1 

## Petition for Exemption

Name and Address of the Petitioner

Bombardier Inc 200 Cote-Vertu Road West Dorval, Quebec H4S 2A3 Attention: Mike Gillis (mike.gillis@aero.bombardier.com) Section of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that is Affected Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, Bombardier Inc requests an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 25.813(e) at Amdt 25-128. The following is the text of the relevant airworthiness standard: (e) No door may be installed between any passenger seat that is occupiable for takeoff and landing and any passenger emergency exit, such that the door crosses any egress path (including aisles, cross aisles and passageways). Extent of Relief Being Sought The airworthiness standard prohibits installation of a door between any seat that can be occupied by a passenger during takeoff and landing and any emergency exit that is intended for use by passengers. Bombardier Inc requests an exemption to allow for the installation of one or more doors between passenger seats and passenger emergency exits on Global 7000 (BD-700-2B12) and Global 8000 (BD-700-2B13) aircraft. Furthermore, Bombardier Inc requests that the conditions of the exemption not include any limitation on the kinds of operations for which the aircraft are approved. Description of the Issue The Bombardier Global 7000 and 8000 are ultra long-range business jets for which a door separating the passenger cabin from the entry area (ie galley and crew rest compartment) and doors that separate passenger compartments are considered essential. Cabin doors provide crew members and passengers with a means to prevent disruptions from obtrusive noise or light2

as well as privacy while performing duties (eg preparing a meal in the galley), dining, resting, entertaining, working or simply relaxing. The Bombardier Global 7000 and 8000 will have a maximum approved passenger seating capacity (MAPSC) of 19, although it is anticipated that many individual airplanes will have a lower MAPSC that is based on the number of seating positions which are approved for use during takeoff and landing. The following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exemptions are considered relevant to this request since the concepts / conditions discussed provide insight into the latest positions of the regulatory authorities on the subject of cabin doors:

x FAA Exemption number 9813, 30 January 2009 This partial grant of exemption is applicable to the Falcon 2000 and 2000EX and allows for installation of doors that separate the passenger compartment. The certification basis of the Falcon 2000 and 2000EX does not include Amendment 25-116. The exemption includes a limitation on the kinds of operations for which the aircraft is approved. This exemption is representative of several exemptions that have been granted in the past by the FAA to allow for installation of a mid cabin door on the condition that the aircraft be limited to private use operations only (ie not for hire or common carriage).

x FAA Exemption number 10188, 27 December 2010 This grant of exemption is applicable to the Gulfstream 650 and allows for installation of doors that separate the passenger cabin from the main entry door. The certification basis of the Gulfstream 650 includes Amendment 25-116. The exemption does not include a limitation on the kinds of operations for which the aircraft is approved (ie may be operated for hire or common carriage).

x FAA Exemption number 10781, 30 May 2013 This grant of exemption is applicable to the Boeing 747-8 and allows for installation of doors that separate passengers seated inside “mini-suites” from the remainder of the passenger compartment and the emergency exits. The certification basis of the Boeing 747-8 includes Amendment 25-116. The exemption does not include a limitation on the kinds of operations for which the aircraft is approved (ie may be operated for hire or common carriage).3

This exemption is based on equivalent level of safety (ELOS) finding PS05-0272-C-1 which is applicable to installation of “mini-suites” on Boeing 777 aircraft; the certification basis of the Boeing 777 does not include Amendment 25-116. In the past, exemptions granted by the FAA (eg exemption number 9813), have limited airplanes with doors between passenger compartments to operations that are not for hire or that do not involve common carriage. The inclusion of such a limitation addresses concerns that the public, as opposed to the private individuals who own the aircraft, could be at risk due to inability to recognize the location of an emergency exit and the possibility that the egress path could be obstructed by one or more doors. Notwithstanding, Bombardier is of the opinion that the risk to the public and concerns related to recognition of the exit path are mitigated in the case of purpose-built business jets such as the Global 7000 and Global 8000 for the following reasons:

x Risk to Public Previous exemptions issued by Transport Canada have allowed BD-700-1A10 Global Express and BD-700-1A11 Global 5000 to be equipped with mid cabin doors and operated for the purpose of private operator passenger transportation per CAR 604 or on-demand air transport service per CAR 704. It is Bombardier’s view that it is impractical to regulate the kinds of passengers who will fly aboard business jets by way of a limitation on the kinds of operation for which an aircraft is approved. The position taken by Transport Canada in previous exemptions is consistent with this view. Also, notwithstanding the fact that customers choose business aviation for a variety of reasons including cabin features and amenities not available on airliners, the Transport Canada position is aligned with the public’s expectation that industry and airworthiness authorities work together to ensure an acceptable level of safety for all passengers, regardless of the circumstances by which those passengers find themselves onboard the aircraft. A factor that should be acknowledged is the degree to which on-demand commercial operations are integrated with private operations. Flight departments may use chartered aircraft for supplemental lift when their own aircraft are unavailable or ill suited to a particular itinerary. In cases where a flight department with its own aircraft charters a commercial operator to fulfill one or many itineraries, the passengers will likely have no foreknowledge of the arrangement and most probably will not be able to differentiate between the two types of operations as long as they perceive that the standard of care (eg safety briefings, courtesy4

of flight crew, cabin services, etc) is at the expected level, particularly in the case of an infrequent flyer who is not familiar with the flight department’s own personnel. Also, it must be recognized that many “charter” flights are conducted as a charter for fiscal reasons only (eg advantageous tax treatment); in these cases the aircraft owner maintains full operational control but there are cost recovery mechanisms in place to ensure that a transaction occurs for accounting purposes. Simply stated, from the passenger’s point of view there may be no appreciable difference between a flight that is conducted as a private operation and one that is conducted as a charter; passengers themselves are likely to have little knowledge or care in this regard (aside perhaps from cases where there are tax implications). While air operator certificate holders hold their services out to the public and cannot be expected to turn away business from parties that are “naïve” to business aviation, the fact of the matter is that any person or company that hires such an operator is in fact looking for the flexibility, privacy and amenities of their own private business jet; this will always represent a relatively small fraction of the flying public so it should be obvious that the flying public as a whole would not be put at risk if this exemption is granted. In addition, it is considered noteworthy that 14 CFR Part 135 prohibits the installation of a door between passenger compartments only in the case of aircraft that have a passenger seating configuration of more than 19 seats (section 135.178) and that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking number 96-9 amended the 14 CFR Part 121 requirements only. Notwithstanding the issue of private versus public transport, it is Bombardier’s expectation that the proposed conditions of an exemption result in a level of safety that is, at minimum, consistent with the intent of 14 CFR Part 25 so in fact there should be no adverse effect on safety for any person who boards an aircraft that features internal doors. In granting exemptions 10188 and 10781 it is Bombardier’s view that the FAA has acknowledged that there are design features which can be incorporated into the cabin door system to provide an acceptable level of safety and that the kind of operations for which the aircraft is approved are irrelevant.

x Recognition of Emergency Exit Location FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) number 96-9 includes the following statement regarding solid doors that divided first class and tourist class cabins:5

... It was determined in the course of accident investigations that this door could be detrimental in evacuation of passengers, who tended not to recognize that there was an exit beyond the door, even if it were the closest available... The NPRM does not specify whether the doors were open or closed during evacuation of passengers (availability of accident investigation reports from this era is limited), however it is unclear how an open door could have had a detrimental effect on evacuation. It is Bombardier’s view that concerns related to recognition of emergency exit location have largely ignored the fact that in this regard there is no difference between a door and a curtain; that a curtain is allowed to be installed in a partition that separates a passenger seat from an emergency exit implies that emergency exit signs, pre-flight briefings, passenger briefing cards, etc are adequate means of informing passengers of the locations of emergency exits regardless of whether or not a door is installed. It is noteworthy that in the case of a curtain, including one that is installed inside a sliding frame (reference FAA Advisory Circular 25-17A paragraph 419b(18)), there is no requirement to provide indication to the flight crew when the curtain is not configured properly for takeoff and landing.

NOTE Bombardier recognizes that some aircraft outfitted with executive interiors are wide enough to be configured with a partition and door that separates the main aisle from a comparatively large compartment that is not the full width of the cabin (ie Category 1 door). In such instances, while there is no difference between a curtain and a door, it is acknowledged that there is a possibility that an occupant will mistakenly enter the compartment during emergency egress to search for a nonexistent emergency exit and that this could have a tragic outcome. Given the width of the Global 7000 and 8000 fuselage, there will be limited mobility inside any such compartment (eg the size and configuration of a crew rest area is comparable to a “mini-suite” in many regards) and it is apparent that passengers egress along the main passenger aisle will not be adversely affected by the presence of a door / opening. It is concluded that in this regard, the installation of a door does not have an adverse effect on safety; furthermore, providing flight crew awareness when a door is not configured6

properly for takeoff and landing has a positive effect on safety compared to a curtain for which there is no such requirement. Factors Supporting the Petition The level of safety associated with cabin doors was enhanced at Amdt 25-116 which prohibits a door from being installed between a passenger seat and emergency exit. Based on extensive experience with the design and testing of cabin doors, it is Bombardier’s view that the level of safety for cabin doors installed by exemption to 14 CFR 25.813(e) can be enhanced by refining the applicable conditions. The following is a discussion of requirements included in SFAR 109 and previous exemptions that may be appropriate for airplanes operated under 14 CFR Part 91 but that in Bombardier’s view can be improved upon:

x Frangible Door / Emergency Passage Feature (EPF) The following is an example of criteria used in the past to assess acceptability of door frangibility (reference FAA Grant of Exemption number 9676): A 5th percentile female can break a hinge on the door, or a hinge on a smaller door within the door, so that the door can swing enough to allow a 95th (or larger) percentile male to pass through the opening with the door swung open. This evaluation must be made with any cabin furnishing or equipment that could limit the swing arc of the door installed and then 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. It is noteworthy that only the case of the door being jammed in the closed position need be considered in evaluation of frangibility; by ensuring that cabin furnishings are installed outside the swing arc of the door it would be possible for the door to be comprised of a single panel that would not break if the hinge were rendered ineffective if, for example, the door is partially stowed in the pocket. Bombardier proposes that likely failures of the door mechanisms be considered when evaluating frangible door design or the effectiveness of an EPF. In the case of a pocket door, the evaluation should also consider the case of a door that is partially stowed.7

x Dual Means to Retain Door in Open Position In some cases a secondary latch mechanism is installed that requires a separate action to secure the door after it has been opened and there is no flight crew indication as to whether or not the secondary latch has been properly configured for takeoff and landing. In such cases, the use of a placard that instructs occupants on the proper means to secure the cabin door has been considered acceptable. Bombardier proposes that any means used to retain a door in the open position engage the door automatically so that a separate (additional) action is not required to secure the door once it has been opened.

x Procedures / Limitations to Prevent Takeoff or Landing with Door Closed Previously approved designs have included a means to warn the flight crew when doors are not opened for takeoff and landing as well as procedures or limitations that prohibit takeoff and landing when the door is closed. A means to open the door(s) from the pilot stations has not been required. Bombardier proposes that in addition to a means to warn the flight crew when one or more doors is not open for takeoff and landing, a means should be provided for the flight crew to open the door(s) from either pilot station. In addition to the above, Bombardier also proposes new conditions that require doors to default to the open position, have provisions to manually override any mechanism that holds a door in the closed position and open automatically in the event there is a failure of the door system such as loss of normal electrical power. In order to explain the context of these new conditions, a brief description of the proposed door system is provided: (a) each door will stow inside a pocket and will be secured by a dual latching mechanism; the dual latching mechanism will be actuated by a solenoid that is controlled by “door close” switches situated on each side of the partition (b) when the latching mechanism releases the door, a gas spring or other mechanism will push the door out of the pocket by only a few inches so that the handle is exposed; the door will remain open8 NOTE If the dual latching mechanism which secures the door in the pocket were to inadvertently release during takeoff or landing, the door will deploy into the doorway by only a few inches. It is Bombardier’s position that given the requirement that doors default to the open position, even if a door were to become unlatched, it would not obstruct access to an emergency exit. (c) to close the door, the occupant will have to grasp the door and manually close it across the doorway until the “hold closed mechanism” engages (letting go of the door before the “hold closed” mechanism engages will result in the door sliding back into its pocket) (d) to open the door, the occupant will have to press a “door open” switch to electrically release the “hold closed mechanism” or grasp the door handle and manually push (slide) the door into the pocket to override the “hold closed mechanism”

NOTE As discussed above, there will also be a means for the flight crew to open the door(s) from either pilot station. (e) once the “hold closed mechanism” is released or overridden, the weight of the door will slide it open into the pocket and the dual latching mechanism will automatically secure it in the open position The following is a more complete discussion of the new conditions proposed by Bombardier in this exemption request (ie over and above improvements to requirements included in previous exemptions identified above):

x Default Open Design Bombardier proposes that doors be designed such that an unlatched door remains open to the extent that it cannot impede evacuation of the airplane; a separate (intentional) action separate from unlatching the door will be required to close the door.9

x Manual Override In the unlikely event that the mechanism / components that hold the door in the closed position should fail and the door does not open normally or an occupant attempts to open the door without pressing the “open switch”, it will be possible to manually open the door and secure it in the open position.

NOTE Recall that for the proposed design, the door will normally open when the “door open” switch adjacent to the door is pressed by the occupant, all doors are opened by the flight crew using the means provided or there is a failure condition that results in loss of normal power to the door. Bombardier contends that the proposed conditions address FAA concerns with respect to recognition of emergency exit location and accessibility; furthermore, compliance with the proposed conditions will result in a level of safety that is consistent with the intent of the airworthiness standard while allowing for in-flight use of cabin doors, regardless of the kind of operation. Proposed Conditions It is Bombardier’s view that it is possible to install one or more doors between passenger seats and passenger emergency exits in accordance with conditions that provide for an overall level ofsafety that is consistent with the intent of the airworthiness standards thereby allowing for inflight use of cabin doors, regardless of the kind of operation. The following are the proposed conditions for each door separating a passenger seat and a passenger emergency exit: (1) The door must incorporate one or more Emergency Passage Features (EPF) to allow the passage of the occupants and / or rescue personnel if the door becomes jammed in the closed or partially opened position. The EPF may be through frangibility and / or a removable emergency panel or equivalent. The EPF is not required to function when the door is partially opened (stowed) to the extent that a 95 th percentile male test subject can exit through the door opening. The EPF must be easily broken or removed by the occupant when the door is jammed and, if identification and operation of the EPF is not apparent, a placard must be installed on each side of the door providing instruction on the operation of the EPF. Demonstrations are required to show that a 5 th percentile female can break though or remove the EPF from both sides of the door when it is10

jammed closed and partially opened. The means used to jam the door for each demonstration must replicate conditions that can cause the door to jam and must not increase rigidity of the door or otherwise increase the effectiveness of the EPF relative to that which can be reasonably expected to occur. Each 5 th percentile female test subject should be subjected to a typical pre-flight briefing and then may use only the information on the placard for determining how to operate the EPF. The demonstration must be conducted in accordance with an approved test plan on a conformed installation. Additionally, the applicant must show that a 95 th percentile male subject can exit through the EPF opening. (2) A means to display a cyan advisory CAS message, which will alert the pilots if any door separating a passenger seat and a passenger emergency exit is not secured open (stowed) for taxi, takeoff or landing, must be installed. (3) There must be a means to allow the pilots to open the door without leaving their seats. (4) Appropriate procedures must be established to ensure that any door separating a passenger seat and a passenger emergency is secured open (stowed) for takeoff and landing. (5) Appropriate procedures must be established to ensure that passengers are provided a pre-flight briefing or passenger briefing card that includes instructions on use of the EPF and to secure open (stow) the door for takeoff and landing. (6) The door must have dual means to retain (latch) it in the open (stowed) position, each of which must automatically retain the door when it is opened (ie a separate action aside from opening the door is not required to operate the latches) and be capable of withstanding the inertia loads specified in 14 CFR 25.561. (7) The door and means to retain it in the open position must be designed so that the door remains “latched” in the open position after loss of electrical power. (8) The door must be designed so that following disengagement of the dual means to retain it in the open position (ie door becomes unlatched), the door must remain open. It is acceptable for the door to deploy into the aisle a small amount so as to expose a means to manually close the door (ie handle). If the door does not remain completely open after becoming unlatched, the applicant must show that a 95 th percentile male subject can exit through the opening without having to stow the door.11

(9) The door must be designed so that the door will default to the open (stowed) and “latched” position after loss of electrical power. The use of a backup supply of electrical power to open (stow) the door is acceptable provided the door opens automatically when the normal supply of electrical power is lost and the backup supply cannot be used to close (deploy) the door after it has been opened. (10) The door must be designed so that it can be manually opened (stowed) with 25 pounds force or less, regardless of power failure conditions. (11) The failure to egress through any emergency exit, including the probability of failure of any cabin door in the closed (deployed) position, must be less than 1 x 10 -5per flight hour. The associated substantiation may not take into consideration manual opening (stowing) of the door. (12) The door must translate laterally to open and close if it is installed across a longitudinal aisle. (13) The door must translate longitudinally to open and close if it is installed between a longitudinal aisle and a compartment that is less than the full width of the airplane. (14) Operation of electrically or pneumatically actuated doors must not be hazardous to occupants. For example, compressive forces of the door closing on body parts between the door and door jam must not be a hazard. Both crushing body parts and asphyxiation need to be considered. (15) The door system must be designed to protect its components from damage that would prevent the door from being opened for takeoff or landing. For example, items that obstruct door operation, misalignment of the mechanism and minor deformation of the structure must not prevent opening of the door. (16) The door system must be designed to prevent overheating of electrical components that could be an ignition source. (17) Electrically controlled doors must be operable from either side of the door, regardless of the side from which the door was closed.12

Effect of the Exemption on Safety Bombardier proposes that the conditions proposed for this grant of exemption provide for an overall level of safety that is consistent with the intent of the airworthiness standards thereby allowing for in-flight use of cabin doors, regardless of the kind of operation. The main objectives of the conditions are to ensure that: (1) doors are opened during critical phases of flight (achieved by providing flight crew with a cyan advisory CAS message if any door between a passenger seat and an emergency exit is not secured open and a means to open the door without leaving the flight deck) (2) doors, once opened, will not be closed during critical phases of flight (ie doors cannot be inadvertently closed by an occupant or due to failure conditions or due to inertia loads associated with the emergency landing conditions) In the unlikely event that door is not secured open during an emergency, if the door cannot be opened by normal means, each door incorporates one or more Emergency Passage Features (EPF) that allow occupants or rescue personnel to pass. Bombardier further contends that the EPF is only necessary in the event there is an in-flight emergency that requires crew or passengers to pass through a door that is inoperable or, in the case of an emergency evacuation, if the flight crew deliberately ignore the cyan advisory CAS message and associated procedures during takeoff or landing. It is Bombardier’s position that flight crew noncompliance with approved procedures is a regulatory issue that requires remedial action by the appropriate aviation authority and that any expectation of such noncompliance should not be allowed to influence the outcome of this request for grant of exemption.

Statement of Public Interest Bombardier submits that equipping aircraft with cabin doors is in the interest of those members of the public who will be affected by this exemption. In order to assess which members of the public are affected by the airworthiness standard / proposed exemption as well as the benefit that might be accrued to each segment, the whole public should be divided into the non-flying public and flying public, where the flying public then further divided into airline passengers, business jet passengers and business jet crew members (other members of the flying public not affected by the airworthiness standard or proposed exemption are ignored for convenience).13

The following is a discussion of the effect of the airworthiness standard / proposed exemption on each “member” of the public:

x Non-Flying Public Members of the non-flying public neither benefit nor suffer a loss associated with the application of this airworthiness standard or any exemption to it; whether or not any airplane is equipped with cabin doors will have no measurable impact on the safety, economic well being or convenience of persons who do not fly.

x Flying Public – Airline Passengers Members of the flying public who fly onboard commercial (airline) aircraft benefit from the application of this airworthiness standard. The airworthiness standard is intended to enhance occupant safety by prohibiting the installation of doors between passenger seats and emergency exits. It is accepted that for spaces where there are a large number of occupants confined to a relatively small area, such as the aisle of an airliner during disembarkation, installation of a door could impede emergency evacuation or reduce the ability of occupants to recognize the location of the nearest emergency exit. Therefore, it is apparent that application of the airworthiness standard benefits airline passengers by making commercial (airline) aircraft safer. Furthermore, exemptions that allow for the installation of mini-suites on commercial (airline) aircraft include conditions that ensure the installation of mini-suite doors will not have any adverse effect on the safety of passengers seated in other sections of the airplane and minimal effect for occupants of the mini-suites.

x Flying Public – Business Jet Passengers Members of the flying public who choose to purchase (in whole or in part) or charter a business jet equipped with cabin doors benefit from exemptions that allow the installation of such doors. Business jet passengers, or the corporations that purchase them for the use of their employees, typically regard cabin doors to be an essential amenity. Cabin doors provide for a level of privacy that would otherwise not be possible. It is clear that passengers have an interest in being able to eat, sleep, work or relax with minimal interruption.14

The conditions proposed in this request minimize the possibility that installation of cabin doors will have an adverse effect on safety.

The most suitable alternative to cabin doors would be to install curtains that divide the cabin. Bombardier believes that safety is enhanced by installing cabin doors per this exemption request instead of curtains since curtains are not required to be openable from the flight deck nor do curtains require a means to provide crew annunciation when they are not properly configured for takeoff or landing.

x Flying Public – Business Jet Crew Members Members of the flying public who are employed as crew on business jets equipped with cabin doors benefit from exemptions that allow the installation of such doors. Cabin doors provide a superior means of maintaining an environment free of intrusive noise, light, passenger traffic or simply continuous scrutiny for crew members to perform their duties or to obtain rest. As stated above, the conditions proposed in this request minimize the possibility of an adverse effect on safety. Based on the analysis above, it is clear that the only members of the public who will be affected by this exemption are business jet passengers & crew members and that the proposed conditions provide for a level of safety superior to that associated with installation of curtains that meet the minimum requirements of 14 CFR Part 25. Therefore, it is in the (affected) public’s interest that an exemption be granted per this request. Furthermore, given the fact that this request for grant of exemption proposes a set of conditions that provide for a level of safety greater than that afforded by the requirements of SFAR 109 and previous exemptions, approving cabin doors that comply with the proposed conditions without consideration of whether or not a particular flight is conducted under 14 CFR Part 91 or Part 135 would be consistent with the concept of the safety continuum that has recently been used by the FAA to assess regulatory impact.

Conclusion The granting of an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 25.813(e) is in the public interest since it allows for the certification of cabin doors, which are considered by owners and operators of business jets to be an essential means of providing privacy to passengers and15

crew, on aircraft that offer benefits in terms of fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, reduced noise and enhanced safety. This exemption request includes proposed conditions that in the view of Bombardier provide for an overall level of safety that is consistent with the intent of the airworthiness standards and therefore should allow for in-flight use of cabin doors, regardless of the kind of operation.

## Summary Sheet

Summary of Petition for Exemption The following is a summary of this petition that can be published in the Federal Register: Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Section 25.813(e) prohibits the installation of a door that separates any passenger seat that is occupiable during takeoff and landing from any passenger emergency exit. Bombardier Inc seeks relief from this requirement for the BD-700-2B12 Global 7000 and BD-700- 2B13 Global 8000 to allow installation of one or more doors between passenger seats and passenger emergency exits. Furthermore, Bombardier Inc requests that the exemption, if granted, not include a condition (limitation) that would prohibit the aircraft from being operated for hire pursuant to 14 CFR Part 135. The aircraft and door(s) will incorporate design features that assure passenger’s ability to recognize the location of emergency exits and access those exits thereby providing for an overall level of safety that is consistent with the intent of the regulations.