STC ratification system needs overhaul now (Opinion)

America is a nation of innovators. Except in aviation, it seems. Don’t get me wrong — there are great innovations continuing to be developed in aviation. New engineering innovations, new aircraft types, materials advancement — these are all happening across the full spectrum of aviation, and these developments are not just remarkable, but have the potential to change the way we fly and ship via air. The Federal Aviation Administration, however, does not appear up to the challenge. At Cargo Facts , we have watched with dismay the recent experiences of Israel Aerospace Industries and Mammoth Freighters trying to secure Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) to convert 777 passenger aircraft into freighters. The FAA, for example, took five years to approve IAI’s STC , which is required before any modified 777 aircraft can enter commercial service. It should have taken the FAA no longer than three years. Mammoth just got its 777-200LRMF STC , and it took a similarly long journey. We have heard rumors of Mammoth, at some point, waiting for particular people at the FAA to return from vacation to move the process forward. IAI reportedly suffered through similar bureaucracy. This was a 20th century method being applied to a 21st century situation. Calculating exactly how many STCs the FAA approves per year is difficult — it seems to be around 1,200. Most of those are amendments, rather than new STCs, like the ones Mammoth and IAI got. Furthermore, most of the new STCs are for “minor” technical matters, while only fifty to sixty are for major technical programs, such as aircraft conversions, engine retrofits, re-engining, new designs for winglet installations, large structural changes including doors, floors or tanks, or special mission aircraft including firefighting or surveillance. In our view, fifty to sixty STCs per year is not enough, especially considering the potential aviation innovations on the horizon. And new STC applications continue to rise: There were around 535 last year from 450 in 2016. It is true that the FAA’s certification practices and procedures changed and slowed drastically after the 737 MAX debacle, which started in 2018 with the crash of Lion Air flight 610 that killed all 189 occupants on board. It has been well-documented that Boeing effectively bullied the FAA into certifying the 737 Max without the proper procedures. But that does not forgive the FAA from operating in an antiquated manner. It is an open secret in aviation that the engineering expertise at the FAA is woefully insufficient for the certification challenges. There are efforts to certify new aircraft that are autonomous, battery-powered or even supersonic. The FAA appears to be intellectually outmatched by these certification demands. If it is outmatched, it needs to find technological solutions to end the certification handcuffs it has put on the aviation industry — handcuffs that are preventing innovation and advancement in one of the nation’s most important sectors. More AI-driven solutions to validate engineering results are needed. And the FAA methodology needs more refinement. There are requests being made by the FAA within the certification process that seem arbitrary. Checking a crosswind of 25 knots versus 20 knots, for example, appears to be arbitrary. Yes, these are new aircraft and technologies, but there needs to be a better certification process so that aviation can thrive. Part of the blame rests with the industry. The broader aviation engineering industry, which includes product development and the maintenance, repair and overhaul — or MRO — sectors, has not come together to lobby in a coherent, organized manner. There is a need for a trade group to communicate industry needs and expectations to the FAA in a unified voice. Some “not-for-profit” trade groups, reaping windfalls of revenue from their events, do not seem willing to invest the effort or resources into fielding a proper lobbying operation. This is not just about freighter conversions: Look at the shameful understaffing of air traffic controllers or the absurdity around the antiquated air traffic control system in the United States. This all traces back to Congress, which has not allocated enough funding to: Hire and retain qualified aerospace engineers, who can earn far more in the private sector; Modernize internal systems and processes; and Invest in new certification tools and technology, including AI-driven solutions. There’s also a political dimension: Congress sets the FAA’s reauthorization terms — today, at least to some degree, at the behest of the White House — and that controls priorities and timelines. When reauthorization gets delayed or becomes politically contentious, the FAA operates in a kind of limbo that makes long-term hiring and investment planning very difficult. Whatever the underlying dynamic, the onus is on industry to do what it can to rectify the FAA. Without robust lobbying, the aviation sector is diminishing. The time for action is now. Cargo Facts EMEA 2026 will take place April 28-30 in Brussels at the Marriott Hotel Grand Place. For more information and to register, visit CargoFactsEvents.com .

STC ratification system needs overhaul now (Opinion)

Without fix, aviation is poised for long period of lackluster innovation

National enters 777F segment with first delivery

MSC launches Ezhou route

Related Posts

Engine scarcity, maintenance backlogs worry freighter operators

FedEx takes ACIA’s first ATR 72-600F LCD conversion

Industry facing high jet fuel prices, expensive engines, geopolitical volatility

MSC launches Ezhou route

Cargo Facts Free Newsletters

Cargo Facts Connect Podcast

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Retrieve your password