I suspect that any project claimed to be delayed "years" due solely to the FAA isn't telling the whole story.

I don't know of any new aircraft certification project where the FAA arbitrarily introduced years of delay.

Sometimes the FAA goes too far the other way, like fast tracking the Eclipse certification on very questionable grounds, so much so that it caused a congressional hearing.


Cirrus, who has worked with the FAA before, says they can do it. Do you not believe them?

Mike C.

Are you saying the FAA caused that?

I would think it was because their engines broke and they mismanaged their business. Indeed, that could be an argument that the FAA was too lenient on them in the first place.


Any evidence to support this emphatic assertion?


Are you saying the FAA sat on the paperwork for 20 years? Could it be that the engine doesn't meet standards instead?


A detailed specific example, please, of the FAA arbitrarily delaying a certification.

I submit that any such occurrence will reveal issues on the vendor side when examined closely enough.


Reeks of ignorance to say the above. Cessna doesn't certify things over a weekend, they have planned and prepared for years for it so it goes smoothly at the end, and the FAA didn't hold up Honda's certification for 10 years, either.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you think the FAA will or won't do, Cirrus says they will get certification this year and its their opinion that counts. Do you believe them or not?

The Cirrus faithful are already creating external excuses for non performance.

Mike C.

You failed to notice that I didn't bring that up at all, it was others creating ready made excuses in case Cirrus fails.


So you think airplanes that never delivered are still a "success"?

Well, here's a list of "successful" single engine jets:

Eclipse 400, Diamond Jet, PiperJet, Visionaire Vantage, Gulfstream Peregrine, Stratos 714, Bornhofen Sport-Jet, Flaris LAR01, ...

You would not have lost any bets that they would be a "success" since not one of them has "failed" yet by your standards.

The only measure of success is delivering certified airplanes to customers. This requires design, certification, manufacture, and sales. If you can't do all four things, you fail.

If you don't think Cirrus can meet about half their projection by end of 2016, then decline the bet. A simple yes or no. So far, based on your waffling, it seems you don't believe they will.

Mike C.

Pardon me for butting in, but I believe that there is a substantial mis-communication at play here.

Above, Mike is talking about certificate date. This is the date that FAA records the transfer of ownership on new sales.

A post or two later, Jason claims that the FAA has no control of "certificate dates", then Mike continues that "Of course they do".

I BELIEVE that Jason is talking about the Type Certificate Issuance Date.....not the date of each REGISTRATION certificate.

If I am wrong about this, please accept my apology for wasting your time.

If I am right, I think it stands to reason that all bets placed subsequent to that exchange would be nullified, and need to be re-bet.

These things just happen.

You won't take my bet so what's the difference? Your bet is tied to certification. I don't know if it will get certified and I certainly don't know the date.

You won't take my bet so what's the difference? Your bet is tied to certification. I don't know if it will get certified and I certainly don't know the date.

I ask again, which one of the myriad of ambiguous and imprecise bets you've proposed are you talking about?


How do you reconcile the belief it will be a success with the concern it won't get certified?

Mike C.

Correct. I'm not sure why the FAA calls it a "certificate" date when it is really a "registration" date, but that's how the web site shows it.


I interpreted Jason's comment as relating to TC issue date, not dates of registrations.

Mike C.

Are you saying the FAA caused that?

I would think it was because their engines broke and they mismanaged their business. Indeed, that could be an argument that the FAA was too lenient on them in the first place.


Any evidence to support this emphatic assertion?


Are you saying the FAA sat on the paperwork for 20 years? Could it be that the engine doesn't meet standards instead?


A detailed specific example, please, of the FAA arbitrarily delaying a certification.

I submit that any such occurrence will reveal issues on the vendor side when examined closely enough.


Reeks of ignorance to say the above. Cessna doesn't certify things over a weekend, they have planned and prepared for years for it so it goes smoothly at the end, and the FAA didn't hold up Honda's certification for 10 years, either.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you think the FAA will or won't do, Cirrus says they will get certification this year and its their opinion that counts. Do you believe them or not?

The Cirrus faithful are already creating external excuses for non performance.

Mike C.

You live in fantasy. All regulations have interpretation. If you try to be absolutely rigid in the regulation language, no airplane ever gets certified again.


You obviously didn't follow the Eclipse certification process where the objections of the FAA field guys was overruled by others. This was the subject of a congressional hearing.

Also, note that vendors can request ELOS, equivalent level of safety, where they break the regulations but do it in a way that provides the same benefit. This is fairly common.

I understand it is fashionable to bash the government, and there is some merit to that, but at least do a little bit of research on the topic. Aircraft certification is not as arbitrary as you make it out to be, and the FAA doesn't sit on these things for arbitrary periods of time.

Again, Cirrus is supposed to be a seasoned manufacturer with decades of FAA interaction. They say they can certify this year.

Do you believe them, or are you collecting excuses for them?

Mike C.

I'll make sure I tell aviation folks I know who have had to STC products for aviation markets that there is no arbitrary element to certification. So straightforward a child could do it.



So you do concede that someone who's already certified once with FAA have a better chance? Not arbitrary much then?



I have no opinion on Cirrus. Don't care if they do or don't. So pick that fight with someone else.

Mike, you know I respect your opinions and feel like you're a bright guy (even if you have a bias toward three bladed Mitsubishis, lol), and I generally disagree with most of the crazy crap that Adam says, so I ask this not for confrontation's sake and purely for an education.

If the FAA isn't an arbitrary and capricious entity hell bent on making aviation "safer" by impeding progress, than why did it take over five years for Jim Christy and Steve Spear at Aerostar to get simple winglets approved? Why is it that once upon a time I could have gotten a 337 to put more fuel in the rear baggage compartment of my short body Mits but now it's not possible without so much red tape it's just not worth it? If it's not easier and more predictable to get things certified in Europe, than why do some companies do that?

I don't get it. Can you explain it to me? Because the Eclipse project seems to me like it got pushed through because a lot of well connected people were pushing it, not because it should have been.

Educate me if you please. I don't know how these things work, but the outward appearance is government bullsh!t.

Oh please Craig, with the deferential worship and the putdowns. 'Crazy crap Adam' will tell you this: Mike is a smart and informed guy who happens to be good at Google-fu and is combative and inexhaustible in his taste for arguing. That's it. He doesn't have any insight into the certification process anymore than I have. He just happens to be good at assertively presenting his internet findings as absolute unquestionable facts.

I don't mind Mike, but doesn't mean I'm going to let him steamroll his way in arguments without resistance when I smell fish. That's what these boards are for.

He doesn't know the answer and can't educate you.

what's google-fu?

Ok, let me try this differently.

You and I, Adam, see things from totally different perspectives. You're more art, I'm all science. Much of what you say seems like it's crazy to me, as I'm sure much of what I say seems off to you. Didn't mean to disrespect you as a person, and I'm sorry I didn't choose my words more carefully.

I still think Mike knows what he's on about most of the time however. You may not always like it, but check his facts (I do); they are generally spot on.

Better?