1. Welcome to SocialHangar.net! The place where everything Airlines is shared, discussed and debated. Whether you're a frequent traveler or a fan of airliners and airports you'll be able to find what you need here...so browse around, take a look and register if you like what you see. Registration is simple...just click on the 'Sign Up Now' link to the right of this message to get your FREE account (you can also choose to register using Facebook). Once you register this message will disappear. Hope you'll join us!

US and China Airworthiness standards...!!WHAT?

Discussion in 'FAA News, Opinion and Articles' started by Richard Wyeroski, Nov 3, 2017.

  1. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    The FAA has renewed an agreement between China and the US for Airworthiness standards. I have to say that I am concerned that this will simply allow China to fly their new C-919 in the US.

    China is unfair competition with their low labor rates. The Chinese government owns the Chinese Aviation Authority, their airlines and the their aircraft manufacturing. How fair is it to just come to an agreement between the FAA and the CAAC that Chinese aircraft are allowed to fly in the United States.

    It is my opinion that the Chinese do not have good quality control and produce aircraft that are inferior to Air Bus and Boeing. The FAA decision to do this is a political decision?

    How can Western Aircraft manufacturers compete against China ?



    More>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    http://www.executivegov.com/2017/10...ment-for-airworthiness-standards-recognition/

    C-919 flies for the first time
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/business/china-airplane-boeing-airbus.html
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  2. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Rotorruss likes this.
  3. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    The "New World Order" is alive and well. The "biggly" one, had better get a handle on the "Fake" Aviation Administration, before the MAGA is gone.

    Had a friend "work" on the "Chinese "certification" on a turbo prop. He said it was an "eye opening" experience working with them. We all know what "minimum standards" mean!!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  4. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Yes.....they do not care about quality or safety.
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  5. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Cessna learned the hard way with the 162. Of course the government screwed Cessna too, with the arbitrary "light sport" weight!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  6. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Yes the FAA was effectively lobbied to keep the weight at 1, 320 pounds because foreign manufacturers had developed these light sport aircraft LSA at the lighter weight. Most LSA's are built overseas and imported. It had to have an effect on the US manufacturers. I flew these aircraft and immediately found them to be built poorly. They were too light and many have crashed. I observed more then one accident where the landing gear failed on a hard landing of parts of the plane literally fell off!!!

    The FAA stubbornly would not increase the weight limit to allow our legacy aircraft to fall into the LSA category. The whole situation was politics from Washington FAA Headquarters......

    It definitely was "AMERICA LAST" with this mess!
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  7. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    You are so right on this Russ.....Gee it was like certain people in the FAA were paid off!......but we know that is illegal!!
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  8. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Of course the accident rate doesn't reflect light sport a hazard? Pfft!! I can't even count the ways the government asked for this mess. Of course the alphabet groups got what they wanted out of the deal. Now all we need is PBR 3 to get everything below 6000 pounds under the self certification.

    Then, all they need is a few more investigators to go out to the wrecks. They wouldn't need all the "K" banders and above, so the taxpayers can save money. Come on Mr. Inhofe!!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  9. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    I'm sure the "revolving door" was probably used for some deals? Of course it's probably some international door. Oh the joys of, "scratching backs"!!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  10. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    I could not believe the FAA would not increase the LSA weight. These aircraft were too light. The construction materials were light and did not hold up under student training! Many LSA aircraft were damaged beyond repair and taken out of service.

    So the FAA allowed this and the US manufacturers lost out as many of these inferior LSA aircraft flooded the market.........
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  11. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    The FAA has shown that they are not a safety agency. Poor decisions by incompetent management has slowed the development of our Aviation system.

    The agreement to accept that the Chinese have an aircraft that is airworthy and meets the tough standards of Europe and the United States is very foolish. As I said the Chinese have very poor quality control. There is no individual pride in the products they make.

    We will learn unfortunately when a few C-919's fail in flight..........

    "FAA MAKE AMERICA LAST"
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
    Rotorruss likes this.
  12. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    ...we will also see when the US operators operate the foreign aircraft, just like the foreign rotorcraft. The "Fake" Aviation Administration caves to international pressure for minimum standards. Of course, with the right connections, the US manufacturers can get the same privilege of minimum standards and loopholes.

    Look at how many rotorcraft in service doesn't meet today's standards! Of course the government will cave again because they'll say they can't "cost/benefit" the fixes. Little comfort to those who were injured or killed because of the "minimum standards"!!

    "Drain the Swamp" and " Lock the revolving door"!!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  13. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    The FAA sold out the US aircraft manufacturers allowing LSA foreign manufacturers to control this market. It failed because of an inferior product.

    This agreement with China to accept their Certification of the C-919, is very unfair to US manufacturers.

    It is very dangerous also and the FAA is just not getting involved with the C-919.
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  14. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Hopefully, the thing is never seen on US soil. It's bad enough that we have to see "your a pee on" aircraft.
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.
  15. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,771
    Likes Received:
    18,426
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    According to the certification agreement between FAA and China, all they have to do is say it meets standards......and FAA will sign off on it.....and in it comes! This is madness.........:mad:
     
    Rotorruss likes this.
  16. Rotorruss

    Rotorruss Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    3,396
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    ...just hoping that, due to the "ruskies" influence on design, the US operators don't buy it and put it on the line. I'd rather see the Canadian aircraft in the US before the "egg fu yung" airplanes!
     
    Richard Wyeroski likes this.

Share This Page