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-...-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sad but true

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by 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.

"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]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

"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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99

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]

Originally Posted by 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.


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]

Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

"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.



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

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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