|
|
Background
— Airlifter Comparisons — IL-76 [Western Certification] |
|
A Question of Ceritification – Western Countries Operating IL-76s
In a column in the Winnipeg Free Press entitled How should Canada spell 'relief'?, David
Rudd brought up the important question of IL-76 certification for use in the west. “As for material resources, it would be
impractical to consider the acquisition of Russian-built cargo aircraft”, he said since “Transport
Canada requires Canadian owners-operators to certify every nut and bolt, tracing them back to...original
suppliers.” “The process [of new aircraft certification] is so costly and complex that no allied nation
has considered it to be a serious option” Mr. Rudd continued before citing Indian difficulties in
“securing a reliable supply of [Russian] spare parts”. [1]
|
|
|
India has two Ilyushin variants in service – the IL-76MD Gajraj transport and IL-78MKI
inflight refuelling aircraft – with a third on order (A-50s with Israeli Phalcon
early warning radar). Those earlier-generation IAF Ilyushins have passed through Canadian airspace (on their
way to exercises in Alaska) just as commercial IL-76TD out-sized cargo freighters have operated in this
country. This is possible through applications for temporary certification exemptions from Transport Canada
Aircraft Certification Branch. Obviously such exemptions are not an option for Ilyushins to be permanently based
in Canada. Mr. Rudd is quite right in saying that any Canadian Forces Ilyushin would need to be
re-certified.
|
|
|
Attempting to re-certify a small number of airlifters would indeed be a serious obstacle if the CF were to attempt
such an expensive project on its own. But, it should not be assumed that we would bear the brunt of
certification costs. Fortunately for Canada, the freight carrier Volga-Dnepr has formed a new division to oversee IL-76 conversions as well as to obtain
new certification for these aircraft. Russian carriers had avoided full western certification for the older
IL-76s simply because the cost was not warranted when the carriers could apply for exceptions on a
flight-by-flight basis. Certification issues didn’t change this situation, rather it was the stricter
international environment standards imposed by ICAO.
|
|
|
The procedure has been simplified by the new-production IL-76TD which has engines which exceed ICAO standards,
and US avionics and cockpit equipment. Here we must dip into certification alphabet soup. For commercial
operation, new IL-76s have AP 25 certification (older IL-76 models were built to meet Soviet NLGS-3 standard not
AP 25.) Russia’s AP 25 regulations are compatible with western certification but most western nations,
including Canada, have their own distinct form of civil aviation regulations.[2]
|
|
|
To gain a Canadian Type Certificate, any new[3] ‘transport category’ aircraft must meet the terms of Chapter
525 of Transport Canada’s Airworthiness Manual. This certification allows military aircraft to
operate in civilian airspace including landing at international airports. Canadian Aviation Regulations are
closely matched to US FAR 25 rules. Indeed, according to Transport Canada, “... there are no
interpretive or regulatory differences between FAR 25 and Chapter 525.” Both Europe and Russia (through
the CIS Aviation Register) are aiming at similiar compatability with FAR 25 for their certification standards
– JAR 25 and AP 25 respectively. In the mean time, Volga-Dnepr is highly motivated to certify
their converted IL-76s for global operations which will make the entire certification issue moot.
|
|
|
[1] Here Mr. Rudd was actually referring to Delhi’s controversial decision to buy Sukhoi
Flanker fighters. Many consider the Flanker to be the best operational fighter in the world
today. However, the chief of the IAF preferred more Mirage 2000s to yet another new aircraft type.
There are also factions within the Indian military who favour western equipment over any other choice (including local
production). Applying that thinking to strategic airlift, there would be no Gajraj today. Instead, India
would be left in the situation Canada finds itself.
[2] Transport Canada attempted to simplify its guidelines by accepting UK and US ‘mil-spec’ as a
“Basis of Certification”. Although the C-17 is not civil FAR-25 certified, this TC rule allowed the
government to prepare an ACAN (Advance Contract Award Notice) excluding Russo-Ukrainian AP-25 certified
aircraft (opening DND up to legal challenges yet again – ie: tailoring the ACP-S requirement to the C-17).
[3] ‘New’ is a relative term here. For reasons of safety, even the smallest changes made to aircraft
require re-certification (or ‘exceptions’ ).
|
|