Narrative:

The prototype aircraft (configured in a full passenger confign) was operating under an experimental category certificate of airworthiness issued by the FAA mido (manufacturing inspection district office) for purposes of market survey. This is a multiple use certificate also used for research and development and training. It carries a restr that 'only persons necessary to the purpose of the flight may be carried on the aircraft.' it is this sentence or more correctly the interpretation by mido that is at the root of the problem. The aircraft was being demonstrated to a head of state and his entourage -- including 2 boys (under 21 yrs old) and security. Previous mido statements had said children were not allowed on experimental aircraft and continued that view for this flight when asked several days before the flight, even when we argued that the boys could become heads of state shortly and be the decider for aircraft purchases, and this man had become head of state at the age of 17. (Both this man plus oldest boy are pilots) on the day of the flight the head of state's head of security and the head of state's personal pilot insisted that the boys be on the same flight as the head of state. The united states secret service agreed and offered to call FAA administrator and talk with local mido if necessary. The head of state's pilot was going to call his contact at the white house. I felt that this was within the scope of 'individuals necessary to the purposes of the flight' and thus departed. The safety issue: 1) intense stress put on crew in these sits which add to already high levels that exist in these sits. 2) increased security risk for head of state with delays. Improvements: 1) have mido be available for these sits. 2) mido was not following own guidelines of FAA order 8130.2C, chapter 4, paragraph 142 which did not require this statement for market survey. 3) disseminate information to flcs on the definitions and requirements that the agency uses for non-normal airworthiness (why keep it in-house). 4) in matters of international politics all groups should be a little more adaptable. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter reiterated that he and his company pilot were put under stress when the customer demanded to go on the flight with individuals under the age of 21, contrary to the limitations imposed by the FAA. He believed that this situation would have been worked out if a representative of the FAA could have been at the departure site. The aircraft was a B777 used for tests which were approved for that aircraft by the FAA. The aircraft was completely configured for commercial passenger use but was certificated in the experimental category with a provision for marketing research (sales demonstration). Therefore, he does not believe that the essential crew only provision should be, or is, applicable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A WDB ACFT CARRIED PAX OUTSIDE OF THE ACFT AIRWORTHINESS OPERATING LIMITATIONS ON A 'MARKET SURVEY DEMONSTRATION.'

Narrative: THE PROTOTYPE ACFT (CONFIGURED IN A FULL PAX CONFIGN) WAS OPERATING UNDER AN EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS ISSUED BY THE FAA MIDO (MANUFACTURING INSPECTION DISTRICT OFFICE) FOR PURPOSES OF MARKET SURVEY. THIS IS A MULTIPLE USE CERTIFICATE ALSO USED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING. IT CARRIES A RESTR THAT 'ONLY PERSONS NECESSARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT MAY BE CARRIED ON THE ACFT.' IT IS THIS SENTENCE OR MORE CORRECTLY THE INTERP BY MIDO THAT IS AT THE ROOT OF THE PROB. THE ACFT WAS BEING DEMONSTRATED TO A HEAD OF STATE AND HIS ENTOURAGE -- INCLUDING 2 BOYS (UNDER 21 YRS OLD) AND SECURITY. PREVIOUS MIDO STATEMENTS HAD SAID CHILDREN WERE NOT ALLOWED ON EXPERIMENTAL ACFT AND CONTINUED THAT VIEW FOR THIS FLT WHEN ASKED SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THE FLT, EVEN WHEN WE ARGUED THAT THE BOYS COULD BECOME HEADS OF STATE SHORTLY AND BE THE DECIDER FOR ACFT PURCHASES, AND THIS MAN HAD BECOME HEAD OF STATE AT THE AGE OF 17. (BOTH THIS MAN PLUS OLDEST BOY ARE PLTS) ON THE DAY OF THE FLT THE HEAD OF STATE'S HEAD OF SECURITY AND THE HEAD OF STATE'S PERSONAL PLT INSISTED THAT THE BOYS BE ON THE SAME FLT AS THE HEAD OF STATE. THE UNITED STATES SECRET SVC AGREED AND OFFERED TO CALL FAA ADMINISTRATOR AND TALK WITH LCL MIDO IF NECESSARY. THE HEAD OF STATE'S PLT WAS GOING TO CALL HIS CONTACT AT THE WHITE HOUSE. I FELT THAT THIS WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF 'INDIVIDUALS NECESSARY TO THE PURPOSES OF THE FLT' AND THUS DEPARTED. THE SAFETY ISSUE: 1) INTENSE STRESS PUT ON CREW IN THESE SITS WHICH ADD TO ALREADY HIGH LEVELS THAT EXIST IN THESE SITS. 2) INCREASED SECURITY RISK FOR HEAD OF STATE WITH DELAYS. IMPROVEMENTS: 1) HAVE MIDO BE AVAILABLE FOR THESE SITS. 2) MIDO WAS NOT FOLLOWING OWN GUIDELINES OF FAA ORDER 8130.2C, CHAPTER 4, PARAGRAPH 142 WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE THIS STATEMENT FOR MARKET SURVEY. 3) DISSEMINATE INFO TO FLCS ON THE DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT THE AGENCY USES FOR NON-NORMAL AIRWORTHINESS (WHY KEEP IT IN-HOUSE). 4) IN MATTERS OF INTL POLITICS ALL GROUPS SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE ADAPTABLE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR REITERATED THAT HE AND HIS COMPANY PLT WERE PUT UNDER STRESS WHEN THE CUSTOMER DEMANDED TO GO ON THE FLT WITH INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE AGE OF 21, CONTRARY TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FAA. HE BELIEVED THAT THIS SIT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT IF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAA COULD HAVE BEEN AT THE DEP SITE. THE ACFT WAS A B777 USED FOR TESTS WHICH WERE APPROVED FOR THAT ACFT BY THE FAA. THE ACFT WAS COMPLETELY CONFIGURED FOR COMMERCIAL PAX USE BUT WAS CERTIFICATED IN THE EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY WITH A PROVISION FOR MARKETING RESEARCH (SALES DEMONSTRATION). THEREFORE, HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ESSENTIAL CREW ONLY PROVISION SHOULD BE, OR IS, APPLICABLE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.