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

EX ECUTIVE JET MANAGEME NT Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0952

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

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By let ter dated November 12, 2014, Mr. Christopher Poli ak , Vice President and D irector of Maintenance, Air Carrier, Executive Jet Management, Inc. (EJM) , 4556 Airport R oad

, C incinnati , 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,

Ve rtical) 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 d ata 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 relie f from th e 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 specifications2

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 ai rplanes identified in your petition were manufactur ed after August 18, 2000, making the airplanes subject specifically to § 135.152(i)(1), or after August 19, 2002, making those airpl anes subject to § 135.152(j).

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

- engine powered

air planes 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, accu racies, 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 t o 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.

App endix F to p art 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 (Bomba rdier), notified EJM of an internal review of the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) system installed on its aircraft that revealed a non compliance with a single sampling rate. Specifically, Bombardier found that although the normal acceleratio n sampling rate is recorded by the D FDR 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 pa rameter fou nd 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 hinde r 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 affec ted parameter will continue to pro vide 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 eff

ective means to address other than to wait for a resolution from the aircraft and equipment manufacturers. The petitioner further states that g ranting this exe mption 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 b usiness customers while the

manufacturer s develop and certif y 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 det rimental 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 airp lane 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 F AA 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 wo uld 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 reaso ns 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 FA A 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 (Ver tical) 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 r egulations, 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 app lies on ly to the following air planes while they remain on the p art 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 air planes with a DFDR

that receiv es 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, 201 5 ;

b. EJM’s plan for incorporation of the service bulletin on the subject air planes , to be submitted to its Principal Avionics Inspector or other cognizant oversight office no

late r than December 1, 2015. The plan must include a modification date within the term of this exemption for the air planes listed in condition 1 above;5

c. Starting December 1, 2015, EJM must provide monthly status reports to its oversight office outlining the c ompletion 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 witho ut further action by the FAA

.

5. Use of this exemption is limited to EJM while the subject air planes remain on its p art 135 operations specifications. This exemption may not be transferred to any subsequent operator of the affected airplane s . Subsequent operators of the affected airp lanes must apply for and be granted an exemption in writing before such airplane s 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

docu mentation as specified in the applicable provisions of 1 4 CFR § 135.152 until the airplane s 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 airpla ne s into compliance with 14 CFR § 135.152, or on January 31

, 201 7 , unless sooner superseded, rescinded or terminated.

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

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting D eputy Director, F light Standards Service