, we do not find the circumstances

warrant relief in the form requested. We suggest that Bombardier notify the operators of the

affected aircraft of the flight recordation deficiency and l end necessary technical support (as detailed in its petition) to those operators in applying for individual exemptions. The FAA

will consider e xemptions from part 135 operators that require relief for affected aircraft that

are on their op erations spec ifications . We will not consider exemptions for aircraft operated

under Part 91

. In no case will we allow exemptions that are tra nsferable between Part 135 operators, or between Part 91 and Part 135 operations by the same operator.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursua nt to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113

and 44701 delegated to me by the Administrato r, the petition of Bombardier Aerospace for an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.152 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on September 12, 2014

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service

.