“If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it,” Attributed to Albert Einstein
We work in highly regulated industries such as defence and aerospace. Often we are working from detailed technical specifications and innovative concepts. When using state-of-the-art techniques and pushing the envelope of performance, the route to proving compliance can become quite convoluted.
Achieving regulatory approval is the end goal, without which the project has failed. And yet, this end goal should define the starting point for complex projects where dependable delivery and timely execution are the ultimate success factors.
Start with the end in mind
Typically, our clients look to us for dependable solutions. We enhance their internal structural design capability with specialist skills and decades of experience that help solve difficult challenges efficiently and comprehensively. With our technical foundations, our knowledge, experience and complementary skills, we can solve a variety of complex structural engineering problems by developing bespoke solutions. Yet bespoke, novel or innovative solutions bring with them inherent risk when it comes to regulatory bodies who typically work on routine, conventional and familiar options.
That’s why identifying a route to success requires a clarity of vision, an understanding of the constraints imposed and a detailed understanding of the regulators involved, alongside clear communication of the plan and desired outcome to both the client and the regulator.
To offer the best solution we have to choreograph a delicate balance of the needs of the client, the needs of the regulator and the art of the possible. And it is vital that this engagement takes place at the outset of the project or at least in the early stages, in order to minimise misunderstanding, nugatory work and late changes ahead.
Swiss aircraft company Pilatus was preparing to develop a prestige business jet aircraft using a turbofan power plant for the first time. The company, renowned for their robust, versatile and prestigious aircraft, needed to ensure speedy and successful certification to ensure their continued cold reputation and business success. Pilatus requested that Cascade Engineering be engaged in a checking and oversight role to reduce the risk on the project and help with important development decisions. As a result of working closely together to balance the needs of both client and regulator, Pilatus avoided costly and timely mistakes, as well as securing a fully certified rear fuselage and vertical tail. Read more.
Seek first to understand then to be understood
Bodies like the CAA for aircraft and Lloyds Register for naval ships play an important part in ensuring safety and quality, giving the end user confidence they will get the capability and reliability they expect. Understanding this and working towards it means we can anticipate and prepare the information and data the authorities need to approve the products we design.
When we were approached by a large steel structure manufacturing company looking to diversify their existing product range with a new offer in the aerospace industry, they wanted a sanity check of where they were, and a plan of activities required to ensure a compliant product that could be certified. They had already contacted the CAA to register their need for compliance review and had developed their designs into prototypes to check manufacturability and functionality.
Having already progressed their ideas, and with experience in their own sector, they were largely expecting a green light from our review. In fact we quickly identified some misunderstandings and anomalies which meant a revised route to certification was needed; an outcome that added time and cost to the project.
While client relationships place an emphasis on open and seamless communication channels, building trust and confidence as an extension of their own team so that potential issues can be more quickly identified and resolved, working with regulators is different. This is a more formal relationship. It equally requires us to build a constructive relationship built on earned trust but requires more transparency and clarity on process, flagging and minimising unnecessary complications, especially late in the project, so that the regulator comes on the journey with us for a smoother ride, derisking the route to certification.
“Regulators do not immediately offer advice on how to achieve compliance. Rather they like to see a detailed plan submitted that they can interrogate. Consider a football analogy where you view the regulator as the referee, not the coach. They won’t tell you how to play the game, but they’ll tell you if you are playing it correctly.”
Cascade Engineering Sales Manager
Gren Williamson
Future Proof for Lifecycle Value
Understanding the end game and the path to success is key to derisking the approval journey. This becomes increasingly critical and complex as industries look to more innovative solutions, materials and processes to meet environmental and sustainable requirements, while also ensuring safety and regulatory compliance.
We have called in the past for a united approach to regulation, with both the safety sector and certifiers bringing a pragmatic approach to changing requirements and needs. Read our industry views.
Until then, the road to approval must be carefully laid out and mapped. Take time and care to develop a plan with a collaborative, compliance-focused approach, which takes account of all parties’ needs and success factors. Only then can you pick up the tools to start the job.
Path to Success:
1. Consultation
Work with the client to understand the specific problem they have, their needs from the project and the regulatory framework they need to navigate. It is important to view the task in the context of the wider project, understand what success looks like and the interdependencies that will govern the ability to deliver.
2. Map a Route to Compliance
Look at all the requirements and constraints and then detail how compliance will be reached. This could be industry standard practice, comparison to similar features used elsewhere, detailed analysis, coupon testing or even full-scale testing of units. This can then form the basis of a discussion with the client to agree the proposed scope.
3. Engagement with Regulators
Typically, regulatory authorities do not provide detailed advice on how to achieve compliance. They like to be presented with a robust plan to review and to identify weaknesses that need additional consideration. Hence mapping the route before formal engagement. Maintain engagement so that reasonable concerns can be addressed, or requirements that might impact cost or schedule can be challenged to see if a compromise is possible (particularly important when pushing the boundaries of knowledge or using new techniques).