Posted by: "Michael Coates" mcoates@mcp.com.au xairaustralia
Cessna Drops 80 Skycatcher Orders in Europe
By Dan Johnson, April 14, 2012
Latest News: No Skycatchers for Europe.
Eighty Skycatcher orders placed through a French dealer for Cessna have been cancelled! This sad state of affairs ends a lengthy effort by the Wichita giant. *** For many months, stretching into years, my LAMA Europe colleague, Jan Fridrich (and others) have battled with EASA over LSA rules and acceptance of ASTM standards as the means of certification for these light aircraft. EASA has heavy-handed rules demanding that all producers meet DOA and POA regulations and these are evidently sufficiently expensive and burdensome that perhaps even the world's largest airplane manufacturer may not be able to justify the effort. (EASA is the European Aviation and Safety Agency, roughly the equivalent of FAA for the entire European Union. DOA is Design Organization Approval and POA is Production Organization Approval. In addition EASA demands a Restricted Type Certificate). Interestingly, EASA has accepted ASTM rules via its CS-LSA (Certification Specification [for] Light-Sport Aircraft) but layered on top of this is the DOA/POA/Type Certification requirement. *** A small number of LSA builders — Evektor, Tecnam, Flight Design, and possibly others — have reportedly gained these approvals, so it is possible for companies to comply. But EASA "Fees & Charges" are steep and sharply higher for non-EU producers (like Cessna) partly because non-European manufacturer must pay for a minimum of two inspectors to travel from Europe to perform investigations and the company must allegedly pay a high hourly cost (apparently about $250 per hour) for each inspector even while they travel, sitting on an airliner. Some have estimated the cost of EASA approval at beyond $200,000 for an aircraft like Skycatcher plus smaller but still costly expenses every year afterward. In Cessna's case, the cost would likely include the expense for those EASA inspectors to fly to China where Skycatcher is manufactured. *** The result is this: If it may be too expensive or burdensome for Cessna to make they effort, can you imagine any other non-European producer willing to spend the money? Probably not. Thus, while the rules put in place by EASA may not intend to lock out non-EU producers, they nonetheless appear as a kind of trade barrier. *** My associate, Jan Fridrich, wrote, "I was just informed that the French dealer of Cessna announced end of Cessna's effort to certify Skycatcher in Europe. You know that I reported this in January from Sebring." Here is what the French Skycatcher dealer wrote: "Aeromecanic is sad today to confirm that Cessna is canceling all Skycatcher's orders for the European market. • First of all we would like to thank all our customers who trusted us and Cessna while ordering this aircraft over the last two years. • Aeromecanic was proud to have the incredible number of 80 orders; this was possible thanks to our hopes in the great job of Cessna's engineers. • We really want to say all of our customers that Aeromecanic is working hard to propose another great solution for all flying clubs, flight schools, and private owners. • We are really sorry to give such bad news, but once again Aeromecanic will be with you to ensure your operations." *** It is an unfortunate ending that might show what happens when bureaucratic pride insists on costly top-down rules rather than accepting what works in another country. It is important to note that other reasons — such as the Skycatcher price increase — may have affected the decision to cancel. As I learn more I will update or add to this article. The good news? Other countries are accepting ASTM standards more and more without erecting barriers to entry the way EASA has done. Perhaps the European agency will reconsider in the future but for now, no Skycatchers for Europe.
.
Thanks Michael, for the more comprehensive report.
"... for now, no Skycatchers for Europe."
Current status then is,
"Skycatchers not yet approved to Euro Standards."
(allegedly,
because of the cost to foreign manufacturers to gain approval)
Thanks,
Mike
.
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment