A Brief History of DoD-FAA Procurement Partnership
Kilroy Aviation, LLC
STC ODA Parts 23, 25, 27 & 29, Skilled in FAA Type & Production Certification, Continued Operational Safety (COS). Expert witnesses in COS, Type & Production Certification.
INTRODUCTION:
This is highly recommended for anybody who is or will be working with the Department of Defense on FAA design approvals for military use. A better understanding is sure to help you understand what motivates the DoD as a potential client in the type certification process. It's a unique and useful process that saves public funds, improved DoD procurement and can be profitable for a high performance certification organization or ODA.
In 1994, the Department of Defense (DoD) initiated a new procurement process that leveraged civil sources for their responsiveness and economies of scale, it was seen as an option that would break through the inflexible and overly bureaucratic DoD process that had grown increasingly cumbersome and costly through the years.
Then in 2002, that procurement approach was applied to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aircraft certification processes. Since then, DoD and the FAA have developed a highly efficient partnership that has developed to the point that the FAA staffs a separate Military Certification Office (MCO), funded by the DoD, that manages FAA certification of civilian aircraft, products, parts and appliances for DoD use.
A Memorandum of Agreement between the DoD and FAA was made effective on September 10, 2004, and the FAA/DoD partnership has evolved and grown as it now approaches a 20 year span.
?HISTORY:
On June 30, 1986, President Reagan’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management released “A Quest For Excellence[1]”, a report that addressed the President’s direction to “…study the issues surrounding defense management and organization, and report its findings and recommendations.” Page xi (PDF 8/132) The cover letters were addressed to The President and Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense. This report set the stage for the highly successful DoD procurement system for aircraft, engines, spare parts and modifications that are approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A critical member of the Commission was Willian J Perry, who had been Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (1977-1981), and later to become Deputy Secretary of Defense (1993-1994) then Secretary of Defense 1994-1997).
Chapter Three of the report “Acquisition Organization and Procedures” declared that “All too many people in DoD work in an environment of far too many laws, regulations, and detailed instructions about how to do their work.” And “We must make it possible for people to do the right thing the first time and allow them to use common sense.” Both quotes from Page 42 (PDF 63/132)
The introductory paragraph of Section E “Expand the Use of Commercial Products” stated “Rather than relying on excessively rigid military specifications, DoD should make greater use of components, systems and services available “off-the-shelf.” It should develop new or custom-made items only when it has been established that those readily available are clearly inadequate to meet military requirements.” Page 60 (PDF 81/132).
William Perry became Secretary of Defense on February 3, 1994. Shortly thereafter he chartered a Process Action Team (PAT), who published a report date-stamped April 15, 1994 with the title “Blueprint for Change[2]”, which included the following recommendations, among many others:
?? “The Deputy Secretary of Defense should . . . issue policy stating that nongovemment standards and industry practices that meet the intent of military standards are the preferred alternative.” Page 3 (PDF 11/311) And,
?? “Senior DoD management must . . . Demonstrate senior DoD leadership commitment to Acquisition Reform Initiatives through highly visible and carefully targeted participation in the implementation process.” And “Incentivize Program Managers to select alternatives solutions to military specifications and standards.” Page 3 (PDF 11/311)
Just over 2 months after the PAT report, and within five months of his confirmation, June 29, 1994, Secretary Perry signed a memo “Specifications & Standards - A New Way of Doing Business”[3]. In this memo he wrote:
?? “I have repeatedly stated that moving to greater use of performance and commercial specifications and standards is one of the most important actions that DoD must take to ensure we are able to meet our military, economic, and policy objectives in the future.” And,
?? “To accomplish this objective, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Reform) chartered a Process Action Team to develop a strategy and a specific plan of action to decrease reliance, to the maximum extent practicable, on military specifications and standards.”
?? Secretary Perry’s directions in his memo read, in part; “I direct the addressees to take immediate action to implement the Team's recommendations and assign the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) overall implementation responsibility. I direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) to immediately arrange for reprogramming the funds needed in FY94 and FY95 to efficiently implement the recommendations. I direct the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Directors of the Defense Agencies to program funding for FY96 and beyond in accordance with the Defense Planning Guidance.” Page 1 (PDF 1/5)
It is nothing short of stunning, especially for the federal government, for Secretary Perry to have received the Process Action Team report just over 2 months after his confirmation and signed his June 29 memo in roughly the same time frame after the PAT report. Clearly, he had not forgotten his part in President Reagan’s Blue Ribbon Commission. That time frame infers the decision had already been made when Secretary Perry took his oath of office.
On October 1, 2002, the Department of Defense published the handbook MIL-HDBK-516 “Airworthiness Certification Criteria[4].”? The handbook was approved for use by all DoD departments and agencies, and it established the airworthiness criteria for all fixed wing aircraft. The Handbook notes in the FOREWORD Page ii, (PDF 2/183) that specific guidance was available in the appropriate Joint Service Specification Guides (JSSGs) and Federal Aviation Regulations, which were cross-referenced in the appendix.
MIL-HDBK-516A was published February 5, 2004 and was expanded to include rotary wing aircraft, and specified that the Handbook was to be used to determine airworthiness for manned and unmanned aircraft.
MIL-HDBK-516B had a publication date of September 26, 2005, and is the first revision to note the existence of the FAA Military Certification Office (MCO), which was established to interface with DoD personnel who are procuring or modifying civil aircraft. DoD accountability for airworthiness is described in Section 1.2 as follows: “While alterations to CDA are covered by rules unique to each branch of service, the operating service always has the responsibility for the airworthiness certification approval under public aircraft rules. Therefore, when planning any alterations to an FAA certified CDA (Note: CDA is Commercial derivative aircraft), the modifier should contact the FAA Military Certification Office (MCO) in Wichita, KS at the earliest opportunity. Agreements for reimbursement for military service work performed by the FAA are in place, and in many cases MCO assistance on these alterations may be accomplished without additional cost.” Page 1 (PDF 7/406).
?? In a presentation to the 2010 Hercules Operators Conference, Melvin Taylor, Manager of the FAA Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) stated the MCO was “Created as part of 10 September 2004 MOA between Armed Services and FAA”
MIL-HDBK-516C is the current Handbook revision, it was released December 12, 2014. It repeats the same “airworthiness certification” cautionary note as Revision B. Revision C has 121 more pages than Revision B, and provides much more detailed and refined information than Revision B. For example, specific criteria, standards and methods of compliance are presented in detail and in most cases Revision C provides specific information for the three Services; Navy, Army and Air Force.
?? NOTE: Footnote 4 provides a single hyperlink for all MIL-HDBK-516 Handbook revisions noted above.
领英推荐
FAA Order 8110.101[5] “Type Certification Procedures For Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft” (MCDA) was published September 7, 2007 and was the FAA companion to MIL-HDBK-516. Chapter 1, Section 1 “Purpose of This Order” Paragraph b. declared:
“The procedures in this order are unique for MCDA certification projects, including changes to approved type designs, for aircraft, engines and propellers. We are supplementing Orders 8110.4, Type Certification, and 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, for standard type certification. Use this order plus Orders 8110.4 and 8130.2 for MCDA projects unless we (NOTE: FAA Certification Procedures Branch, AIR-110) specify otherwise.”
FAA Order 8110.101A[6] was published February 25, 2015
?? Chapter 1, Section 4 of Order 8110.101A states: “Basis of the Military Certification Program. In 2012, the FAA and representatives of the U.S. Armed Services signed a federal reimbursable agreement (FRA). In it, the FAA agrees to provide technical assistance, certification services, and continued airworthiness support for MCDA through our dedicated Military Certification Office (MCO). In return, the Armed Services agree to reimburse the FAA for services rendered. For the latest revision of the FRA, contact the MCO.” Page 1-1 (PDF 6/67). The MCO was in place no later than September 26, 2005, see MIL-HDBK-516B, above.
Order 8110.101A and its predecessor are written specifically to support DoD acquisition programs. Perhaps the best way to describe the relationship between the FAA Order and the DoD Handbook is with one word; “handshake”. In a sense, one would not exist without the other.
SUMMARY:
The Department of Defense DoD) initiated a formal DoD acquisition partnership nearly 20 years ago, leveraging Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) civil certification regulations to ensure safety and airworthiness of Commercial derivative aircraft (CDA). MIL-HDBK-516 “Airworthiness Certification Criteria” Handbook (October 1, 2002) referred to the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) as a resource to provide “… military and civil (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) references to support documentation that may be used to help satisfy the airworthiness criteria.” (Section 1.3) and provided an Airworthiness Criteria Cross Reference Table addressing similarities between DoD Certification Criteria and the FARs.
The Handbook stated “For assistance in interpreting or applying the criteria, call the technical point of contact for each section, provided at appendix A.20.” That appendix provided DoD points of contact. The core message of MIL-HDBK-516 was to encourage the use of FARs for acquisition of CDA, as Secretary of Defense Perry had directed in 1994.
Less than 2 years later, by September 10, 2004, the DoD had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) with the FAA to establish the Military Certification Office (MCO), and MIL-HDBK-516B was released on September 26, 2005. Section 1.2 had evolved to provide more authoritative guidance, which bears repeating here:
?? “Commercial derivative aircraft (CDA) are initially approved for safety of flight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and may have an FAA approved Certificate of Airworthiness. Any non-FAA approved alteration to a CDA may render all FAA certifications invalid. While alterations to CDA are covered by rules unique to each branch of service, the operating service always has the responsibility for the airworthiness certification approval under public aircraft rules. Therefore, when planning any alterations to an FAA certified CDA, the modifier should contact the FAA Military Certification Office (MCO) in Wichita, KS at the earliest opportunity. Agreements for reimbursement for military service work performed by the FAA are in place, and in many cases MCO assistance on these alterations may be accomplished without additional cost.”
MIL-HDBK-516C was published on December 12, 2014. The Handbook added more detailed information and guidance specific to criteria to be used by the Air Force, Navy and Army, but the strong reference to leveraging the authority of the MCO and FARs was unchanged from Revision B of the Handbook.
The fundamental nature of the DoD-FAA partnership is now over 18 years old. Fundamentally, the FAA treats DoD CDA certification programs no differently than any other program, and DoD, in conjunction with their contracted aircraft supplier, as “just another applicant". At the same time, DoD program managers are directed to work closely with the FAA MCO as a contracted acquisition manager, in a sense, and the MCO is resourced with DoD funds. The system is powerful and effective, and there are no indications that the DoD may retreat to “the old ways” any time soon.
?Respectfully Submitted
Mike Borfitz