Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

USA v. Europe - relevance of Type Certificate status?

Yes, but if (as we have here) the TC ends up being run by some commercial outfit which merely “supports it” with documentation and doesn’t make spare parts (De Havilland is one such in the UK, AFAIK) or even EASA itself, no new aircraft will be made anyway via this route.

The reason e.g. Socata hang on to the TC is to protect their spare parts business which even for the TB range is probably a few €M a year, with a gross margin of around 75%. As the TC holder they have an easy life, reselling bits purchased all over the place with fresh paperwork. The fact that the TB will never be made again – also true for nearly all planes that have been discontinued – is peripheral.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

TCs are depreciating assets but I think there is always a dreamer somewhere who thinks the ‘1937 Collegiate Aerobat’ will be a great plane to reintroduce into production, and he might buy the TC

I think parts manufacturing (PMA) approval and data rights for the approved drawings are a separate thing than holding the TC, but I’m not sure of those legal details. To go off on a slight tangent, the data rights issue is one reason why there are so many Boeing Stearmans restored and flying today, they being probably the most populous old biplane type. The drawings were produced in exceptional detail for the US Government, using (lots of) Government money and the drawings are today available inexpensively to anybody who needs them to make ‘owner produced’ parts (which don’t require PMA, only approved data). Presumably the original Boeing design contract did not give them exclusive data rights, US Government development contracts rarely do, although non-exclusive rights are often awarded. The Steaman TC is listed as public domain, so this doesn’t clarify whether TC and data rights are legally two separate issues.

I understand that Boeing does employ one man in an office to support FAA and owners of types like the Stearman, DC-3 etc as does Airbus for the old Bölkows etc. That position with any manufacturer provides no direct authority over owners on N-register. I think I’d enjoy that job.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 25 Mar 16:47

I don’t think PMA comes into this TC stuff. “Anybody” can set up PMA manufacture of some part. The limitation is what is practical, what design data exists, etc, and it is very hard in Europe (I have looked into it) because you have to drag some FAA inspectors over here. It’s a huge hassle. One PMA thread (inconclusive mostly) is here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Silvaire wrote:

FAA controls the airworthiness status, ADs etc of all type certified N-registry aircraft in a direct relationship with the owner, with FAA using the Type Certificate holder as a resource. The TC holder, if it still exists, does not issue anything mandatory, or of legal consequence to the owner, and the existence of the TC holder is therefore irrelevant to the owner. If you need engineering done to back up some repair or modification approval, you select one of many FAA Designated Engineering Representatives to do the work.

Yes, that’s basically how it was in the old days. You can still find bits and pieces of this today. This requires the authority to effectively be a consultant company rather than simply a body to oversee that people are doing what they are supposed to be doing, that things are OK. Another thing that’s wrong with this, is that no one knows the product better than the manufacturer.

The US LSA is in fact something completely different than the “EASA system”. The US LSA is based on the industry standard principle AFAIK. The producer simply “guaranty” the product to be made according to an industry standard. All the FAA has to do is to make sure the factory has what it takes to really do this. This is probably the most common way of producing consumer stuff today. If this is a very clever way of small scale production, and where the product must continuously be within the standard also after the product has left the factory, is another matter though. Normally, products only needs to be within specs when they leave the factory. What happens later is more a matter of factory guaranties and stuff like that.

The EASA system makes sure the product always is supported by the manufacturer, and EASA itself does not have to concern itself with the details. If the manufacturer falls dead on it’s back and no one takes over, then it falls back to an “old fashioned” system. Here EASA has done the right thing IMO.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

One of the features of the type certified aircraft I own is that for both, the manufacturer hasn’t existed in decades and the expertise for the type is held by helpful and interested individuals. Component parts (e.g. engine and brake parts) are available from multiple, competing small companies but you have to know where they are. Oddly enough, for somebody in my position this has turned out to be a really good thing. There are almost no self interested parties or ‘support’ monopolies in my aviation world, the documentation on the original certified configuration is weak (which has its benefits) and while there are no ‘permit to fly’ style restrictions on the use of the type, there is also an approximately zero percent chance of FAA issuing an AD against the airframe, or almost any other kind of interaction with FAA. Freedom is actually quite pleasant when you get used to it, and in the modern world the most accessible kind of freedom is often hiding in plain sight

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Mar 15:01

LeSving wrote:

The EASA system makes sure the product always is supported by the manufacturer, and EASA itself does not have to concern itself with the details. If the manufacturer falls dead on it’s back and no one takes over, then it falls back to an “old fashioned” system. Here EASA has done the right thing IMO.

I believe the current EASA system favours manufacturers (TC holders) above all else. As I have recently been working on the AMP of my plane, I discovered some truly egregious actions by the TC holder of the plane and its components. Most are simply in the form of service bulletins/service letters, so hopefully will be dealt with reasonably, but there are some that made into an AD. I find it highly disturbing e.g. that it is possible to have an AD issued that requires periodic inspections by the manufacturer (and no one else) to ensure continued airworthiness. Instead of punishing TC holders for their mistakes, the system supports extortion tactics. The worst is when the SB / AD is the result of some CYA action, if not outright aimed at getting extra maintenance income from customers.

Hajdúszoboszló LHHO

JnsV wrote:

I find it highly disturbing e.g. that it is possible to have an AD issued that requires periodic inspections by the manufacturer (and no one else) to ensure continued airworthiness. Instead of punishing TC holders for their mistakes, the system supports extortion tactics. The worst is when the SB / AD is the result of some CYA action, if not outright aimed at getting extra maintenance income from customers.

Indeed. That’s why FAA is obliged to review foreign ADs issued for non-US manufactured aircraft, and change them to make them legal before issuing them as an FAA AD applicable to N-registered aircraft.

That said, a friend got caught in a situation where the FAA document review during certification had not caught a monopoly practice dictated by the Maintenance Manual of a ‘well known German aerobatic aircraft’. It took him a year or more to get his alternate field repair approved. Luckily, while some in the FAA office were trying to make the issue go away, including making him the victim and supporting the manufacturer in forever blacklisting him for future parts purchases, others in the FAA could see their error and helped fix it.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Mar 15:21

Was the Stearman chosen by the US military as a trainer when designed and manufactured by the Stearman Company, which was unable to handle the numbers required for WW2, leading to the US Gov pushing Boeing to take over?
Perhaps the Gov took the plans over.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Boeing and Stearman were parallel units of United Aircraft and Transport Corp. from the late 20s, some time before what we now commonly call a Stearman was developed. In the early thirties there was a reorganization of United due to new antitrust laws and the Stearman company was dissolved and taken over by Boeing. The Boeing Model 75 Kaydet (or US Army PT-17) was designed around that time under US Government contract, which is why the design data is today public domain.

Incidentally, I believe the ‘transport’ part of United became today’s United Airlines.

In reference to Peter’s post #11 I’d guess that the De Havilland military basic trainers were developed with private money, so the data rights were not made public domain.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Mar 19:44

For “simple” aircraft, basically nearly all piston GA stuff, I still don’t see any reason for there having to be a TC holder other than for income stream protection for the industry which does maintenance etc.

There is zero obligation for a TC holder to support the type with spare parts, for example – here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top