Originally Posted by
ST Dog
Interesting. So is the AF flying under the STC and using commercial maintenance instead of organic maintenance? At least historically military maintainers weren't certified to FAA/Boeing standards and thus didn't meet requirements gpr continued airworthiness.
Seems unusual for the AF (and not a practice I care for where other branches have done so), especially for such a specialized aircraft.
Sorry, what you're asking is getting beyond my knowledge base. I know that the 767-2C and KC-46 went through the FAA cert process (although I didn't have direct involvement in the KC-46 cert since my system didn't change from the -2C to the KC-46). I'd retired before the final cert was finished and maintenance practices were finalized. At least in theory, the 767-2C could be sold in it's 'as built' commercial version as a purely cargo aircraft although I don't believe that's happened.
There has been a strong movement towards certifying commercially derived military aircraft to FAA Part 25 standards - something that I quite frankly don't understand since it adds considerable costs (basically you need to certify twice - once to the FAA and once to the USAF) without any real added value.