Playing by different rules

The USA and Europe are moving towards a harmonised certification programme for aircraft, but there is still a long way to go

Kate Sarsfield / London

Some general aviation manufacturers are re-evaluating their certification strategies in Europe as the European Joint Aviation Authorities and the US Federal Aviation Administration continue to grapple with harmonising design standards for new aircraft. Although authorities agreed in principle to the harmonisation some years ago, differences remain, resulting in expense and frustration for manufacturers.

The JAA has come a long way since its humble beginnings over 30 years ago as the Joint Airworthiness Authority. Although it remains merely a loose association of national aviation authorities, the pan-European body has sought to fulfil its goal "to provide high and consistent safety standards and a level playing field for competition in Europe".

Over the last decade the JAA has forged closer ties with other international aviation authorities, notably the US FAA, culminating in 1997 with agreed common design standards for certification of new general aviation aircraft built in the USA and Europe under FAR/JAR 23 rules.

These standards cover powerplant, airframe and aircraft performance requirements for aircraft weighing less than 5,700kg (12,500lb), and are designed to reduce the burden on general aviation aircraft makers by harmonising rules under one design standard. No aircraft have been validated under the FAR/JAR 23 rules although around seven models - among them the Cirrus Design SR20 and CAP Aviation CAP 222 piston singles and Sino Swearingen SJ30-2 business jet - have applied. Airworthiness requirements for larger aircraft, over 5,700kg, under the FAR/JAR 25 rules, are now being evaluated, although joint type certifications have been completed on: Airbus A319 Corporate Jetliner, Boeing Business Jet, Bombardier Global Express, Learjet 45, Dassault Falcon 2000 and Cessna's Citation X.

"Harmonisation may be here but there is still a long way to go," says an FAA source. "While there are only a few differences remaining [between the two authorities] on JAR/FAR 23 design standards, technical agreement on FAR/JAR 25 still has to be reached on a significant number of standards."

With the interests to be considered of more than 20 full members and 13 candidate member states, both inside and outside the European Union, not to mention the problems associated with communicating in a cornucopia of languages, the rule-making process can be lengthy and bureaucratic. The FAA source adds: "Where you have to consider the views of every country [in the JAA], on what the standards should be, it can be very difficult to reach a decision on a common standard."

The JAA's large and culturally diverse membership has drawn unwelcome criticism from the international general aviation community. Many manufacturers criticise the JAA validation process for being costly and burdensome, although few who proceed with validation will profess these views on the record. One admits: "It's like bad-mouthing your teacher before an exam."

Gulfstream experience

A number of US companies, however, have fallen foul of a lack of harmonisation. A notable example is Gulfstream, which despite clinching US certification for its GV business jet five years ago, has been forced to undertake additional work in order to obtain JAA validation for the ultra long-range aircraft.

The JAA requires Gulfstream to validate loads at extremes of the flight envelope through testing, and not based on the analysis accepted by the FAA, says senior vice-president, programmes Pres Henne. As a result, the company has been required to build additional ground test articles to validate loads. The remaining two key tests are set for September and November.

Gulfstream admits the delay in obtaining European approval was initially due to its decision to ditch its dual certification programme after a year and focus solely on FAA certification, such was its ambition to beat competitor Bombardier to the market with the first new long-range business jet. Ironically, Bombardier clinched European validation in early 1999 and within months of securing FAA and Transport Canada certification.

Certification efforts at Gulfstream were renewed in September 1998, and expected to receive validation a year later. Three years on, however, and with over 100 aircraft in service worldwide, the Savannah, Georgia-based manufacturer remains empty-handed. It estimates the total bill could cost in excess of $30 million before GV European approval is secured, anticipated early next year.

President of Gulfstream, Bill Boisture admits the lack of JAA approval has limited the company's ability to sell the GV into Europe. Most aircraft sold into the region are placed on the US register, and Gulfstream has lost a number of sales to Bombardier as a result.

The company's disquiet over the JAA validation process was brought before the US Congress last year when Boisture declared: "The entire US aviation industry has come to believe that the Europeans have targeted aviation as an industry they would like to dominate. We have seen the Europeans attempt to use their regulatory process to tilt the competitive playing field in their favour."

Gulfstream's frustrations are reverberating throughout the US manufacturing industry. Representative trade body, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) admits, while substantial progress on FAA-JAA harmonisation has been made, fundamental issues must still be addressed. Barry Valentine, GAMA senior vice president of international affairs, concedes: "The nature of the validation process is far more involved than was originally envisioned."

Burdensome demands

The Washington DC-based association cites time and cost as key burdens for its affected members, stemming particularly from the large validation teams consigned to each programme - typically consisting of two dozen members across the JAA member states on a new large business jet programme, and around a dozen on a derivative aircraft. The teams commonly consist of engineers, designers and test pilots. Valentine adds: "The process can be very costly [team members charge around $200/h] and lengthy. Also having a large team does not always serve the interests of safety." Valentine suggests the cost issue is particularly acute for small companies, such as Cirrus Design and CAP Aviation, which do not have the resources to "buy their way through problems".

GAMA admits the length of the validation process is exacerbated by having to assimilate the numerous and diverse requirements of each aviation authority. Valentine says: "European folks can be particular and nitpicky. Put a diverse group of people in a room and it will always be hard to reach a consensus."

The US industry fears Europe has a hidden agenda in its approach towards validation: to place its homegrown manufacturers at a competitive advantage throughout the region.

Valentine says: "It has been suggested that the only incentive for the JAA to alter its position is to impose penalties which adversely affect European aircraft manufacturers."

The sentiments are echoed by the FAA, which is threatening to stifle US validation of European products by allocating its resources elsewhere. This, GAMA says, would impact the JAA by placing European manufacturers, which sell the bulk of their products to the US, at a competitive disadvantage. "Whether [the threat] is followed through, remains to be seen," it says.

The JAA flatly denies that it is favouring the European manufacturing industry. JAA certification director JF van der Spek says: "We receive similar complaints from them. Manufacturers must get a perspective. Harmonisation [between FAA/JAA] is still very new, and after all, the type validation principles were drawn up following consultation with industry. We are seeking to address concerns and hope to see fewer problems in the future."

Van der Spek attributes successful validation programmes to forward planning and regular communication between the certification authority, validation authority and the applicant. He says: "Early in the programme it is important to identify and address [technical] differences, as they will impact on the aircraft design and programme costs, and to establish a timescale for completion."

Chosen path

Bombardier has involved the JAA from the beginning of its certification programme for the Continental super mid-size business jet, using the original 50 passenger Canadair Regional Jet programme as a benchmark, says John Holding, Bombardier's executive vice president engineering and product development. "We included Transport Canada, the FAA and JAA from the start and came up with a design and certification process that meets the requirements of all the authorities. Establishing relationships and keeping relevant authorities regularly updated is vital."

Holding admits this approach may involve more work up front, but he says "it saves on pain and grief later". The Canadian manufacturer is hoping to clinch JAA validation for the Continental within 40 days of US and Transport Canada certification, slated for the second half of next year.

Bombardier deems JAA validation to be economically astute, but other manufacturers do not share that opinion.

Raytheon has opted to seek country-by-country certification of its new Premier 1 entry-level business jet - although for its current products under development, the Hawker Horizon and Hawker 450, the Wichita-based manufacturer is seeking JAA validation. Raytheon says: "We had a few hitches with the certification programme so we decided to concentrate fully on gaining US approval. Now we shall focus on getting the Premier I certificated in our core markets, the UK and Germany."

Also concentrating on its largest European customer base is Galaxy Aerospace, recently acquired by General Dynamics (GD), which opted to proceed with country-by country certification of its new super mid-size Galaxy. It remains to be seen which approach GD will take in future collaboration on business aircraft programmes with former Galaxy shareholder Israel Aircraft Industries.

Cessna opted for European approval of its Citation X and has also applied for validation of the new mid-size Sovereign. The remainder of its product line, all variants of models certificated prior to harmonisation - for example the CJ1, an upgraded CitationJet - have been approved on a country-by-country basis.

Powerless

GAMA says JAA validation would hold more weight, if it had the legal authority to enforce JARs, which now only become law when then are implemented by each national aviation authority. This in itself has created controversy as some authorities impose additional certification requirements sending the European certification costs spiralling further.

The most challenging authority for gaining certification in Europe is believed to be the UK Civil Aviation Authority. This is widely accused of placing unnecessary requirements on aircraft manufacturers.

Obtaining UK approval for its Learjet 60, for example, will cost Bombardier between $300,000 to $400,000. The manufacturer concedes: "It is not economical to proceed at this time with the modification package for the Learjet 60. The aircraft is certificated throughout Europe, and can operate on any of the [EU] registers."

Four years ago, the UK authority forced Dassault to equip its Falcon 2000 business jet with a "stick shaker" stall warning device to meet the CAA's additional requirements for import (ARI). The move came despite the JAA's insistence that such a device was unnecessary.

Faced with pressure from the industry, however, the CAA has withdrawn this requirement along with some other ARIs.

But such anomalies look set to change with the planned introduction, in late 2002, of the JAA's legally empowered successor, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

Welcomed by the aviation industry, EASA will carry out regulatory and certification functions, with initial focus on large aircraft, for all the member states and supervise the application of rules. National authorities are likely to become localised, overseeing standards, issuing licences and certificates of airworthiness.

Valentine says: "The transition from the JAA to EASA will be challenging as creating a body with such powers will be difficult for many European states to accept. The general aviation industry will be watching developments very carefully."

The implementation of EASA, he adds, should enable the aviation industry to move toward a single global certification standard, favoured by the whole industry.

The ride ahead for both EASA and the international business aviation community will be bumpy. As countless national aviation authorities jostle for position, they will be reluctant to relinquish their now powerful and privileged positions, so the journey may take longer than anticipated.

Although the European business aircraft market is a great deal smaller than its US counterpart, there are rich pickings to be made and the rewards are immense. So despite the challenges involved, manufacturers, ever keen to sustain large order books, will continue to pursue the most cost effective path to claim their share of sales.

Source: Flight International