Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes

FAA-2007-28250

October 11, 2007

Comments of Airbus

There is no substantiation why the overall limitation should be 60 passenger seats. It might be based on the FAA experience over the amount of private airplanes certified and exemptions granted. However the absolute number of passenger seats is not in itself a compensating factor to the deviations from Part 25 requirements. As noted in the FAA’s general discussion of the proposal, “the passenger capacity-to-exit ratio may be favorable for some private use airplanes”. This ratio is more meaningful than the absolute number of seats, and is implicitly taken into account in the proposed rule, for instance where enhanced evacuation criteria are used as compensating factors. In addition the maximum number of seats should be adjustable depending on the extent of “non-compliances” with Part 25 and other possible compensating factors.

October 8, 2007

Comments of Boeing

Owners of private use jets have requested permission to use glass partitions within the passenger cabin compartment of the airplanes. The FAA has previously issued Special Conditions to allow such use. If a supplier/manufacturer can demonstrate that a glass product (e.g. bullet-proof glass) does not shatter, and installs this product in a manner that assures proper restraint to withstand in-flight and crash loads, then we consider that the safety-compliant glass product should be viewed the same as non-glass products.

October 10, 2007

Re: Comments of Embraer

Embraer notes that the NPRM proposes to impose private‑use only limitations on several design features that have not had that limitation imposed in previous certifications, either because the feature was certified as providing an equivalent level of safety (exit sign size), the previous exemptions did not have "private use only" stipulations in the grant of exemption (occupant protection requirements for side facing seats), or because the design feature was not commonly judged as noncompliant and thus did not require a finding of equivalent level of safety or exemption (width of aisle). Embraer would like to point out that neither the NPRM nor the regulatory evaluation considered the cost of the proposed additional limitation on the operations, market value, or tax implications of airplane designs that would be precluded from serving the charter market by the "private use only" limitation.

October 11, 2007

Re: Comments of The General Aviation Manufacturers Association

GAMA encourages the FAA to consider extending the applicability of the SFAR, at least in part, to part 135 operations. Most of the proposed changes are based upon the interior configuration and low capacity of the business aircraft its self rather than upon a level of familiarity with the aircraft. Most of the proposed enhancements in this proposal are contained in repetitive exemptions and special conditions relating to interior installations for low occupancy business aircraft which are applicable to both part 91 operations and part 135 operations. Today a large number of business aircraft operate in both part 91 and part 135 during some portion of the aircraft's life. In order to assure this SFAR achieves the intended usage and benefit, some additional clarification as to which items are not appropriate and which could be disabled or removed for part 135 service would greatly add to the usage and benefit of this SFAR with no degradation to safety. Without addressing the concerns of part 135 operations, there is a likelihood that this SFAR will provide far less benefit than it could otherwise.

October 12, 2007

Re: Comments of Gulfstream Aerospace

We are disappointed that many of topics that were raised by industry through GAMA in 2003 for inclusion in this rule have not even been considered or addressed by this proposal. These include: stowage of life rafts, placement of oxygen dispensing units within eyesight, simplification of the placard requirements and alternate emergency exit configurations which were all identified as potential topics for private use 14 CFR Part 25 airplanes. These aspects should have been considered as there is strong operational service experience to support them as an acceptable level of safety for smaller cabins with fewer passengers. This SFAR proposal has not provided the level of clarity or safety equivalence required to impose these changes, but rather is more of a mandate for all 14 CFR Part 25 airplanes to now meet the standards of airplanes with 44 or more passengers.

October 16, 2007

Re: Comments of the National Air Transportation Assocation

NATA is concerned that eliminating an airplane from Part 135 eligibility because the owner chooses to utilize these alternative criteria could have an undesirable effect on the general aviation industry as a whole. It is entirely possible that the airplanes flown under Part 91, which are most likely to comply with this alternative criteria, are higher-end, newer model airplanes. One unintended consequence of this proposed SFAR could be the removal of these airplanes from eligibility for use as part of the Part 135 fleet. This would most certainly have a negative impact on access to on-demand charter services as fewer newer aircraft are available to operators, and it is therefore contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, an aircraft that has been modified in accordance with this SFAR would likely experience a diminution in value due to the resulting limitations on future utility.

October 11, 2007

Re: Comments of Transport Canada

Transport Canada supports the concept of a minimum in‑flight aisle width, however, for those smaller transport category airplanes, which typically have passenger capacities limited to 19 in the original type certificate, this could significantly impact the range of configurations required by customers and found acceptable in the past For such airplanes, the FAA should consider an alternative to a minimum in‑flight aisle width, such as, "There must be sufficient access in flight to enable a crewmember to effectively reach any part of any compartment where this is necessary to accomplish emergency procedures." Such an approach would require development of advisory material to ensure consistent application of the requirement. Transport Canada would be pleased to work with the FAA on the development of appropriate guidance material.