( ^ 

DFPIOFTR'^ 

APR 2 1 2010 

BDCO-l 0-00887 ^ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7* Street, SW, Room PL401 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

V.) 

Ronald J . Hinderberger 

Lead Administrator 

Deiegated Compliance Org. 

Commerciai Airpianes 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 MC 67-LR 

Seattle, WA, 98124-2207 

,:; j 

Subject: 

Model: 

BDCO Project No. 

Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations section 25.809(a) at 

Amendment 25-116 With Respect to Certain 

Requirements for the Flight Crew Emergency 

Exit 

787-8, 787-9 

PS06-0413,PS06-0496 

The Boeing Company respectfully submits this petition for exemption of the 

Model 787 and its minor Model from the requirements of Title 14 Code of 

federal Regulations section 25.809(a) amendment 25-116 with respect to the 

requirement that the outside viewing means provided for the flight crew 

emergency exit must permit viewing of the likely areas of evacuee ground 

contact, that the likely areas of evacuee ground contact must be viewable during 

all lighting conditions with the landing gear extended as well as in all conditions 

of landing gear collapse. Tlie enclosure to this letter provides the details of the 

petition in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations section 11.81. 

The following summary is provided for the Federal Register in accordance with 

14CFR§11.81(f). 

Summary for Federal Register 

Petitioner: The Boeing Company. 

Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. 25.809(a). 

Description of Relief Sought: To allow the Boeing Model 787 relief from the 

requirement that the outside viewing means provided for the flight crew 

emergency exit must peiTnit viewing of the likely areas of evacuee ground 

contact, that the likely areas of evacuee ground contact must be viewable during 

all lighting conditions with the landing gear extended as well as in all conditions 

of landing gear collapse. 
&J 

Very truly yours. 

r 

Page 2 

U.S. DOT 

BDCO-l 0-00887 

> 

Christine Thompson 

Lead Project Administrator, Development Projects 

(425) 266-6572, MC 67-LR 

FAX: (425)294-9340 

Enclosure: 787 Petition 

cc 

Name 

Mr. Robert Breneman 

Mr. Ken Schroer 

Mr. Ali Bahrami 

Mr. Frank Tiangsing 

Mr.JeffGardlin 

Ms. Julie Alger 

Mr. Robert Kaufinan 

for Exemption from §25.809(a) Amendm 

Letter 

Paper 

Paper 

Paper 

Paper 

EDT 

Paper 

EDT 

Enclosures 

Paper 

Paper 

Paper 

Paper 

EDT 

Paper 

EDT 

Comments 

ANM-IOOS 

ANM-IOOS 

ANM-100 

ANM-115 

ANM-115 

ANM-150S 

ANM-150S 
Enclosure to BDCO-00887 

Page 1 of 3 

The Boeing Company Petition for Exemption to Allow Partial Relief from 14 CFR 

25.809(a) for the Model 787 Flight Crew Emergency Exit 

Summary Paragraph 

Under the provisions set forth in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.81, The 

Boeing Company is seeking an exemption to allow partial relief from §25.809(a) at 

Amendment 25-116 for the flight crew emergency exit on Model 787-8 and -9 airplanes. 

Partial relief is being sought from the requirement that the outside viewing means provided for 

the flight crew emergency exit permit viewing of the likely area of evacuee ground contact, 

that the likely area of evacuee contact be viewable during all lighting conditions with the 

landing gear extended as well as in all conditions of landing gear collapse. The FAA has 

acknowledged that while the outside viewing capability provided by the flight deck windows 

on the 787 should be sufficient for an overhead flight crew exit, the flight deck geometry 

results in a viewing area from the flight deck windows which does not meet the literal 

language of the rule. Relief is necessary since literal compliance with the rule would require 

extensive design changes to the airplane, including additional outside viewing windows in the 

flight deck and/or an external video camera system, and a new exterior lighting system to 

permit viewing of the likely areas of evacuee ground contact during all lighting conditions and 

with the landing gear extended and in conditions of landing gear collapse. Making these 

extensive design changes would create an additional burden for the airline operators without 

any material difference to the level of safety from that provided by the current 787 flight deck 

design. 

Background 

In an emergency situation it is generally accepted that an exit should not be opened if opening 

it would create a more hazardous situation for the occupants of the airplane. With Amendment 

25-116, the FAA introduced, in part, previously un-codified requirements for airframe 

manufacturers to provide outside viewing means at each emergency exit. 14 CFR §25.809(a) 

now includes the requirement that an outside viewing means at emergency exits permit 

viewing of the likely area of evacuee ground contact and that the likely area of evacuee contact 

be viewable during all lighting conditions with the landing gear extended as well as in all 

conditions of landing gear collapse. While the primary evacuation route for the flight crew is 

typically through the flight deck door and out of one of the passenger cabin emergency exits, a 

flight crew emergency exit is provided in the flight deck. For the Model 787, the flight crew 

exit is an overhead escape hatch. The nearby large flight deck windows provide an effective 

means for the flight crew to assess external conditions when deciding whether or not to open 

the overhead hatch. This includes viewing of the ground near where the evacuees would 

normally be expected to make their initial contact when using the emergency egress assist 

means provided. 

Partial relief from §25.809(a) at Amendment 25-116 is necessary because basic design of the 

Model 787 design is complete and it would require extensive design changes for the flight 

crew exits to comply with the outside viewing requirements with no material difference in the 

level of safety. 

The emergency egress assist means provided at the 787-8 flight crew emergency exit are inertia 

reel descent devices. These devices, which are similar to those commonly used on other 

models, provide for safe evacuation of the flight deck occupants when the airplane is 

positioned normally on its landing gear and when positioned at the adverse attitudes that 

correspond to the loss of one or more landing gear. Once an evacuee using an inertia reel 

descent device clears the fiiselage, they are essentially lowered straight down to the ground in a 

controlled manner. While the flight deck windows provide an excellent means for assessing 

the outside conditions, they don't allow direct viewing of the ground where the evacuees 

would normally be expected to make their initial ground contact. This is due to the local 
Enclosure to BDCO-00887 

Page 2 of 3 

curvature of the fuselage in the vicinity of the flight deck and the vertical path to the ground 

evacuees take when using the emergency egress assist means provided. Also, since the flight 

crew exit is located overhead, the flight deck windows don't allow viewing just outside of the 

closed exit. This is considered acceptable since it is very unlikely that there could be a hazard 

directly above the airplane that couldn't be detected by viewing out the flight deck windows. 

The FAA has acknowledged that the flight deck windows will normally provide an adequate 

means for assessing outside conditions when determining whether to open the flight deck exit. 

In the preamble to Amendment 25-116, the FAA stated that '7n most cases, it should be 

possible to view the outside conditions sufficiently well from a nearby passenger orflightdeck 

window to ascertain whether to open an overhead exit. This is considered acceptable." Since 

the outside viewing capability provided by the Model 787 flight deck windows is consistent 

with that of nearly every other widebody model in-service today, it is believed that the use of 

the flight deck windows as the outside viewing means for the Model 787 flight crew exit meets 

the intent of outside viewing area requirement in §25.809(a). 

Since there is not a direct line of sight from the flight deck window to the point of evacuee 

ground contact, there is very limited benefit in having a dedicated exterior lighting system to 

illuminate the evacuee ground contact point. However, the 787 flight deck will be equipped 

with a minimum of one flashlight that can be used by the flight crew to aid in the assessmeiit 

of the general outside area in night time conditions when there are no external light sources 

(e.g., runway and/or airport lighting). In Denial of Exemption No. 9957, the FAA has 

acknowledged that for the type of flight crew exit and emergency egress assist means provided 

on the Model 787, "an acceptable method of compliance may be to provide a general view of 

the outside area, and provide portable illumination, e.g., a flashlight for the flight crew exit, 

that can be used by the crew. " 

Statement of no Adverse Effect on Safety 

Granting this petition will have no appreciable effect on the level of safety. The FAA's stated 

intent was to upgrade the regulations to improve the overall level of safety in areas where the 

state-of-the-art and good design practice have indicated that such upgrades are warranted. The 

emergency exit, emergency egress assist means, outside viewing means and emergency 

lighting systems provided in the Model 787 flight deck are all consistent with good industry 

design practice and are considered to be state-of-the-art in all regards. 

During an airplane emergency requiring an evacuation, there is the potential for an external 

hazard that could pose an immediate threat to the occupants of the airplane if an exit were 

opened. While fire is the principle external hazard, there are other types of hazards such as 

water or large obstructions that could make not opening an exit the preferred course of action. 

However, since the Model 787 flight crew exit is located overhead and it is not equipped with 

an automatically deploying emergency assist means, it is much less likely that these types of 

external hazards would actually pose an immediate threat to the occupants of the flight deck 

just by opening the overhead exit. Given the wide viewing area provided by the nearby flight 

deck windows and the availability of a portable illumination means, it is very likely that any 

severe external hazard that could create an immediate hazard to the occupants of the flight 

deck could be detected prior to deciding whether or not to open the overhead e^^it. Boeing has 

reviewed several airplane accident databases and found no evidence of pertinent service history 

that suggests that the flight deck windows do not provide adequate outside viewing capability 

for the flight crew exits. Furthermore, the FAA's intent as clearly stated in NPRM 96-9 was to 

ensure that the current state-of-the-art and existing design practices are maintained for future 

airplane programs. Therefore, there is no appreciable difference between the level of safety 

provided by the outside viewing means provided for the 787-8 and 787-9 flight crew exit and 

that intended by the new regulation. 
Enclosure to BDCO-00887 

Page 3 of 3 

Statement of Public Interest 

Granting this petition is in the public's interest because the outside viewing means provided 

for the 787-8 and 787-9 flight crew exits, in combination with an available flashlight, provide 

the level of safety the FAA intended to promulgate with the new rule. Not granting the 

exemption would lead to an extensive unplanned design and manufacturing effort to add an 

additional outside viewing means (windows and/or an exterior viewing camera system) and a 

new exterior emergency lighting system for the flight crew exits. Incorporating these types of 

design changes would not materially enhance the level safety provided for the flight crew and 

it would impact introduction of the Model 787 airplanes. 

A grant of exemption in this case would allow the avoidance of the added weight, flight deck 

complexity, and maintenance costs associated with the additional outside viewing means and 

lighting system. Conversely, if required to add these new systems, an increase in weight and 

complexity to the 787-8 and 787-9 would occur, resulting in an increased burden for airline 

operators due to increased flight crew work load, and the added maintenance and spare parts 

provisioning that would be required. Additionally, any increase in weight results in increased 

fuel consumption and emissions. Therefore, granting the exemption is in the public interest. 

Conclusion 

For the Model 787-8 and 787-9, the large flight deck windows, in combination with an 

available flashlight, provide the means for the flight crew to quickly assess the outside 

conditions when deciding whether or not to open the overhead flight crew exit. This includes 

viewing of the ground near where the evacuees would normally be expected to make their 

initial contact when the airplane is positioned at a normal attitude. The 787-8 flight deck 

windows, in combination with an available flashlight, provide an external viewing means 

nearly equivalent to that intended by the new regulation as identified in the preamble to 

Amendment 25-116. They provide a level of safety that is at least equivalent to the vast 

majority of models in the jet transport fleet, which Boeing believes was the FAA's stated intent 

when codifying the requirement for an outside viewing means at the emergency exits. 

Passenger and crew safety will not be degraded by a grant of this exemption petition. 

Per § 11.81 (h), Boeing requests the privileges of this exemption be extended outside the United 

States. This extension of privileges is necessary for operations based within foreign countries 

having bilateral agreements with the United States accepting FAA 14 CFR Part 25 as their 

airworthiness standards for transport category aircraft. The 787 is intended for the global 

market place with the launch customer being based in a country utilizing the United States 

airworthiness standards.