U.S. Lawmakers Highlight Certification Concerns

The U.S. Congress signaled that aircraft manufacturing remains high on the agenda, with the House aviation subcommittee holding the first hearing of the 115th Congress on improving the certification process. In the previous Congress, the subcommittee backed provisions in a long-term FAA reauthorization bill seeking continued improvement in the FAA’s certification efforts. But those provisions were sidelined after Congress opted for a short-term extension of FAA authorization instead of a more comprehensive bill.

“Manufacturers [that] design and build to meet these standards….can experience needless and harmful bureaucratic delays, both internationally and domestically. These delays can be detrimental to U.S. manufacturers trying to compete globally,” aviation subcommittee chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) said, opening the February 15 hearing.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) agreed that the U.S. process is lagging and said, “I don’t want to see the aviation industry go the way of electronics, autos, textiles and steel. This is so important to the nation.”

Peggy Gilligan, the FAA’s associate administrator for aviation safety until she retired at the end of last month, outlined a series of initiatives the agency is undertaking, among them a reorganization of the Aircraft Certification Service and development of a “score card” that holds both government and industry accountable. Gilligan also underscored the importance of partnering with industry as new technology, such as use of additive manufacturing (a k a 3D printing), is introduced. This includes continued use of organizational delegation authorization (ODA), which she said is now in place at 84 companies.

Progress has been made, agreed Michael Thacker, who recently moved to Bell after serving as senior v-p of engineering for Textron Aviation. But he said even greater progress can “capture benefits” of those changes. Thacker credited Congress for playing an instrumental role in keeping the pressure on the FAA to ensure the Part 23 reforms are completed. “Like in the Part 23 effort, Congress can play an important role in working with FAA and industry to advance certification and regulatory reform,” he said.

Key reforms in last year’s reauthorization bill “would have provided an important framework and direction,” he testified. “We were disappointed these reforms were not enacted in the 114th Congress. Passing them in an expeditious manner this year would benefit safety, innovation, jobs and our nation's competitiveness.”

Among these reforms was support for fuller use of organization designation authority, improved validation and acceptance of products globally, less inconsistency in the application of regulations by the FAA and improvements in the Flight Service Standards Office, he said. “These changes, if enacted, will have an immediate and lasting impact.”

Thacker also appealed to the panel to look at measures that guard against what he called “regulatory creep.” Manufacturers need a clear path to compliance and to be able to assume that approved approaches and documentation will remain valid, he said, and “unfortunately, this is not always the case.” Approval of a new aircraft can entail a lengthy “Issue Paper” that imposes new requirements or special conditions that specify requirements not already in the regulations. “Each of these contributes to a higher level of uncertainty and risk in the execution of the product development and certification program,” he said, seeking a streamlined process for updating regulatory requirements for Part 25.

As for Part 23, Thacker said the rewrite would bring near-term benefits, but added that Textron Aviation would like to see the approach expanded to regulations governing other manufacturing efforts.

John Hamilton, vice president of engineering for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, highlighted the importance of improving validation. He noted that the company has received orders for the 737 Max from 83 countries, and each country must validate the model. “This process is not meant to be a re-certification,” he said. “A validation should be just that, validating that the FAA conducted the type certificate work to the standards of the foreign regulatory authority in question.”

This process should be quick and efficient, he said, but in some places it can take up to 14 months. Hamilton underscored the important role the FAA plays in the validation process, but told lawmakers that the agency cannot efficiently work with that many countries for a smooth validation process without resources and support from Congress. “The FAA’s role in this global competition is critical,” he said.