China seeks European approval of C919

[BlankBox]

Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) will seek to work with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to allow its ‘domestic civil aircraft to go abroad’
The home-grown C919 narrowbody passenger jet made its maiden commercial flight in May, but has only been certified by China’s regulator



https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3247291/china-seeks-european-approval-c919-wants-its-home-grown-jet-compete-boeing-and-airbus-abroad

[BoeingDriver99]

I’d rather fly a C919 seeing how long they’ve been testing and developing it and knowing China’s attitude to risk than anything coming from Boeing in the last decade. So good for them and best of luck! Airbus needs a bit of decent competition these days.

[OvertHawk]

I’d rather fly a C919 seeing how long they’ve been testing and developing it and knowing China’s attitude to risk than anything coming from Boeing in the last decade. So good for them and best of luck! Airbus needs a bit of decent competition these days.

Sad but true

[Lonewolf_50]

I’d rather fly a C919 seeing how long they’ve been testing and developing it and knowing China’s attitude to risk than anything coming from Boeing in the last decade. So good for them and best of luck! Airbus needs a bit of decent competition these days. "Just because someone else is doing it then it must be better."
Do you understand the error in reasoning that you are making?
(I share your disappointment in Boeing's decline).

[SMT Member]

Forgive me for maybe having misunderstood it, but it was my impression that the C919 is certified to standards which are non-compliant with those of the FAA and EASA, meaning it won’t be certifiable within those jurisdictions.

Could be that the CAAC are testing the waters, wanting EASA to quantify the delta and a provide a path to compliance. If the aircraft can be made EASA compliant, then it should certifiable by the FAA as well.

If it can be certified; if COMAC get their after-market support in order; if it comes with acceptable performance and maintenance guarantees; if it’s offered at 75% the price of a Max or Neo, then it would stand a decent chance of enjoying some success outside of China.

Strategically it’s obviously a whole different ballgame, as it’s not really in Europe's interest to finance China’s ambitions for the C929, as well as the eventual C939 and C949 models. On the other hand, China is projected to account for 25% of sales of all commercial aircraft seating +100 passengers in the next 20 years, a demand their local industry has no chance at coming near meeting. It’ll be a delicate balancing act.

[BoeingDriver99]

"Just because someone else is doing it then it must be better."
Do you understand the error in reasoning that you are making?
(I share your disappointment in Boeing's decline).

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said anything approaching what you postulate.

[GlobalNav]

Forgive me for maybe having misunderstood it, but it was my impression that the C919 is certified to standards which are non-compliant with those of the FAA and EASA, meaning it won’t be certifiable within those jurisdictions.

Could be that the CAAC are testing the waters, wanting EASA to quantify the delta and a provide a path to compliance. If the aircraft can be made EASA compliant, then it should certifiable by the FAA as well.

If it can be certified; if COMAC get their after-market support in order; if it comes with acceptable performance and maintenance guarantees; if it’s offered at 75% the price of a Max or Neo, then it would stand a decent chance of enjoying some success outside of China.

Strategically it’s obviously a whole different ballgame, as it’s not really in Europe's interest to finance China’s ambitions for the C929, as well as the eventual C939 and C949 models. On the other hand, China is projected to account for 25% of sales of all commercial aircraft seating +100 passengers in the next 20 years, a demand their local industry has no chance at coming near meeting. It’ll be a delicate balancing act.
I'm no longer up to date on a current comparison between written Chinese and FAA standards, but in my experience Chinese compliance with FAA standards was a disingenuous exercise, what we commonly call "pencil-whipping", saying whatever the authority wants to hear, with little regard for the truth. Not sure I'd go that far with Boeing, notwithstanding its own issues. No way I'd fly on the Chinese airplane and if I had authority, no way I'd approve FAA/EASA approval.

[BoeingDriver99]

Well **** if the FAA standard is what you’re after then what are you worried about? The 737 Max is a debacle beyond comprehension and perfectly approved by the FAA.

[tdracer]

Well **** if the FAA standard is what you’re after then what are you worried about? The 737 Max is a debacle beyond comprehension and perfectly approved by the FAA.
So if the C919 is designed, built, and certified on the same level as the original 737MAX, you'd be willing to fly on it?

I have some first hand experience with the CAA level of certification and oversight. NO WAY I'm getting on a C919.

[BoeingDriver99]

The C919 isn’t designed or built according to 1960s technology so it’s a moot point. I won’t fly the Max as it has a PROVEN record of literal disaster.

But you seem to be unable to separate two distinct thoughts: 1) the Max is a disaster. 2) this has NO bearing the C919. They are almost entirely unrelated thoughts.

Point blank refusing to fly an airliner certified by a different countries regulatory authority without any evidence of malpractice/increased risk seems a lot like xenophobia to me.

[Less Hair]

So it might get certified. Possible as they build western certified A321neos including their wings already.
Then european airlines will be expected to order it?

[shore leave]

Having been directly involved with tc and stc with the FAA from an engineering and testing perspective this aircraft will take many years before it is approved. I have seen the CAAC conformity processes, while I'm not saying it's lacks credibility it's certainly not as thorough as EASA or the FAA.

[tdracer]

Point blank refusing to fly an airliner certified by a different countries regulatory authority without any evidence of malpractice/increased risk seems a lot like xenophobia to me.
As noted, I have first hand experience with how the CAA works, and the way their aerospace industry works. Inspections signed off that were obviously never performed, forged paperwork and corruption. Literally having to have a Boeing rep present when a maintenance task was performed to make sure they actually did it. As for the CAA vs. the FAA - I saw the exact same weaknesses and flaws in the CAA that I saw with the FAA - only worse. Total inability to see the big picture - focusing on the tree instead of the forest.
As for the A320 series assembled in China - you can bet there are Airbus people doing the final inspections and QA.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Forgive me for maybe having misunderstood it, but it was my impression that the C919 is certified to standards which are non-compliant with those of the FAA and EASA, meaning it won’t be certifiable within those jurisdictions.


If it can be certified; if COMAC get their after-market support in order; if it comes with acceptable performance and maintenance guarantees; if it’s offered at 75% the price of a Max or Neo, then it would stand a decent chance of enjoying some success outside of China.


It’s 1980’s technology, with a lot of if’s around support and life cycle costs. I expect China will try to bully EASA into certifying it with threats of cutting off Airbus from the China market. China doesn’t do subtle

Even if China can get a Western regulator to certify it, I don’t think there is going to be any appetite among established airlines to buy in. The Sukoi regional jet is a salient lesson in the dangers of “problematic” manufacturers.

[BoeingDriver99]

The C919 will eventually be certified in the rest of the world. It’s just a matter of time. Maybe a long time but it will occur. And China will use it as a learning curve for the C929. They have to start somewhere and the ARJ-21 was their 21st Century starting point. Learning to build and certify airliners doesn’t happen overnight. But when China is wants to do something; they do it. Might take a long time but they’ll get there.

[wrench1]

But when China is wants to do something; they do it. Might take a long time but they’ll get there.
Maybe. Russia and other countries have been trying to break into the same market for over 50 years and have yet to “make it.” And it has nothing to do with xenophobia or any other word you choose to use. The reason is mostly technical and centers around how much they are willing to change their aviation system. Regardless, while China has been trying to buy credibility with the purchase of a number of western aviation companies, they still haven’t seen the light and put in place the processes that will give them a more direct path to international certification of the 919 and other aircraft. And this is self-evident by the number of aviation audits they continue to fail.

The one thing the 919 does have in its corner is that 50%+ of its parts and components are imported from existing internationally certified vendors. However, even with that positive point I seriously doubt COMAC will expand beyond a limited provider in the global market based on my experience with the CAAC and other national aircraft producers.

[BoeingDriver99]

I agree with you on that point; even if COMAC wanted to compete with Boeing or Airbus it will take decades to become a significant player.

I wonder if their strategic aim is actually to just provide for their domestic carriers needs alone?

[Lord Bracken]

So it might get certified. Possible as they build western certified A321neos including their wings already.
Then european airlines will be expected to order it?

"Build" isn't quite accurate. There is a final assembly line (FAL) in Tianjin which bolts together large pieces of aircraft shipped in from the rest of the world. Mobile in Alabama, USA has the same facility. The wings of the A321 are all made in Broughton UK, and then shipped to the FALs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CO38MOCW8AAlaRK.jpg

This is a world away from locating design, production, assembly, test flight and certification in China.

[Lonewolf_50]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never said anything approaching what you postulate. Let's use the video tape replay on this one, and you might take note that others posters found your terse and poorly thought out comment to have flaws in it.
I’d rather fly a C919 seeing how long they’ve been testing and developing it and knowing China’s attitude to risk than anything coming from Boeing in the last decade. So good for them and best of luck! Airbus needs a bit of decent competition these days. C919 isn't certified yet, but you are happy to fly on it. That is Using Your Own Words. The last three flights I have been forced to be on (I hate the airline industry at this point in my life, but I sometimes have to travel by air) have been in a 737 MAX flown by Southwest Airlines. Had a non certified aircraft been on offer to take us I'd not have boarded.

[Ancient Mariner]

I agree with you on that point; even if COMAC wanted to compete with Boeing or Airbus it will take decades to become a significant player.

I wonder if their strategic aim is actually to just provide for their domestic carriers needs alone?
Decades does not mean much to most Chinese.
I once asked a Chinese "old friend" who lived through Mao's Cultural Revolution what his thought were on that period.
His response was: "We Chinese have thousands of year of history, the Cultural Revolution was nothing".
Per

[BoeingDriver99]

The C919 has been certified since September 2022 and is in service. I’d be perfectly happy flying on it.

I’m unsure why you say it isn’t?

[OldLurker]

Hm.
Will a C919 start if it's not connected over the internet to a server in China?
Can the Chinese goverment, if it wishes, disable all C919s in a country it doesn't like?

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

[Asturias56]

well if the Chinese can so can the USA - and you'r really better worry about any Apple products you have................

[Big Pistons Forever]

I agree with you on that point; even if COMAC wanted to compete with Boeing or Airbus it will take decades to become a significant player.

I wonder if their strategic aim is actually to just provide for their domestic carriers needs alone?

A report I read somewhere said the potential NB Chinese requirements for just domestic short haul was over 1000 airframes. Satisfying even half of that is enough airplanes to make the program viable. In any case I expect that Chinese airlines will be “encouraged” to replace their 737’s and A320’s with new C919’s.

As for its chances outside of China, It’s low and getting lower. The supply of Western technology is going to dry up as a result of US anti China policies and so I think this is as far as the Chinese airliner program goes.

They will still probably be able to sell a few to vassal states but an inability to operate within a Western airline regulatory environment, is crippling.

[Flyingmole]

Reading some of the comments reminds me about an article I read in Autocar - British car magazine - many moons ago. It was about the arrival on our shores of the first Honda Civic and its like. While begrudgingly accepting the qualities of the car the article went on to say pompously "But of course Japan will never produce a luxury car". Hah! The West always seems to doubt the ability of the East.

So regards the C-919 situation, is China still behind in technology? Yes. Is it going to stay behind? Nope. Will it challenge the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus? Almost certainly.

Never forget that it was an admiral in the US Navy who first announced that the totally-indigenously-produced DongFeng 21 missile was an absolute carrier-buster against which the said Navy had no defence. Do not underestimate the determination of CHina and remember that they work to much longer timescales than the West. (And no, I'm not a Chinese propagandist: just a well-travelled Brit)

[Lonewolf_50]

The C919 has been certified since September 2022 and is in service. I’d be perfectly happy flying on it.

I’m unsure why you say it isn’t? Good question. Not sure where I got that. Sorry.
The C919 will eventually be certified in the rest of the world. It’s just a matter of time. But you did mention that ...and EASA seem to be taking their time.

[Less Hair]

"Build" isn't quite accurate. There is a final assembly line (FAL) in Tianjin which bolts together large pieces of aircraft shipped in from the rest of the world. Mobile in Alabama, USA has the same facility. The wings of the A321 are all made in Broughton UK, and then shipped to the FALs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CO38MOCW8AAlaRK.jpg

This is a world away from locating design, production, assembly, test flight and certification in China.

AFAIK China is manufacturing the wings of the Tianjin assembled Airbus aircraft itself by now. The point is they have a long history of building and assembling aircraft accepted by western authorities.

[TCASfan2001]

A little competition is always a good thing.

[Big Pistons Forever]

AFAIK China is manufacturing the wings of the Tianjin assembled Airbus aircraft itself by now. The point is they have a long history of building and assembling aircraft accepted by western authorities.

Are the those airplanes eligible for a Certificate of Airworthiness from a Western Regulator ? A friend told me that he thought certain serial number range Airbus aircraft can only be issued a Chinese C of A.

[Less Hair]

They formally get handed over to the customer by Airbus (not by the joint venture) at Tianjin with unrestricted certification and full guarantees.

[wrench1]

The point is they have a long history of building and assembling aircraft accepted by western authorities.
True. However, in these cases it is done under "western" management of the oversight and quality systems. The disconnect with the 919 as with other "inhouse" Chinese built aircraft and parts is all the oversight and quality control is done to an internal national standard. But keep in mind China is not the only country that has these issues. Even some mainstream aircraft or parts built under license in other countries do not enjoy the same international certification status as those same items built by the original OEM due to the same policies and procedures that China faces. And one part China also has a long history of are substandard traceability and quality control systems which are foundational for any international aviation certification approval and acceptance.

[Less Hair]

I'd say building aircraft is not their big challenge but providing western style services and spare parts might be. At least until they have some global distribution network.

[Flyhighfirst]

well if the Chinese can so can the USA - and you'r really better worry about any Apple products you have................

No. Even the US government has taken Apple to court to get them to give access… they lost. Apple is pretty airtight.

[neville_nobody]

Reading some of the comments reminds me about an article I read in Autocar - British car magazine - many moons ago. It was about the arrival on our shores of the first Honda Civic and its like. While begrudgingly accepting the qualities of the car the article went on to say pompously "But of course Japan will never produce a luxury car". Hah! The West always seems to doubt the ability of the East.

So regards the C-919 situation, is China still behind in technology? Yes. Is it going to stay behind? Nope. Will it challenge the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus? Almost certainly.

The issue with the C-919 and certification will be the integrity of the IP. It has been widely reported that the C919 has stolen alot of IP to make it work from western sources. Now they will get away with that in China but the Europeans and the USA won't be letting them certify this thing with stolen IP in it.

www.zdnet.com/article/building-chinas-comac-c919-airplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/ (https://www.zdnet.com/article/building-chinas-comac-c919-airplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/)


A report published today shines a light on one of China's most ambitious hacking operations known to date, one that involved Ministry of State Security officers, the country's underground hacking scene, legitimate security researchers, and insiders at companies all over the world.

The aim of this hacking operation was to acquire intellectual property to narrow China's technological gap in the aviation industry, and especially to help Comac, a Chinese state-owned aerospace manufacturer, build its own airliner, the C919 airplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919), to compete with industry rivals like Airbus and Boeing.

A Crowdstrike report published today shows how this coordinated multi-year hacking campaign systematically went after the foreign companies that supplied components for the C919 airplane.

The end goal, Crowdstrike claims, was to acquire the needed intellectual property to manufacture all of the C919's components inside China.

Crowdstrike claims that the Ministry of State Security (MSS) tasked the Jiangsu Bureau (MSS JSSD) to carry out these attacks.

The Jiangsu Bureau, in turn, tasked two lead officers to coordinate these efforts. One was in charge of the actual hacking team, while the second was tasked with recruiting insiders working at aviation and aerospace companies

The hacking team targeted companies between 2010 and 2015, and successfully breached C919 suppliers like Ametek, Honeywell, Safran, Capstone Turbine, GE, and others.

But unlike in other Chinese hacks, where China used cyber-operatives from military units, for these hacks, the MSS took another approach, recruiting local hackers and security researchers.
According to Crowdstrike and a Department of Justice indictment (https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1106491/download), responsible for carrying out the actual intrusions were hackers that the MSS JSSD recruited from China's local underground hacking scene. Crowdstrike says that some of the team members had a shady history going back as far as 2004.These hackers were tasked with finding a way inside target networks, where they'd usually deploy malware such as Sakula, PlugX, and Winnti, which they'd use to search for proprietary information and exfiltrate it to remote servers.

In the vast majority of cases, the hackers used a custom piece of malware that was specifically developed for these intrusions. Named Sakula, this malware was developed by a legitimate security researcher named Yu Pingan.

In the rare occasions when the hacking team couldn't find a way inside a target, a second MSS JSSD officer would intervene and recruit a Chinese national working for the target company, and use him to plant Sakula on the victim's network, usually via USB drives.

The group, which Crowdstrike said it tracked as Turbine Panda, was extremely successful. The US cyber-security firm points out that in 2016, after almost six years of non-stop hacking of foreign aviation companies, the Aero Engine Corporation of China (AECC) launched the CJ-1000AX engine, which was set to be used in the upcoming C919 airplane, and replace an engine that had been previously manufactured by a foreign contractor.

Industry reporting points out that the CJ-1000AX displays multiple similarities [1, [url=https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/c919s-local-engine-alternative-powered-up-448721/]2 (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/china-completes-assembly-of-first-high-bypass-turbof-444526/)] to the LEAP-1C and LEAP-X engines produced by CFM International, a joint venture between US-based GE Aviation and French aerospace firm Safran, and the foreign contractor that supplied turbine engines for the C919.US crackdownBut while the MSS JSSD's hacking efforts might have gone unnoticed, hackers made a mistake when they overstepped and went after targets a little too big -- such as healthcare provider Anthem and the US Office of Personnel Management.

Those intrusions yielded a lot of useful information (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP2J9aYM6Oo) for recruiting future insiders, but they also brought the full attention of the US government bearing down on their operation. It didn't take too long after that for the US to start piecing the puzzle together.

The first ones to go were the insiders (https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-charges-two-chinese-intelligence-officers-and-their-team-of-hackers/) since they were the easiest ones to track down and had no protection from the Chinese government since they were operating on foreign soil.

After that came Yu (https://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-charges-chinese-national-with-distributing-sakula-malware/), the creator of the Sakula malware, who was arrested while attending at a security conference in Los Angeles, and subsequently charged for his involvement in the Anthem and OPM hacks.

Yu's arrest triggered a massive ripple in China's infosec scene. The Chinese government responded by prohibiting Chinese researchers from participating at foreign security conferences (https://www.cyberscoop.com/pwn2own-chinese-researchers-360-technologies-trend-micro/), fearing that US authorities might get their hands on other "assets."

Initially, this seemed an odd thing to do, but a subsequent Recorded Future investigation (https://www.recordedfuture.com/chinese-mss-vulnerability-influence/) showed how the MSS had deep ties to the Chinese cyber-security research scene, and how the agency was secretly hoarding and delaying vulnerabilities found by Chinese security researchers, many of which were being weaponized by its hackers before being publicly disclosed.

But the biggest hit to Turbine Panda came in late 2018 when western officials arrested Xu Yanjun, the MSS JSSD officer in charge of recruiting insiders at foreign companies.

The arrest of a high-ranking Chinese intelligence officer was the first of its kind, and the biggest intelligence asset transfer since the Cold War, besides Snowden's flight to Russia. Now, US officials are hoping that Xu collaborates for a reduced sentence.

However, Crowdstrike points out that "the reality is that many of the other cyber operators that made up Turbine Panda operations will likely never see a jail cell."

China has yet to extradite any citizen charged with cyber-related crimes.Hackers have continued to target the aviation industryIn the meantime, Turbine Panda appears to have seized most of its operations, most likely crippled due to the arrests, but other Chinese cyber-espionage groups have taken over, such as Emissary Panda, Nightshade Panda, Sneaky Panda, Gothic Panda, Anchor Panda, and many more (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1H9_xaxQHpWaa4O_Son4Gx0YOIzlcBWMsdvePFX68EKU/pubhtml#).

Attacks on foreign aviation firms are expected to continue for the foreseeable future, mainly because Comac's C919 jet isn't the success that the Chinese government expected (see 07:20 mark in the video below), and a fully Chinese airliner is still years away. Efforts are currently underway for building the airliner's next iteration, the C929 model.

For years it's been reported that China has been building its economical might on the back of other countries and its foreign competitors.

The full Crowdstrike report (https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/wp-content/brochures/reports/huge-fan-of-your-work-intelligence-report.pdf) gives a glimpse at how China has been using hackers to do so, although they are not the only component.

The Beijing government itself has played even a bigger role. Historically, they've dangled carrots in the face of foreign companies, promising access to China's booming internal market. Foreign companies have seen themselves forced into joint ventures, only to be forced out later by their former partners after local companies grew with the help of state subsidies and the know-how acquired from the partnership.

In this process, Chinese hackers often helped with "forced technology transfer," breaching business partners and stealing their intellectual property, allowing the Chinese state-owned companies to put out high-end competing products in record time and at very low prices.

And in all of this, the aviation industry has been only one part of the puzzle. Similar hacking efforts have also targeted many other industry verticals, from the maritime industry to hardware manufacturing, and from academic research to biotechnology.

[EDLB]

NSA would never do this. TU 144 anyone?
At the end is the shoddy production at Boeing only a trap to prevent the Chinese from success?

[artee]

The issue with the C-919 and certification will be the integrity of the IP. It has been widely reported that the C919 has stolen alot of IP to make it work from western sources. Now they will get away with that in China but the Europeans and the USA won't be letting them certify this thing with stolen IP in it.

www.zdnet.com/article/building-chinas-comac-c919-airplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/ (https://www.zdnet.com/article/building-chinas-comac-c919-airplane-involved-a-lot-of-hacking-report-says/)
But surely (don't call me Shirley) it not the job of the FAA/EASA to rule on the IP's provenance.

[wrench1]

But surely (don't call me Shirley) it not the job of the FAA/EASA to rule on the IP's provenance.
Can't speak for the EASA but for the FAA its not their job. Different agency, set of laws, and courts. There is nothing in the FARs that prevents you from "copying" an existing product or article and using it provided you obtain your own FAA approvals. However, if you do infringe on someone else's IP that would be a separate matter and you may be subject to other legal actions even though you received FAA approval for the item.

[JapanHanuma]

I’d rather fly a C919 seeing how long they’ve been testing and developing it and knowing China’s attitude to risk than anything coming from Boeing in the last decade. So good for them and best of luck! Airbus needs a bit of decent competition these days.

Chinese technology still has low standards with a high rate of maintenance requirenent, though it tends to look flashy sometimes. I would worry about flying on a Chinese plane after some wear has settled in. But I agree that Boeing has lowered the standards sufficiently that China can compete.

[BlankBox]

A little competition is always a good thing.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/chinese-planemaker-comac-upstages-airbus-boeing-singapore-airshow-2024-02-22/

COMAC was able to seize a moment when the two dominant Western planemakers are dealing with supply chain issues (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/singapore-air-show-kicks-off-amid-travel-rebound-supply-constraints-2024-02-20/) that have frustrated airline customers and Boeing is wrestling with a series of crises, including a mid-air panel blow-out in January

If Boeing/Airbus can't meet demand...does COMAC then become an alternative?

[Asturias56]

Airlines can put up prices - reduces the number of customers but boy it improves their bottom line........................

[ATC Watcher]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/chinese-planemaker-comac-upstages-airbus-boeing-singapore-airshow-2024-02-22/
If Boeing/Airbus can't meet demand...does COMAC then become an alternative?
I think the answer is at the bottom of the article linked above :
But the predominant view among aviation industry leaders attending Asia's biggest aviation gathering was that COMAC had a long road ahead to become a serious competitor and it would largely operate in China's domestic market in the near term.
​​​​​​​The C919 story reminds me a bit of the Sukhoi SSJ , also a good aircraft on paper. But they never broke the Bombardier-Embraer duopoly.

[IBMJunkman]

This video makes me concerned about Chinese construction of anything. This person also has videos showing building construction. 35000 ft in the air? No thanks.

https://youtu.be/q2ockFOVGp4

[Ancient Mariner]

This video makes me concerned about Chinese construction of anything. This person also has videos showing building construction. 35000 ft in the air? No thanks.

https://youtu.be/q2ockFOVGp4
Same thing happened in Sweden, stay away from SAABs.
And in the US, stay away from Boeings.
Per

[Longtimer]

The first picture is of a bridge that was struck by a large ship, the second picture is of a bus that fell into the ship when the bridge was struck. hardly a design fault

[fdcg27]

I dunno.
There is a fine line between theft of intellectual property and use of established technical knowledge in any industry.
State support for a developing competitor is nothing new and is hardly exclusive to China. Anybody ever looked at how much state support was given both Boeing and Airbus as well as any number of now defunct producers of airliners?
If the Chinese are really intent upon becoming competitors in the civil transport market and are therefore willing to devote the resources required to achieve that goal, then I think they will.
Ignore the next couple of decades of US and EU airliner sales and, as others have already noted above, look at China itself as a market along with all of the developing world countries who will be just as happy to accept Chinese airliners at a discount with friendly financing as they have been to accept Chinese infrastructure projects.
Let's not forget that my own country has pretty bad relations with much of what is called the Global South and to the extent that the BRICs exist as a block it's really only China that matters with India a distant second and Russia no more than a source of raw materials and oil. Not sure how Brazil really matters, although we don't enjoy cordial relations with them at the moment and Boeing has permanently lost the opportunity they had to acquire a competent developer of smaller airliners, just as they did with the C-Series. .

[Matt48]

If China really does take the long view, why the rush to get Europe certified, why not certify the C919 to fly only domestic routes, then with say a decades experience and a dozen or so crashes, the CCPTSB will have a good idea what works and what needs improving.
They would then be in a better position to be at least half as good as a Boeing.

[dream747]

Screenshot taken off a YouTuber’s video from a tour on the C919 flight deck. Look at the speed limits for the flaps. Configuration and speed exactly the same as the A320.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x922/img_1170_e0723d93b3b7194481b1cc435668cde757f592e1.jpeg

[ATC Watcher]

S Look at the speed limits for the flaps. Configuration and speed exactly the same as the A320.
Do this implies it is exactly the same wing ? ( or an exact copy of )

[dream747]

Do this implies it is exactly the same wing ? ( or an exact copy of )

Was wondering myself. If anyone has any information do share!

Been trying to find videos or photos up close of the flaps when they are extended to see if they are similar to the A320 but haven’t been able to.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Any idea how the "Foot Heater" works ? Is it just a hot air vent by the rudder pedals ot are the pedals heated ?

Also Is it just me or is the Philips head screw just below and to the right of the Foot Heater switch badly gronched, like you would get if you tried to tighten it with a too small Phillips head ?

[Ancient Mariner]

Any idea how the "Foot Heater" works ? Is it just a hot air vent by the rudder pedals ot are the pedals heated ?

Also Is it just me or is the Philips head screw just below and to the right of the Foot Heater switch badly gronched, like you would get if you tried to tighten it with a too small Phillips head ?
Looks like a Torx head to me?
Per

[315B]

In the unlikely event it receives European approval Ryanair will no doubt put an order in.

[Matt48]

Looks like a Torx head to me?
Per
Me too.

[Frank W. Abagnale]

A new Iron Curtain is slowly falling.

A western airline with a fleet of C9X9 might be in for a rude surprise, especially the day China solves its Taiwan issue militarily.

Even certified I highly doubt any western airline would touch this thing.

[DaveReidUK]

A western airline with a fleet of C9X9 might be in for a rude surprise, especially the day China solves its Taiwan issue militarily.

In those circumstances, the rude surprise will be far greater in scope than just the airlines.

[ATC Watcher]

Also Is it just me or is the Philips head screw just below and to the right of the Foot Heater switch badly gronched, like you would get if you tried to tighten it with a too small Phillips head ?
Could be a Torx , but then 2 kind of screws to fix the same panel? but if this aircraft was the prototype , such things are not unusual as panels and other bits get often removed before and after test flights so I would not make a big fuss out of this, . But it this was a brand new airline delivered aircraft then it is another story.
I still remember visiting one of the B787 prototypes in static display in le Bourget. years back No photos allowed for a good reason , it was not a pretty sight inside.

[dr dre]

Even certified I highly doubt any western airline would touch this thing.

Westerners don’t mind Chinese drones (China’s DJI supplies 70% of the world’s drone sales). They don’t mind the ever increasing sales of Chinese vehicles, or other tech.

But commercial aircraft are a bridge too far?

Airbus really has the dominant edge in products narrowbody, but they’ll be swamped with orders and delivery backlogs. Boeing is a basket case and is pretending an early 60s short range commuter design can realistically compete as a medium range jet in the 2020s and into the 2030s.

If the C919 is proven to have a reliable track record over several years of service internally in China then it should attract orders from other airlines. A reliable C919 would be very attractive option compared to a MAX.

A new Iron Curtain is slowly falling.​​

I would say the exact opposite. People in western countries in the 50s-80s weren’t running with USSR built products everywhere in their household and society.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Could be a Torx , but then 2 kind of screws to fix the same panel? but if this aircraft was the prototype , such things are not unusual as panels and other bits get often removed before and after test flights so I would not make a big fuss out of this, . But it this was a brand new airline delivered aircraft then it is another story..

My understanding this is a picture of the instrument panel from an in service airframe, but hey fasteners aren’t important, just ask Boeing 🙄

[Matt48]

My understanding this is a picture of the instrument panel from an in service airframe, but hey fasteners aren’t important, just ask Boeing 🙄
I think an odd fastener in the panel is preferable to no bolts in the door plug.

[Busbert]

So why is it so implausible that COMAC with strong government support can produce a world class aircraft? Embraer (Brazil) have no fewer than 8 EASA and FAA validated civilian aircraft type certificates.
Never underestimate China.

[EDLB]

In China an exact copy is looked as the highest honor for the original manufacturer. By far exceeding the idea that any license payment would be required.

[ATC Watcher]

In China an exact copy is looked as the highest honor for the original manufacturer. By far exceeding the idea that any license payment would be required.
So possibly on the original A320 they copied the plex panel had 2 different screws ?, that would be funny :E

[315B]

Not long before China reverse engineers the GM supplied LEAP-1C engines..
May be a good opportunity for Russian operators considering the sanctions on spare parts.

[EDLB]

On that Comac video Video Gallery_Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. (http://english.comac.cc/Galleries/Video/) it looks like a A320 copy. Since they produce the Airbus wing in China it is not far fetched. Can someone check a bit on the details?
Airbus A320 family is a 1980 design. So would be interesting what hardware COMAC uses for the fly by wire systems. Their own software and hardware development on new processors, which are today far advanced compared to what was available in the 1980s. Or did the copy the old Airbus Hardware and use the Airbus software.
Some people from Airbus should be in the know on this.

[Semreh]

So possibly on the original A320 they copied the plex panel had 2 different screws ?, that would be funny :E

As funny as Stalin laughing about the colour of the stars painted on the TU-4? (https://tu-95.net/soviet-b-29-clone-the-tupolev-tu-4/)

[llagonne66]

On that Comac video Video Gallery_Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, Ltd. (http://english.comac.cc/Galleries/Video/) it looks like a A320 copy. Since they produce the Airbus wing in China it is not far fetched. Can someone check a bit on the details?
Airbus A320 family is a 1980 design. So would be interesting what hardware COMAC uses for the fly by wire systems. Their own software and hardware development on new processors, which are today far advanced compared to what was available in the 1980s. Or did the copy the old Airbus Hardware and use the Airbus software.
Some people from Airbus should be in the know on this.
For the sake of clarity: EACH and EVERY Airbus A/C wing is manufactured in Airbus' Broughton factory located in the United Kingdom.

[DaveReidUK]

For the sake of clarity: EACH and EVERY Airbus A/C wing is manufactured in Airbus' Broughton factory located in the United Kingdom.

That hasn't been true for nearly 10 years now.

Xian Aircraft becomes sole wing supplier for Airbus's Tianjin site (https://www.flightglobal.com/xian-aircraft-becomes-sole-wing-supplier-for-airbuss-tianjin-site/114129.article)