Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3570 times:
When certifying a new aircraft, does the regulator-cum-certifier bill out all costs related to the project or are these partially or wholly borne by the taxpayer? If the costs are billed out, are they billed separately to the airframe and engine manufacturers?
One would imagine that with a program like the 787, these costs would be quite substantial, surely a proportion should be borne by the taxpayer as a public service rendered to the transport industry given that, for example, CFRP certification experience can be validly applied to other new all-CFRP airliners.
Also, what about certification of a small-scale innovation, like validation testing of spiroids or suchlike? Would costs associated with these be billed back to the promoters?
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3546 times:
In the USA, the FAA certifies aircraft for US manufacturers without charging them. The FAA does not have user based certification fees.
Most foreign authorities charge US manufacturers to certify aircraft in their country. EASA, the European version of the FAA, charges US manufactures a rather large sum to certify aicraft in Europe. To certify a small US business jet in Europe (EASA), it may cost a few million dollars. Also EASA charges 225 Euros per hour to work the project, plus any travel costs. It costs roughly 10,000 Euros per week to have an EASA person travel to the US to support certification/flight testing of a US product for European certification. Russia and Ukraine have similar high fees. I have seen fees to certify a US business jet in foreign countries range from a few million US dollars to 7 US dollars.
The cost for Boeing to certify the 787 at EASA would cost 2.6 million Euros per year for each of the five years it would take to certify. In addition, Boeing pays for the travel costs, per diem, and hourly rates when EASA travels to the US to support certification.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3527 times:
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1): In the USA, the FAA certifies aircraft for US manufacturers without charging them. The FAA does not have user based certification fees.
The do have an 'undo burden' rule however; this means that if the certification program looks like it will cost, or starts to cost the FAA too much they can walk away from it.
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1): Most foreign authorities charge US manufacturers to certify aircraft in their country. EASA, the European version of the FAA, charges US manufactures a rather large sum to certify aicraft in Europe. To certify a small US business jet in Europe (EASA), it may cost a few million dollars.
Yes they do charge user fees, but almost no US manufacturer actually certifies their aircraft or engine under EASA. Instead they use the verification in Europe. The opposite is also true. This saves a lot of time and cost. The only engine company who certifies on both sides of the Atlantic is CFMI.
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1): The cost for Boeing to certify the 787 at EASA would cost 2.6 million Euros per year for each of the five years it would take to certify. In addition, Boeing pays for the travel costs, per diem, and hourly rates when EASA travels to the US to support certification.
However, the Boeing approach is not the cheapest way to do it. Since they have EASA involved in the FAA certification process to more quickly achieve validation they will pay more than if they waited until the FAA had certified the design prior to applying for validation. However, it is still cheaper than pure certification under EASA
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 2): Yes they do charge user fees, but almost no US manufacturer actually certifies their aircraft or engine under EASA. Instead they use the verification in Europe.
Agreed, most US aircraft products are validated by EASA not certified by EASA. However the fees to achieve EASA validation of a US FAA certification can be a few million dollars. Cessna is charged about US$1M by EASA to validate a small business jet.
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1): In the USA, the FAA certifies aircraft for US manufacturers without charging them. The FAA does not have user based certification fees.
That is very generous of them, may this practice survive the current period of US deficit spending intact. It must amount to a heck of an outlay for a public administration, a certification of an airliner like the 787; I guess if airliner sales were not so export-driven, they may have had another policy.
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 1): The cost for Boeing to certify the 787 at EASA would cost 2.6 million Euros per year for each of the five years it would take to certify. In addition, Boeing pays for the travel costs, per diem, and hourly rates when EASA travels to the US to support certification.
Surely everyone can agree on a common set of certification standards one of these days? Cost is one consideration but commonality should also enhance safety.
Also, why does it take 5 years to certify the 787 in Europe if they will have the benefit of all the documentation compiled by the FAA? They should not be re-doing the work but only reviewing its doucmentation, no?
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3501 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 4): Surely everyone can agree on a common set of certification standards one of these days? Cost is one consideration but commonality should also enhance safety.
Also, why does it take 5 years to certify the 787 in Europe if they will have the benefit of all the documentation compiled by the FAA? They should not be re-doing the work but only reviewing its doucmentation, no?
There are currently not a single set of certification and operational standards worldwide. There are usually small differences between the various foreign authorities. Sometimes these small differences are in reality to justify each country having their own aviation authority. Many countries however accept FAA or EASA certification as the certification basis for their own validation. There are different requirements regarding language on placards, equipment requirements to operate wtihin the country, safety equipment, etc. For example, Russia requires an additional portable VHF radio (Russia made of course) to be installed on business jets. Russia requires a Flight Data Recorder for all commercially operated aircraft, regardless of size. A Cessna 206 operating commercially in Russia requires an FDR. Not all countries agree on the number of channels to be recorded on the Flight Data Recorder, for instance. Japan requires 88 channels for instance.
EASA is reviewing the existing FAA documentation against their current CS regulations, for instance. Their pilots have to fly the aircraft, review and approve an EASA flight manual. Japan requries the AFM to be written in Japanese. For small planes, Germany and France require the POH to be translated.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 3): Agreed, most US aircraft products are validated by EASA not certified by EASA. However the fees to achieve EASA validation of a US FAA certification can be a few million dollars. Cessna is charged about US$1M by EASA to validate a small business jet.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just trying to point out that Cessna spending $1M is a lot less than they would spend if they just straight certified it.
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 5): There are currently not a single set of certification and operational standards worldwide. There are usually small differences between the various foreign authorities. Sometimes these small differences are in reality to justify each country having their own aviation authority. Many countries however accept FAA or EASA certification as the certification basis for their own validation.
It is the differences that add a fair amount of cost to the validation effort. For instance validating a JCAB certified engine in the US is (or used to be) more effort and costly than a JAA/EASA certified engine. This was because what was harmonized and the level of familiarity was lower. The funny thing is you can often get items validated that would not be easily certified in your country. I know of one specific instance where this happened with a US validation (the TC holder shall remain nameless); however, the principle works both ways.
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 5): EASA is reviewing the existing FAA documentation against their current CS regulations, for instance.
EASA-FAA is probably the easiest validation system. Since the FARs and JARs are required to be mostly harmonized (treaty supersedes the FAAs rule making authority), and the law requires that the FAA or EASA (or its constituent orgs) give a high amount of deference to the other's decisions, this is about the lowest work certification-validation path.
Note: That even though the FAA does not charge fees it is still quite expensive to certify or validate a type in the US, collecting and presenting data has high internal costs. For this reason not all versions of an aircraft or engine that are certified by EASA have TC validity in the US. The A330 is a good example. Only those versions operated by US airlines have US TCs. It is relatively quick to add a variant to a TC and Airbus easily do so in the time between order and delivery. So why spend the money until you have to. The same goes for the cost of maintaining a TC and support such aircraft. If no aircraft or engine are being operated, and no more will be built the manufacturer will often withdraw the TC, e.g. GE90-92B.
Sponsor Message: 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1443 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2230 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
