AFS-15-151-E

Exemption No. 11149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

EXECUTIVE JET MANAGEMENT Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0952

 

for an exemption from § 135.152 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated November 12, 2014, Mr. Christopher Poliak, Vice President and Director of 

Maintenance, Air Carrier, Executive Jet Management, Inc. (EJM), 4556 Airport Road, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

EJM, for an exemption from § 135.152, Appendix F, parameter No. 5 (Normal Acceleration, 

Vertical) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, 

would allow two CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant), N25ZG, S/N 5536 and N345XB, S/N 5631 

airplanes to continue to operate without complying with the required flight recorder data 

sampling rates of 14 CFR § 135.152, Appendix F. Additionally, you requested exemption 

from the same regulations for one additional CL-600-2B16 airplane, N500PG, S/N 5663, 

owned and operated by a client of EJM. While the petition requests relief from the Appendix 

F requirements, relief is actually required from 14 CFR § 135.152, which requires compliance 

with Appendix F. The FAA has considered the petition as requesting relief from 14 CFR 

§ 135.152 requirements. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 135.152 prescribes, in pertinent part, that except as provided in paragraph (k) of that 

section, no person 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 

registered outside the United States and added to the operator's U.S. operations specifications 
2

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.

All of the airplanes identified in your 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, for all turbine-engine powered 

airplanes with a seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 30 

passenger seats, manufactured after August 18, 2000, the parameters listed in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(57) of the section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, 

resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix F to part 135.

Section 135.152(j) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for 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 the recorded values must meet the designated range, 

resolution and accuracy 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 time to within one second. Parameter 5, Normal Acceleration (Vertical) requires a 

sampling interval of 0.0125, or 8 times per second.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that the manufacturer of the subject airplanes, Bombardier Aerospace 

(Bombardier), notified EJM of an internal review of the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) 

system installed on its aircraft that revealed a noncompliance with a single sampling rate. 

Specifically, Bombardier found that although the normal acceleration sampling rate is 

recorded by the DFDR at the required rate of 0.125 seconds (8 times per second), the source 

data are only provided at a rate of 0.2 seconds per sampling interval (5 times per second). The 

petitioner states the data can be “effectively” correlated to match the sampling requirement 

without compromising the information recorded and that it is the only parameter found to be 

affected. EJM states that since correlation without substantive degradation in the information 

is possible, a grant of exemption until the equipment can be modified or replaced will not 

affect the safe operation of the aircraft or hinder potential investigations requiring the DFDR 

data.
3

EJM states that Bombardier has committed to developing an in-service solution involving 

redesign of the Data Concentrator Unit by September, 2015. The petitioner was also told by 

Bombardier that a fleet retrofit would occur “within two years of the grant of the exemption”. 

The petitioner states that “safety would not be jeopardized” by a grant of this exemption, since 

the DFDR is used solely as a recording device in accidents and incidents and the affected 

parameter will continue to provide useful data.

In its additional information, the petitioner states that the DFDR problems described in its 

petition were found by Bombardier, and are a systems design problem that operators of the 

aircraft have no effective means to address other than to wait for a resolution from the aircraft 

and equipment manufacturers. The petitioner further states that granting this exemption 

would be in the public interest because it would allow Part 135 operators to continue to 

provide the unique services that support its U.S. public and business customers while the 

manufacturers develop and certify the fix, and the affected CL604 operators may incorporate 

the modifications necessary to bring these aircraft into compliance.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EJM.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 11052 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that good cause exists to allow time for the airplane manufacturer to complete 

development of a modification to retrofit the subject aircraft with a redesigned data 

concentrator unit (DCU) capable of providing the normal acceleration parameter information 

to the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) system to meet Appendix F requirements, and for 

the operators to modify their aircraft accordingly. The FAA does not agree with any assertion 

that flight recorder systems are not safety equipment simply because they do not affect the 

operation of a given flight. Flight recorder data are often the only evidence of airplane 

problems available to investigators following aircraft accidents and incidents. However, 

because the subject airplanes will still be recording flight data and the limitations are known, 

the FAA agrees that a limited time to complete the upgrades is appropriate.

The FAA finds that since the problem identified in this petition is a system design issue over 

which CL604 operators have no control or ability to fix, and that since the deficiency would 

be known to accident investigators and can be compensated for in any necessary analysis, it is 

in the public interest to allow continued operation of a limited number of airplanes until the 

modifications can be incorporated.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—
4

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 11052;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 11052 

also apply to the situation you present; and

 for the reasons stated in Grant of Exemption No. 11052 a partial grant of exemption is in 

the public interest.

The FAA’s Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Executive Jet Management Inc. exemption 

from 14 CFR § 135.152 to the extent necessary to allow airplanes N25ZG, S/N 5536 and 

N345XB, S/N 5631 to operate without complying with the Normal Acceleration (Vertical) 

data recording rate requirement listed in Appendix F to part 135, subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed herein.

Your request to include airplane N500PG, S/N 5663 in this exemption is denied. N500PG is 

not operated under 14 CFR part 135 regulations, and thus has no need to be exempted from 14 

CFR § 135.152. Further, N500PG is not listed on EJM’s Operation Specification and 

therefore cannot be included in an operating exemption granted to EJM.

Conditions and Limitations

1. This exemption applies only to the following airplanes while they remain on the part 135 

operations specifications of EJM: CL-600-2B16, N25ZG, S/N 5536 and N345XB, S/N 

5631.

2. This exemption allows for the continued operation of the affected airplanes with a DFDR 

that receives data from the source sensor for the Normal Acceleration (Vertical) parameter 

at a rate of 0.2 rather than the 0.125 as required by Appendix F to Part 135. No other relief 

from any other parameter requirement or other flight data recorder provision of 14 CFR 

Part 135 is granted by this exemption.

3. EJM must establish a firm schedule for accomplishment of the modifications required to 

bring the subject airplanes into compliance and submit the schedule to its oversight office. 

The schedule must include the following:

a. Bombardier service bulletin issued no later than September 30, 2015;

b. EJM’s plan for incorporation of the service bulletin on the subject airplanes, to be 

submitted to its Principal Avionics Inspector or other cognizant oversight office no 

later than December 1, 2015. The plan must include a modification date within the 

term of this exemption for the airplanes listed in condition 1 above;
5

c. Starting December 1, 2015, EJM must provide monthly status reports to its 

oversight office outlining the completion of the aircraft modifications necessary to 

bring its aircraft into compliance with the requirements of 14 CFR § 135.152.

4. Noncompliance with any term of these conditions and limitations terminates this 

exemption without further action by the FAA. 

5. Use of this exemption is limited to EJM while the subject airplanes remain on its part 135 

operations specifications. This exemption may not be transferred to any subsequent 

operator of the affected airplanes. Subsequent operators of the affected airplanes must 

apply for and be granted an exemption in writing before such airplanes may be operated if 

the airplanes have not been modified to comply with 14 CFR § 135.152. 

6. A copy of this exemption must be retained with the operator's DFDR correlation 

documentation as specified in the applicable provisions of 14 CFR § 135.152 until the

airplanes identified in this exemption have been modified. 

7. In the event of an accident or incident after which the DFDR recording media must be 

removed and retained subject to 14 CFR § 135.152(e), the operator must provide a copy of 

this exemption together with the recording media when submitted. 

This exemption terminates on the sooner of the completion of the modification described in 

this exemption that brings the airplanes into compliance with 14 CFR § 135.152, or on 

January 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded, rescinded or terminated.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service