So, are we revoking airworthiness certificates for all Canadian-made aircraft?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JScarry said:
Can you obtain FAA certification on aircraft without an airworthiness certificate? I’m guessing no but have no idea. Contractors will be expected to obtain FAA certification for modifications such as integrating “wing hard points, belly canoe, SATCOM cheek radome, and any Aerial-Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (A-ISR) capabilities,” the Army said.
Click to expand...
Technically yes as the modification is against the type design/type certificate and not the airworthiness certificate. However, as mentioned, if you never intend to operate the aircraft under a Standard AWC why bother. But there has been a shift in the military toward purchasing off-the-shelf commercial aircraft and actually maintaining them per FAA rules up to a certain point. So having any modifications FAA approved in those cases would make sense and has been done in the past. The U28 (PC-12) and UH-72 (EC145) are a couple of examples of this.
 
Lindberg said:
Then it shouldn't take them more than a minute to get that rubber stamp out and start stamping.

Tariffs are inherently political. They're a bad idea economically. They're economic protectionism and exist to alter incentives in an attempt to influence trade partners' behavior.

The current administration is using them the same way they've always been used, but more, and to greater effect.
Click to expand...
I agree generally that they're a bad idea, but not when there's an unfair advantage. As an example, in the US to make steel you need to have a mill that meets osha regulations for worker safety, and EPA regulations for air and water emissions, to protect the workers and the environment. It's a level playing field to have steel imports from countries with similar rules, like western Europe, Canada, and Japan. But China? They have an unfair advantage because there's no safety and no environmental laws. It's not protectionism to place tariffs in place for those reasons. As another example, I don't care that the corporation that owns DeWalt can make more money by outsourcing manufacturing to China, it's bad for US manufacturing, and thus the US, for them to do so, and worse to effectively incentivize them to do so. This is a problem that has been growing for 40+ years, though. The "service economy" that I read about in Forbes in the 70s or 80s as a kid was a myth. It's an economic circle-j***.

Back to aviation, if another country is going to unfairly restrict sales of US aircraft in their country, I think it's only fair if we return the favor. In this case, I have no idea of that's the case.
 
Bell206 said:
But there has been a shift in the military toward purchasing off-the-shelf commercial aircraft and actually maintaining them per FAA rules up to a certain point. So having any modifications FAA approved in those cases would make sense and has been done in the past. The U28 (PC-12) and UH-72 (EC145) are a couple of examples of this.
Click to expand...

This could be partly driven by a recognition that contract support aircraft can be a cost effective way to meet surge requirements. I did business with a company that operated King Airs equipped to MC-12 specs. They provided direct support to US forces for training, exercises, and deployments. At the peak of the GWOT, the Air Force fleet would have been toast without them.
 
Albany Tom said:
I agree generally that they're a bad idea, but not when there's an unfair advantage.
Click to expand...
I said it's a bad idea economically, and I stand by that
Albany Tom said:
As an example, in the US to make steel you need to have a mill that meets osha regulations for worker safety, and EPA regulations for air and water emissions, to protect the workers and the environment. It's a level playing field to have steel imports from countries with similar rules, like western Europe, Canada, and Japan. But China? They have an unfair advantage because there's no safety and no environmental laws. It's not protectionism to place tariffs in place for those reasons.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it is.
Albany Tom said:
As another example, I don't care that the corporation that owns DeWalt can make more money by outsourcing manufacturing to China, it's bad for US manufacturing, and thus the US, for them to do so, and worse to effectively incentivize them to do so.
Click to expand...
Milton Friedman, and others, demonstrated long ago that tariffs hurt both sides economically. If your trade partners can produce goods more cheaply, you're better off letting them, from a purely economic perspective. But what you're actually describing is not an economic advantage, but protecting manufacturing capability, which is a separate issue.
 
Ed Haywood said:
This could be partly driven by a recognition that contract support aircraft can be a cost effective way to meet surge requirements.
Click to expand...
It is and has been considering military has bought OTS aircraft for quite sometime. Its just an extension and expansion of that cost principal. Was told once by someone involved in the UH-72 development not all Army missions require a "hardened" aircraft ready for front line ops. The Navy used commercial Bell 206s for training since the late 60s until 2 years ago then replaced it with another OTS aircraft from Leonardo. So the concept has been around for years.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
I said it's a bad idea economically, and I stand by that

That's exactly what it is.

Milton Friedman, and others, demonstrated long ago that tariffs hurt both sides economically. If your trade partners can produce goods more cheaply, you're better off letting them, from a purely economic perspective. But what you're actually describing is not an economic advantage, but protecting manufacturing capability, which is a separate issue.
Click to expand...
Friendman was a smart guy, and the concept of not having tariffs is a good one in general. In terms of it's good to the economy, there should be a statue of him in Tiananmen Square, right by the memorial to Mao. No sarcasm, I can't think of an American who did more to improve their economy.

An accountant can only create theories and models based on the system at hand based on their understanding on it. The very best they can do is construct a model that appears to align with the facts at hand, and then prove correlation of their model and the actual data. But that doesn't mean that they've proven that they truly understand the root cause OR that the model has any validity outside the current datasets. It's easy for someone familiar with numbers who is good with math to confuse familiarity and observation with understanding. We had an accountant that thought he could run a war in SE Asia better than the generals could. He was incorrect. We have Friedman who honestly believed he could've made the great depression better, if he were there, based on money supply theory. The arrogance of some of these folks is off the scale.

An accountant can walk into a business, cut the R&D, cut the maintenance budget, fire some of the senior leads in the tech areas, stop buying new equipment, and boost the profit of a company for 6 months, 12 months, maybe longer. Implementing a system that slowly destroys a countries manufacturing base will eventually cripple it economically, in part because you'll forever force it to import manufactured goods. Their are only a handful of things that prop up any economy, and they include manufacturing, agriculture and export of natural resources, and labor.

Carrying the "outsource everything" model to the end point, you're left with 2 people sitting at desks, while everything the company, or country, does is done by other people. They just own the capital. At some point the other players look at each other, then to the two people at the desks, and wonder "why do we need those 2 guys", and then they're gone. We're getting close to that now. Or in other words, it's OK to listen to the clairvoyants if you want, but don't let them steer the ship.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
And so is the KC-46. Both a complete waste of money to attain certification. If it is already OTS, no extra cost. If it is modified or new design, why require extra work for FAA Certification?
Click to expand...

Perhaps meeting certification standards leads to cost savings in maintenance and sustainment, since the government is less captive to sole source contractors.

Asking, not saying.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
Perhaps meeting certification standards leads to cost savings in maintenance and sustainment, since the government is less captive to sole source contractors.

Asking, not saying.
Click to expand...

possibly if the military doesn't have to develop the logistics tail for the small number of aircraft the military might need and can take advantage of volume of the make/model
 
Bob Noel said:
possibly if the military doesn't have to develop the logistics tail for the small number of aircraft the military might need and can take advantage of volume of the make/model
Click to expand...

Eg derivations of commercial airframes in wide usage, such as MC-12 and KC-46.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Perhaps meeting certification standards leads to cost savings in maintenance and sustainment, since the government is less captive to sole source contractors. Asking, not saying.
Click to expand...
Yes and no as there are more variations when using TC'd aircraft in military roles. For example, in the purest sense, where the TC is maintained 100% and the mechanics have an A&Ps, the parts and other costs tend to be a bit higher as those items are drawn from the same pools as civilian parts and support. However, in very general terms, when compared to say how the V-280 is being spec'd out to procure and maintain all those costs get calculated in the beginning for the project lifespan which is much different than calling up Airbus or Pilatus for the same type of needs. If that makes sense. Where things start to deviate for military TC'd aircraft is when the level and type of modifications or operational limits exceed the capabilities of FAR approval processes and that S/N airframe can get removed from the TCDS eligibility list. For example, Beechcraft has specific bulletins that allows a King Air that was operated and maintained by the military to be brought back into TCDS eligibility for pure civilian operations. So while it can get a bit complicated, over all its a win for the military when the mission fits the aircraft.
 
I'm grilling burgers tonight, even though it's -17c

Anyone want one? I got some beer in the snow too....

*This is me trying to get away from the political Mericans*

Attached is a picture of Jacob. He doesn't care about tariffs either. Tariffs aren't the reason he's mad at American cats. He's mad at them over sovereignty threats. He wants the dogs to stay on their side. That's all he has told me.

IMG_20240806_224912.jpg
 
X3 Skier said:
And so is the KC-46. Both a complete waste of money to attain certification. If it is already OTS, no extra cost. If it is modified or new design, why require extra work for FAA Certification?
Click to expand...
Add that they needed to do both MCO and FAA cert to the mix
 
WhichWays_Up said:
I'm grilling burgers tonight, even though it's -17c

Anyone want one? I got some beer in the snow too....

*This is me trying to get away from the political Mericans*
Click to expand...
:) Down here we're in a land where anyone can run for office, and almost always only the worst do. I think it's always been like that. The rest have regular jobs and shuffle along.

Love our friends to the north. Your temperature measurement system is funny, even if it did leak down here into our airport temperature measurement system. I don't know what "-17 yes" is, but it sounds cold. I even like the Canadians just north of us here, even when they talk in a language that kinda sounds like Cajun but different.
 
X3 Skier said:
And so is the KC-46. Both a complete waste of money to attain certification. If it is already OTS, no extra cost. If it is modified or new design, why require extra work for FAA Certification?
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying here. Are you implying that if a military aircraft is modified, there won't be a FAA type certificate issued for that modified aircraft? The KC-46 is a B767 modified to have a huge air refueling boom on the back end of it. It's still a 767 type though.
 
on the other end of the spectrum is the E-8C. All operational E-8C aircraft and T-3 and T-1 aircraft started life as a 707 (mainly -320 variant iirc). The USAF didn't maintain the FAA type cert of those aircraft, but some of the aircraft components were not modified for use on the E-8C.
 
Sluggo63 said:
It's still a 767 type though
Click to expand...
Yes, but it depends on several issues how it keeps that type. With the KC-46, it starts as a type certified Boeing 767-2C Special Freighter which is detailed in the 767 TCDS. So once it is released as TC'd aircraft then the necessary modifications are performed to configure it as a KC-46. And similar to what Beech does with military King Airs, Boeing also provides a regulatory route to return a KC-46 back to its type certified 767-2C configuration.
 
Lindberg said:
Then it shouldn't take them more than a minute to get that rubber stamp out and start stamping.

Tariffs are inherently political. They're a bad idea economically. They're economic protectionism and exist to alter incentives in an attempt to influence trade partners' behavior.

The current administration is using them the same way they've always been used, but more, and to greater effect.
Click to expand...

Originally, impost and duties were the taxes allowed in the constitution.

It took an amendment to allow general income taxes.
 
Albany Tom said:
But China? They have an unfair advantage because there's no safety and no environmental laws. It's not protectionism to place tariffs in place for those reasons.
Click to expand...

That's a small part of the problem with China. The real issue is the CCP is paying companies to produce steel and dump it on foreign markets below market rates to get foreign currency. By playing with the currency rates you can pay workers in local lower value currency and sell for USD which is worth 10X more. Its like triple dipping.

As for first world countries EPA/environmental rules... well, some things we may not want to produce in the US due to the waste. China and India are already lost causes... I don't feel bad if those workers want to work under those conditions... its their choice and I don't want heavy industrial production in my back yard.
 
Lindberg said:
Milton Friedman, and others, demonstrated long ago that tariffs hurt both sides economically. If your trade partners can produce goods more cheaply, you're better off letting them, from a purely economic perspective.
Click to expand...
That's a very one sided view. Protectionism is good for anyone BUT the USA? Before Trump Europe placed a 10% tarriff on US car imports, and the US only charged European car makers 2.5% If Detriot et al can make a better car cheaper why should they face a higher tarriff hurting its own industry?

Also as Trump has stated many times US products face hidden taxes/fees imposed specifically against foreign products. A Jeep in the US will cost $35k but magically jumps to $53k in Japan, plus that same Jeep pays higher annual taxes and non-tarrif barriers specific to foreign products.

Vietnam imposed a 70% tariff on vehicles from non-Asian countries. While Vn is not a huge exporter of cars, they do export parts. Why should US workers be penalized?
 
Albany Tom said:
As an example, in the US to make steel you need to have a mill that meets osha regulations for worker safety, and EPA regulations for air and water emissions, to protect the workers and the environment. It's a level playing field to have steel imports from countries with similar rules, like western Europe, Canada, and Japan.
Click to expand...
We have steel tariffs on every one of those countries.
 
mryan75 said:
We have steel tariffs on every one of those countries.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm not stating that what we're either doing now or have done in the past is correct, or that tariffs are a good idea in general. Just that there is a reasonable place for them to protect our own economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top