Aircraft certification questions.

[psyshrike]

Howdy,

How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
them new?

I ask because it seems weird that a dozen or so companies are
designing new engines from scratch that are only marginal improvements
over the old ones. Yet nobody reverse engineers and manufactures
out-of-patent engines to fill demand instead.

Does the FAA type certification trump the USPTO when it comes to
patent law? I can't emagine that such an arrangement would ever hold
up in a high court. The FAA can't just spontaneously dictate that it
owns every peice technology ever used in aviation, and that you can
only profit from public domain technology if it says so. Or do they?

I'm not knocking the FAA's safety interests. But public domain is
public domain. If I can make a 1948 mousetrap and sell it, why not a
Continental Engine?

If anybody can refer me to documentation on this or the section of law
or regulation that pertains to it, I'd be quite appreciative. I can't
emagine such a law exists. But I also can't understand why there is so
much reinvention of the wheel.

-Thanks in advance !
-Matt

[Ron Natalie]

psyshrike wrote:

> How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
> years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
> somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
> them new?

It doesn't relate to the intellectual property rights, really. There's
nothing that keeps you from type certiciating a device you don't own the
rights to.

What the certification does is show that you have demonstrated via tests
and a preponderance of paperwork that your engine meets the FAA requirements
and your ancillary stuff: manufacturing, service tracking, etc... is up
to snuff.

Someone could start making 235 clones, but they couldn't use Lycoming's
certification to do it. The "proof" of the design is only one part of
the manufacturer's certification, they need to continually meet the other
regulatory standards as well.


>
> Does the FAA type certification trump the USPTO when it comes to
> patent law?

It doesn't have any affect on patent law, nor does patent law affect
the FAA type certification. Both patent law and certification are
in force independently and simoultaneously. You must have complied
with any patent requirements for the invention as WELL as gaining FAA
certs and approval for selling aircraft parts.

> I'm not knocking the FAA's safety interests. But public domain is
> public domain. If I can make a 1948 mousetrap and sell it, why not a
> Continental Engine?

You are free to get your clone engine certificated. However, you can't
just go out and manufacture airplane parts because they are clones of some
approved part. As I said, there is more to the certification and manufacturing
authority than just "proof" of the design.

>
> If anybody can refer me to documentation on this or the section of law
> or regulation that pertains to it, I'd be quite appreciative. I can't
> emagine such a law exists. But I also can't understand why there is so
> much reinvention of the wheel.

Start by reading Part 21.

[smjmitchell]

> How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> rights?

Simple answer is that it doesn't .... not one little bit.

> For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
> years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
> somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
> them new?

No not really ... HOWEVER you would have to prove to the FAA that you have
all the drawings and all the engineering data to support such an activity.
There may also be tooling involved. Possession of this data is really the
critical issue. There are examples, one fairly well known involving a
current production airplane, which I won't name specifically here, in which
such data was obtained by the backdoor and the airplane put into production
be persons who apparently have little right to do so. It is for this reason
that OEM's so closely guard their data. If you chose to do this you would
also have to jump through the hoops to get a production certificate.

There are other options though to produce parts covered by existing TC's
without such data or 'ownership' of the type certificate such as a PMA. See
FAR Part 21 for the details of this. There is also an FAA Order 8130-2C
which will answer most of your questions. Get these documents from the FAA
web site.

If you have anymore specific questions let me know.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 15 Nov 2004 14:42:57 -0800, (psyshrike)
wrote:

>Howdy,
>
>How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
>rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
>years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
>somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
>them new?
>
>I ask because it seems weird that a dozen or so companies are
>designing new engines from scratch that are only marginal improvements
>over the old ones. Yet nobody reverse engineers and manufactures
>out-of-patent engines to fill demand instead.
>
>Does the FAA type certification trump the USPTO when it comes to
>patent law? I can't emagine that such an arrangement would ever hold
>up in a high court. The FAA can't just spontaneously dictate that it
>owns every peice technology ever used in aviation, and that you can
>only profit from public domain technology if it says so. Or do they?
>
>I'm not knocking the FAA's safety interests. But public domain is
>public domain. If I can make a 1948 mousetrap and sell it, why not a
>Continental Engine?
>
>If anybody can refer me to documentation on this or the section of law
>or regulation that pertains to it, I'd be quite appreciative. I can't
>emagine such a law exists. But I also can't understand why there is so
>much reinvention of the wheel.
>
>-Thanks in advance !
>-Matt
You can buy an 0-235 clone from superior today. It's just not
certified but probably a better choice for a homebuilt than a lycoming
that's been rebuilt xxx times.

[psyshrike]

Ron Natalie > wrote in message >...
> psyshrike wrote:
> > How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> > rights?

<SNIP>

>
> It doesn't relate to the intellectual property rights, really. There's
> nothing that keeps you from type certiciating a device you don't own the
> rights to.
>
> What the certification does is show that you have demonstrated via tests
> and a preponderance of paperwork that your engine meets the FAA requirements
> and your ancillary stuff: manufacturing, service tracking, etc... is up
> to snuff.
>
> Someone could start making 235 clones, but they couldn't use Lycoming's
> certification to do it. The "proof" of the design is only one part of
> the manufacturer's certification, they need to continually meet the other
> regulatory standards as well.
>

From the FAA's standpoint is a type certificate issued per
application, or per device? Does a type certificate care who filed it
from a regulatory standpoint? (Not being flip, just trying to
understand how this works) By the sounds of it their are quality
control requirements that are also part of the TC. Obviously those
would have to be met independently.

To go back to the engine hypothetical, say I reverse engineered the
235. As a result my engineers have generated a lot of drafting data, I
also have fits and tolerances information (published by the OEM) and a
material analysis that gives us an alloy specification. I then write a
shop practice SOP for manufacture. I _reference_ the OEM's TC for the
flight testing portion of my TC, plus maybe a short suppliment to
impirically confirm identicle performance characteristics.

If a field mechanic and an FAA expert couldn't tell the difference
between engine A and engine B, is there any regulatory reason this
wouldn't work?

>
> Start by reading Part 21.

I read portions of it a while ago. My copy of the FAR is packed away
right now. Is this on the net somewhere?

-Thanks
-Matt

[Ron Natalie]

psyshrike wrote:

>
> From the FAA's standpoint is a type certificate issued per
> application, or per device?

Both...although you can put multiple aircraft/engines on a
single type certificat.

> Does a type certificate care who filed it
> from a regulatory standpoint?

Certainly..
>
> To go back to the engine hypothetical, say I reverse engineered the
> 235. As a result my engineers have generated a lot of drafting data, I
> also have fits and tolerances information (published by the OEM) and a
> material analysis that gives us an alloy specification. I then write a
> shop practice SOP for manufacture. I _reference_ the OEM's TC for the
> flight testing portion of my TC, plus maybe a short suppliment to
> impirically confirm identicle performance characteristics.

You can't reference the OEM's type certificate. They're not the same part
as far as the FAA's concerned and there the certificate only references the
"grant" of the authority, not the underlying data.

>
> If a field mechanic and an FAA expert couldn't tell the difference
> between engine A and engine B, is there any regulatory reason this
> wouldn't work?

The FAA will never issue such a certfiicate. If you're asking if you
can't tell a cloned part from a legitimate "type certificated paart"
whether that would be proper.

>
>
>>
>>Start by reading Part 21.
>
>
> I read portions of it a while ago. My copy of the FAR is packed away
> right now. Is this on the net somewhere?
>
Yes, you know you could find out a lot of this, by poking around the FAA website.
It even has a search engine and if you dig down in the "FAA Organizational tree"
they have you'll find the certification office's page which has a lot of other
orders and documentation.

[Steve Foley]

You don't have PMA.

I cannot buy a Gates belt and put it on my Piper, but I can but a belt from
Piper that they bought from Gates, and put it on my plane. Nobody could tell
the difference, because there is none. That doesn't make it legal.

Same holds true for the u-joint holding my yoke together. It's not legal to
put it in the plane unless Piper has blessed it first (with their invoice).

"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...

> If a field mechanic and an FAA expert couldn't tell the difference
> between engine A and engine B, is there any regulatory reason this
> wouldn't work?

[G.R. Patterson III]

psyshrike wrote:
>
> I read portions of it a while ago. My copy of the FAR is packed away
> right now. Is this on the net somewhere?

If you're an AOPA member, try http://www.aopa.org/members/files/fars

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

[Blueskies]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> You don't have PMA.
>
> I cannot buy a Gates belt and put it on my Piper, but I can but a belt from
> Piper that they bought from Gates, and put it on my plane. Nobody could tell
> the difference, because there is none. That doesn't make it legal.
>
> Same holds true for the u-joint holding my yoke together. It's not legal to
> put it in the plane unless Piper has blessed it first (with their invoice).
>
> "psyshrike" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> If a field mechanic and an FAA expert couldn't tell the difference
>> between engine A and engine B, is there any regulatory reason this
>> wouldn't work?
>
>

Anyone can reverse engineer the 'part' and apply for PMA for it. The feds will accept it if the process is good...

[Blueskies]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message om...
>>
>> Start by reading Part 21.
>
> I read portions of it a while ago. My copy of the FAR is packed away
> right now. Is this on the net somewhere?
>
> -Thanks
> -Matt

fars here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

[smjmitchell]

> From the FAA's standpoint is a type certificate issued per
> application, or per device? Does a type certificate care who filed it
> from a regulatory standpoint? (Not being flip, just trying to
> understand how this works) By the sounds of it their are quality
> control requirements that are also part of the TC. Obviously those
> would have to be met independently.

There are no QA requirements associated with the TC ... that is what a
production certificate is for.

> I read portions of it a while ago. My copy of the FAR is packed away
> right now. Is this on the net somewhere?

www.faa.gov

[Ron Natalie]

smjmitchell wrote:
>>From the FAA's standpoint is a type certificate issued per
>>application, or per device? Does a type certificate care who filed it
>>from a regulatory standpoint? (Not being flip, just trying to
>>understand how this works) By the sounds of it their are quality
>>control requirements that are also part of the TC. Obviously those
>>would have to be met independently.
>
>
> There are no QA requirements associated with the TC ... that is what a
> production certificate is for.

There are ADDITIONAL QA requirements on the production certificate (which
you can only get if you are the Type Certificate (or STC) holder or one
of their licensees). However, while the Production Certificate covers the
actual manufacturer, the issuing of the Airworthiness certificate (or the
approval for installation) remains with the TC holder. Therefore, the TC
holder retains responsibility for airworthiness issues.

[psyshrike]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message >...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You don't have PMA.
> >
> > I cannot buy a Gates belt and put it on my Piper, but I can but a belt from
> > Piper that they bought from Gates, and put it on my plane. Nobody could tell
> > the difference, because there is none. That doesn't make it legal.
> >
> > Same holds true for the u-joint holding my yoke together. It's not legal to
> > put it in the plane unless Piper has blessed it first (with their invoice).
> >
> > "psyshrike" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >> If a field mechanic and an FAA expert couldn't tell the difference
> >> between engine A and engine B, is there any regulatory reason this
> >> wouldn't work?
> >
> >
>
> Anyone can reverse engineer the 'part' and apply for PMA for it. The feds will accept it if the process is good...

Do you have an example?

I looked at Advisory circular 21-1B all the Qaulity control standards
appear to be handled through the Production Certificate (PC), which I
guess is what you file to get your Parts Manufacturing Authority
(PMA)? Apparently having a PC, does not directly require a Type
Certificate (TC). Presumably this is intended so that subcontractors
can be regulated. By the look of it you CAN manufacture parts with the
FAA's blessing without a TC.

Refering up-thread to Steves comment, I can understand the engine belt
issue if the OEM for the belt doesn't directly have a PC. In effect
Pipers PC would have to include Quality Control (QC) for the part. But
I can't emagine that the TC dictating that you can only buy part X
from vendor Y. It is more like Vendor Y must comply with FAA safety
standards (have a PC) in order to sell direct. Which is probably not
cost effective for them to do since they probably make nonaviation
parts on the same assembly line.

I am guessing Type Certificates were originally supposed to dictate an
engineering and testing standard required prior to selling the part.
But it eventually evolved so that the PC and flight testing standards
make up the the technical portion, while the TC itself just ends up
being a revision log. O-360-A1A, O-360-A1B etc. Is this fairly
accurate?

It sounds like the catch-22 is this:

Manufacturer: "Here is the engine made in full accordance with my PC,
it has been run up and tested I would like my Airworthyness Tag"

FAA: "What TC number?",

Manufacturer: "Number Contintal O-235 1234",

FAA: "Thats not your TC",

Manufacturer: "Damn your quick",

FAA: "You have to have your own TC, because you have impirically test
for safety",

Manufacturer: "It has already been tested by Contintal Engine Company.
It tested safe. There 5000 in the fleet, and I'd be happy to refer you
to all the happy pilots who've logged a trillion hours on this
engine",

FAA: "Well thats how we do things"

Manufacturer: "No it's not, the regs say that I am free to manufacture
a part for aviation provided that that I have a PC."

FAA: "It's not the same engine"

Manufacturer: "Prove it"

FAA: "We don't have to, we're the FAA"

Manufacturer: "Oh yes you do, and this small army of blood thirsty
lawyers standing behind me says so",

FAA: "But you didn't design it, and go through years of testing so we
could bust your chops and pontificate our naval"

Manufacturer: "You catch on quick"

FAA: "Well you still have to have a TC, so here are the forms, let us
when we can schedule a time to come over and bust you balls."

Manufacturer: (pulls out the same form, already filled out with
references to the the original OEM TC) "No need, here you go, and
heres my Production Certificate as well".

FAA: "This simply won't do."

Manufacturer: "Why not"

FAA: "Well you see, you have to go through the 'process'".

Manufacturer: "Show me that in the regs"

I guess my questions boils down to: Is there any part of the TC that
stipulates that the sale of a part is dependent on the permission of
the TC holder? Does the issuance of an Airworthyness tag require
permission from the TC holder?

-Thanks
-Matt

[Rich S.]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...

> FAA: "We don't have to, we're the FAA"
>
> Manufacturer: "Oh yes you do, and this small army of blood thirsty
> lawyers standing behind me says so",
>
> FAA: "But you didn't design it, and go through years of testing so we
> could bust your chops and pontificate our naval"
>
> Manufacturer: "You catch on quick"
>
> FAA: "Well you still have to have a TC, so here are the forms, let us
> when we can schedule a time to come over and bust you balls."
>
> Manufacturer: (pulls out the same form, already filled out with
> references to the the original OEM TC) "No need, here you go, and
> heres my Production Certificate as well".
>
> FAA: "This simply won't do."
>
> Manufacturer: "Why not"
>
> FAA: "Well you see, you have to go through the 'process'".

Manufacturer: "Show me that in the regs"

FAA: "We don't have to, we're the FAA"

BLAM !!!

FAA: "This simply won't . . .

THUD !!!

[Blueskies]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message om...
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message >...
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
<anip>

>> >
>>
>> Anyone can reverse engineer the 'part' and apply for PMA for it. The feds will accept it if the process is good...
>
> Do you have an example?
>
<snip>

> -Thanks
> -Matt

Try here:
http://www.wencor.com/products/pmas.html
http://www.ainonline.com/issues/07_03/07_03_pmapartp94.html

You, as a PMA 'Knock off' house, need to show how you reverse engineered the product. I think that many get the reverse
engineering process blessed through the FAA, and then they run the process on a number of similar parts. The OEM (TC
folks) do not like the PMA houses because they depend on the aftermarket business to keep things going. Even the OEM
folks, when they sell 'spares', have to show that they hold PMA authority for the part when they sell it...

[Charles Talleyrand]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message
om...
> Howdy,
>
> How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
> years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
> somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
> them new?

I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
a whole engine, or a whole airplane?

[psyshrike]

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message >...
> > How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> > rights?
>
> Simple answer is that it doesn't .... not one little bit.
>

I did some more research, and it doesn't seem to agree with that. If
you could shed some light on your example I'd like to look it up.

Heres the rub:
#######################

Sec. 21.133
Eligibility.

(a) Any person may apply for a production certificate if he holds, for
the product concerned, a--
(1) Current type certificate;
(2) Right to the benefits of that type certificate under a licensing
agreement; or
(3) Supplemental type certificate.
(b) Each application for a production certificate must be made in a
form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.

#######################

This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO. The only way you
can get a production certificate is if you already have a type
certificate. This means that _all_ new manufactured engines props or
aircraft have to be licensed, or designed from scratch. So every TC is
effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.

They can call it whatever they want. If they ban competetive
production of a product based solely on a peice of paper, it's
intellectual property law.

I can't emagine this would hold up in court. Anybody else think this a
major factor in why everything in GA is so damned expensive?
Innovators _by_law_ have to start from scratch. If home construction
was this way, we'd all be living in mud huts.

Don't get me wrong. I admire the guys designing new stuff. But this
reg basically stomps price competition. Nobody will ever be able to
price-compete because the FAA ensures that nobody can gain the
benefits of "Previous Art" ( patent lingo for: the other-dudes-stuff).

This sounds like something the French would do.

The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
market competion, and they ain't the SEC.

Anybody agree with this assesment?

-Thanks
-Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

psyshrike wrote:
>
> This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO. The only way you
> can get a production certificate is if you already have a type
> certificate. This means that _all_ new manufactured engines props or
> aircraft have to be licensed, or designed from scratch. So every TC is
> effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.

No, it isn't. You can make an absolute copy of a Continental engine and go
through the certification process. You then will have a type certificate for
that engine.

> The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
> it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
> allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
> market competion, and they ain't the SEC.

Simple. If you're going to build and sell a part for a plane, you have to prove
that it meets certain standards of quality and dependability. The process of
proving that is called the certification process. If you *did* take that to
court and claim that it interferes with competition, the government would simply
point out (correctly) that it ensures fair competition. Every manufacturer has
to jump through the same hoops.

> Anybody agree with this assesment?

Not I.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[smjmitchell]

> > Anyone can reverse engineer the 'part' and apply for PMA for it. The
feds will accept it if the process is good...

There are a number of ways to get a PMA - don't be any means think that this
is a straight forward process. The first method is to prove to the FAA that
the part is identical to the original. The second is to provide engineering
data to prove that the part meets the applicable design standards from the
FAR that would apply to the design of that part. For something like an
engine part it will be very difficult to show that your part is identical to
the original without access to the OEM's data simply because you can never
be sure what material, processes, tolerances etc the OEM has used. Without
this sort of insight it can be very difficult to prove that your part is a
proper substitute for the original. If you produce OEM data to prove the
identical nature then the regulations (21.303) more of less imply that you
would then need to produce evidence of a licencing agreement for the use of
that data. There is no point in explaining this process further here. There
is volumes of data on the FAA web site that explain the process.


> I looked at Advisory circular 21-1B all the Qaulity control standards
> appear to be handled through the Production Certificate (PC), which I
> guess is what you file to get your Parts Manufacturing Authority
> (PMA)? Apparently having a PC, does not directly require a Type
> Certificate (TC). Presumably this is intended so that subcontractors
> can be regulated. By the look of it you CAN manufacture parts with the
> FAA's blessing without a TC.

You do not need a PC to make parts under PMA (see 21.303 (h)). The PMA
application includes all the requirements for configuration and quality
control of the manufacturing process. The PMA is in effect a licence to
produce parts. Unlike a TC it is both a design and manufacturing approval.

Subcontractors do not hold separate PC's .... it is up to the PC holder to
document the process for the control of subcontractors in the PC process
control documents and manuals.


> Refering up-thread to Steves comment, I can understand the engine belt
> issue if the OEM for the belt doesn't directly have a PC. In effect
> Pipers PC would have to include Quality Control (QC) for the part.

The reason you cannot buy a Gates belt from gates and use that is that it is
in effect a commercial part. Piper has probably developed a specification
for the part against which the part is conformed on delivery to Piper to
turn it into an airplane part. Same part yes but Piper has applied
additional QA oversight to ensure that it is fit for the purpose that they
intended. This may take the form of additional inspections or testing.


But
> I can't emagine that the TC dictating that you can only buy part X
> from vendor Y. It is more like Vendor Y must comply with FAA safety
> standards (have a PC) in order to sell direct.

See previous explanation.


> I am guessing Type Certificates were originally supposed to dictate an
> engineering and testing standard required prior to selling the part.
> But it eventually evolved so that the PC and flight testing standards
> make up the the technical portion, while the TC itself just ends up
> being a revision log. O-360-A1A, O-360-A1B etc. Is this fairly
> accurate?

No not exactly. The TC is simple a design approval. The holder of a TC does
not really have any right to build the airplane. They simply have a design
approved by the FAA as meeting FAR 23/25/27/29/35 depending on the product
type.

There are two ways in which the holder of a TC can then produce airplanes to
that approved design.

Ref FAR 21 Subpart G - One is via a PC which basically establishes FAA
approved processes for the control of the manufacturing activities including
all testing of the product before delivery. Depending on the maturity of a
companies PC the company will be delegated certain levels of responsibility
by the FAA from very little right through to the authority to conduct final
inspections, approve flight test reports, issue CofA's etc (i.e. complete
control of the process). FAR 21.133 is quite clear - you must hold a TC or
an STC or evidence that you have the rights to manufacture a products to a
third parties TC or STC to be elligible for the issue of a PC. PMA holders
and subcontractors are NOT eligible for the issue of a PC.

Ref FAR 21 Subpart F - The other method of producing an airplane for which
you hold a TC is "production under a Type Certificate Only". Generally this
applies to companies who have recently gained a TC and who want to start
manufacturing the airplane but who have not yet got a PC. When airplanes are
made in the way the FAA is heavilly involved in the process. It does not
means that the company does not need production control processes, they do,
but these may not be sufficiently mature for the issue of a PC and
consequently the FAA is not yet in a position to delegate the company
authorities to conduct certain tasks on their behalf.

[smjmitchell]

> > > How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> > > rights?
> >
> > Simple answer is that it doesn't .... not one little bit.
> >
>
> I did some more research, and it doesn't seem to agree with that. If
> you could shed some light on your example I'd like to look it up.


The case in question is an interesting one. From what I can understand the
TC effectively became public domain with the demise of the company that held
the original certificate with no clear successor. The current producer of
the product then obtained the supporting data (reports and drawings) by
legal means because that data was also effectively in the public domain by
virtue of the fact that it was somehow donated to a large well known
institution and that institution sells copies of any of the data that they
hold. I hope that clarifies the situation.

I accept your point that the FAR's are specific WRT to the production of a
part under PC (i.e. you need to own or have licenced the TC). However there
is no such requirement for production under a type certificate only. However
21.47 does make it clear that you need a licencing agreement to produce a
part under an existing TC. This gets a bit grey when the entity who
apparently owns the TC no longer exists. I am not sure that the FAR's say
anything to clarify this situation.

However having said all that, the question asked was with repect to
intellectural property not product rights. Copyright law and patent law
protect intellectural property rights. Not a type certificate. OEM's
carefully guard their data to protect themselves from competition. If I got
all the data from a 0-235 including drawings and engineering reports it
would be a relatively simple matter to type certificate the engine again
under Part 33 using another brand name. What protects the original OEM from
being ripped off in this way is patent and copyright law ... not the fact
that they have a type certificate for the product.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

[Ron Natalie]

psyshrike wrote:

>
> This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO.

It's not a CONFLICT at all. The FAA doesn't affect the trademark
protections. They still apply. It doesn't give any more or less
protections to what a trademark protects.

What the FAA has you by the horns, is the ability to manufacture and
in term have your customers get approval for use in certficated aircraft.
I could clone the Continental engine and use it in an airboat just fine.
I could clone it and use it in a homebuilt just fine. It's the use in
certificate aircraft.

There's certainly lots of NON-FAA precedent out there as well. If you
think the FAA parts certification is full of crap, try getting a medical
device certified. The FAA paperwork process looks streamlined compared
to the FDA.

> So every TC is effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.

Nope, it's not a patent.

> I can't emagine this would hold up in court

It's simple. The Congress, via the commerce clause in the Constitution
among other things, has vested authority in the Federal Aviation Administration
to establish rules pertaining to safety in air commerce. The certification/
production rules are a direct outgrowth of this.

> Anybody else think this a
> major factor in why everything in GA is so damned expensive?

Nope, a major reason GA is so damned expensive is a combination of
product liability and the fact that the GA market is so tiny,

> Innovators _by_law_ have to start from scratch. If home construction
> was this way, we'd all be living in mud huts.

They don't have from scratch....nothing stops them from using other peoples
innovations not protected by patent.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I admire the guys designing new stuff. But this
> reg basically stomps price competition. Nobody will ever be able to
> price-compete because the FAA ensures that nobody can gain the
> benefits of "Previous Art" ( patent lingo for: the other-dudes-stuff).

Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
engine is safe to the FAA's standard.

> The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
> it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
> allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
> market competion, and they ain't the SEC.

It hasn't been challenged because there's no basis to challenge it.

How does this affect competition at all? There's no preferential structure
given to any entity. All are free to put their part through certification
(even if it is the same as before).

As a matter of fact your idea will most likely decrease competition. People
wouldn't want to be the FIRST to go through certification if they knew that the
second guy is just going to steal the idea of the first.

[Newps]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

>
>
> I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
> all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
> a whole engine, or a whole airplane?

Yes, a Cub is a perfect example. My mechanic just bought a cub that
crashed and burned. Nothing useable from the airframe except some
fittings. But he recovered the data plate. Now he can go buy a brand
new fuselage, new wings, engine, etc. The logbooks came with the plane
and he can also do every 337 that was approved for this plane over the
years, which is really valuable since the FAA pretty much doesn't do
field approvals anymore.

[psyshrike]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> psyshrike wrote:
> >
> > This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO. The only way you
> > can get a production certificate is if you already have a type
> > certificate. This means that _all_ new manufactured engines props or
> > aircraft have to be licensed, or designed from scratch. So every TC is
> > effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.
>
> No, it isn't. You can make an absolute copy of a Continental engine and go
> through the certification process. You then will have a type certificate for
> that engine.
>

You are correct that you _can_ go through the whole process again. My
point is that this denies the right of the producer to the use of
prior art.

Safety of "production" and safety of "design" are two different
things. Presumably the FAA agrees becuase the type certificate and the
production certificate are different.

What the FAA doesn't do is differentiate between production and design
when it comes to the rights of the manufacturer. You must design,
_and_ produce in order to be airworthy. You can't get a PC without a
TC. The TC commits you to fully duplicate testing and engineering
right?

So getting a TC negates the benefits of prior art, thereby denying
your right to benefit from prior art, thereby effecting the exact same
outcome as a patent.

The only notable difference in effect is that the denial of a
Production Certificate dissolves your right to even have a product
safety-evaluated before selling it. So even if there was license
dispute you would never have the right to get sued by your competitor
for license infringement. This denies you even the right to settlement
in court.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do testing. I'm saying that manufacturing
an existing product does not require the same testing as designing a
new one. This lack of differentiation is implicitly requiring
licensing or complete reengineering of the part.

> > The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
> > it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
> > allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
> > market competion, and they ain't the SEC.
>
> Simple. If you're going to build and sell a part for a plane, you have to prove
> that it meets certain standards of quality and dependability. The process of
> proving that is called the certification process. If you *did* take that to
> court and claim that it interferes with competition, the government would simply
> point out (correctly) that it ensures fair competition. Every manufacturer has
> to jump through the same hoops.
>

I am not argueing about the rightness or wrongness of it, or even
safety. I am argueing about jurisdiction.

I have to disagree with you that this practice ensures fair
competition. "Fair competition" itself is really the jurisdiction of
intellecutal property and trade regulation anyway. "Fair competition"
shouldn't have anything to do with the FAA.

Everybody jumping through the same hoops isn't always a good thing. If
the town had to walk down to the creek to get a bucket of water, the
FAA's rules would say: "anyone bringing a mule to the creek to
increase operating efficiency will be required to reinvent the bucket,
or acquire a license from the bucket manufacturer, BEFORE we inspect
your bucket for holes."

Financial innovation is just as important as technological innovation.
New business's often choose to compete through superior production
techniques, financial management or systems integration. Product
innovation is NOT always required for a company to be competetive.

Thats why I said "price competition". None of the techniques above
are effective in GA, because everybody has to operate with a
-better-mousetrap- business model. Barrier to entry is SO high that
everything is a specialty business, not a commodity. Nothing is a
commodity because everyone is denied the right to be specialized
_solely_ in production. My interpretiation of 21.133 is that it does
precisely that.

Or something...

-Thanks
-Matt

> > Anybody agree with this assesment?
>
> Not I.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[psyshrike]

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message >...
> > > Anyone can reverse engineer the 'part' and apply for PMA for it. The
> feds will accept it if the process is good...
>
> There are a number of ways to get a PMA - don't be any means think that this
> is a straight forward process.

Outstanding information thanks! I read 21.303, and by the look of it
there are a few things that still would probably end up being
contested IMHO. Not anything insurmountable though.

For example f(4):
#######################

That the fabrication processes, construction, and assembly conform to
those specified in the design.

########################

I am guessing this means that the TC can include manufacturing
techniques, and that your supposed to be in compliance with those
techniques. Obviously that's not possible without the OEM data. I
can't emagine contesting this would be difficult provided you could
demonstrate equivilant or superior quality control.

As far as the sub-parts on design and material specification, that
would all be dependent on the competency of the persons doing your
reverse engineering. If the FAA dinged you on it, you would just go
back to the crated OEM engines in the lab and confirm or deny the
FAA's position. Then you just have to fix it and demonstrate
conclusively that there was no difference.

I expect you'd probably still end up in court, but only once or twice.
Still cheaper that designing and flight testing a whole new engine.

Much obliged.

BTW, are you with the FAA?

-Thanks
-Matt

[Blueskies]

"psyshrike" > wrote in message om...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
>> psyshrike wrote:
>> >
>> > This _has_ to be in direct conflict with the USPTO. The only way you
>> > can get a production certificate is if you already have a type
>> > certificate. This means that _all_ new manufactured engines props or
>> > aircraft have to be licensed, or designed from scratch. So every TC is
>> > effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.
>>
>> No, it isn't. You can make an absolute copy of a Continental engine and go
>> through the certification process. You then will have a type certificate for
>> that engine.
>>
>
> You are correct that you _can_ go through the whole process again. My
> point is that this denies the right of the producer to the use of
> prior art.
>
> Safety of "production" and safety of "design" are two different
> things. Presumably the FAA agrees becuase the type certificate and the
> production certificate are different.
>
> What the FAA doesn't do is differentiate between production and design
> when it comes to the rights of the manufacturer. You must design,
> _and_ produce in order to be airworthy. You can't get a PC without a
> TC. The TC commits you to fully duplicate testing and engineering
> right?
>
> So getting a TC negates the benefits of prior art, thereby denying
> your right to benefit from prior art, thereby effecting the exact same
> outcome as a patent.
>


A STC builds on the previous design. Then the STC holder can install or license the install of the product...

[Blueskies]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message ...
>
> "psyshrike" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Howdy,
>>
>> How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
>> rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
>> years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
>> somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
>> them new?
>
> I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
> all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
> a whole engine, or a whole airplane?
>
>
>

Superior is working on it:
http://www.superiorairparts.com/
http://www.xp-360.com/

[psyshrike]

Newps > wrote in message >...
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
> > all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
> > a whole engine, or a whole airplane?
>
> Yes, a Cub is a perfect example. My mechanic just bought a cub that
> crashed and burned. Nothing useable from the airframe except some
> fittings. But he recovered the data plate. Now he can go buy a brand
> new fuselage, new wings, engine, etc. The logbooks came with the plane
> and he can also do every 337 that was approved for this plane over the
> years, which is really valuable since the FAA pretty much doesn't do
> field approvals anymore.

From the owner standpoint it is pretty much the same, but from the
manufacturer it's not.

If you bought all the same certified parts and built a new aircraft
from scratch, you would have to get PMA from FAA in order to fabricate
the dataplate. They might still try and make you get a TC.

This is kind of blurry because of the wording of part 21 seems to have
conflicting logic. It might go something like this:

You: "I'd like to apply for PMA to manufacture this dataplate."

Them: "You mean manufacturing that aircraft, which will will require
you have a license or a TC."

You: "Nuh uh. I am repairing it, using all certified parts in
compliance normal repair procedures, which I've done before"

Them: "You can't repair something you never owned".

You: "What do you mean, the only thing I owned before was a dataplate,
so I applying for PMA to manufature a dataplate."

Them: "You have to have a TC or a manufacturing license before we will
accept registration of a serial number, therefore you cannot have PMA
to make the dataplate, becuase the dataplate has not been competed
with an FAA approved serial number."

This really brings you back to the basic issue, which is whether the
FAA actively endeavors to dictate right-of-manufacture based on
license. It doesn't really _say_ they do explicitly in the regs. But
the regs are self-conflicted. So the FAA can say anything it wants on
the matter and still be able to demonstrate that they are within their
regulatory power.

This is like saying you can cross the street, but it's illegal to
jay-walk. Provided that the two are never explicitly defined the
police are permited to arrest you any time they feel like it. This
sort of thing defies the logic apon which all law is based. If it is
acceptable to regulate this way, the constitution is out the window
and flapping in the breeze.

-Thanks
-Matt

[Doug]

How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
for them, somehow.

(psyshrike) wrote in message >...
> Newps > wrote in message >...
> > Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
> > > all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
> > > a whole engine, or a whole airplane?
> >
> > Yes, a Cub is a perfect example. My mechanic just bought a cub that
> > crashed and burned. Nothing useable from the airframe except some
> > fittings. But he recovered the data plate. Now he can go buy a brand
> > new fuselage, new wings, engine, etc. The logbooks came with the plane
> > and he can also do every 337 that was approved for this plane over the
> > years, which is really valuable since the FAA pretty much doesn't do
> > field approvals anymore.
>
> From the owner standpoint it is pretty much the same, but from the
> manufacturer it's not.
>
> If you bought all the same certified parts and built a new aircraft
> from scratch, you would have to get PMA from FAA in order to fabricate
> the dataplate. They might still try and make you get a TC.
>
> This is kind of blurry because of the wording of part 21 seems to have
> conflicting logic. It might go something like this:
>
> You: "I'd like to apply for PMA to manufacture this dataplate."
>
> Them: "You mean manufacturing that aircraft, which will will require
> you have a license or a TC."
>
> You: "Nuh uh. I am repairing it, using all certified parts in
> compliance normal repair procedures, which I've done before"
>
> Them: "You can't repair something you never owned".
>
> You: "What do you mean, the only thing I owned before was a dataplate,
> so I applying for PMA to manufature a dataplate."
>
> Them: "You have to have a TC or a manufacturing license before we will
> accept registration of a serial number, therefore you cannot have PMA
> to make the dataplate, becuase the dataplate has not been competed
> with an FAA approved serial number."
>
> This really brings you back to the basic issue, which is whether the
> FAA actively endeavors to dictate right-of-manufacture based on
> license. It doesn't really _say_ they do explicitly in the regs. But
> the regs are self-conflicted. So the FAA can say anything it wants on
> the matter and still be able to demonstrate that they are within their
> regulatory power.
>
> This is like saying you can cross the street, but it's illegal to
> jay-walk. Provided that the two are never explicitly defined the
> police are permited to arrest you any time they feel like it. This
> sort of thing defies the logic apon which all law is based. If it is
> acceptable to regulate this way, the constitution is out the window
> and flapping in the breeze.
>
> -Thanks
> -Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
> don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
> for them, somehow.

Do they use old dataplates? If so that is all the FAA cares about. If you
own the dataplate you can build an airplane around it with not one original
part except the data plate.

[psyshrike]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "psyshrike" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> Howdy,
> >>
> >> How does FAA type certification relate to intellectual property
> >> rights? For example: everything in an O-235 has been out of patent for
> >> years now. Same with old aircraft designs. Is there any reason why
> >> somebody couldn't tool up and start ripping out O-235s, and selling
> >> them new?
> >
> > I notice that I can buy cylinders for my engine from several sources,
> > all with FAA blessing. Could the same legal techniques be scaled up to
> > a whole engine, or a whole airplane?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Superior is working on it:
> http://www.superiorairparts.com/
> http://www.xp-360.com/


This engine is being certified under a new TC. So technologically yes
it may use the same technique. From a regulatory perspective no it
isn't. So yes and no, depending on how you scope "technique". The
costs associated are really the major factor, which is a whole other
ball of wax.

-Thanks
-Matt

[Morgans]

"Del Rawlins" > wrote

> A friend of mine bought the superior kit and assembled it with a
> Lycoming data plate, and is flying that engine in his PA-20. I
> believe the engine log reads something like "overhauled using all new
> PMA parts....etc. etc." The FAA inspector he consulted with
> apparently didn't have a problem with it but then again this is Alaska
> and the FAA is in many cases actually here to help you in these parts.

Makes sense, in a way. Say you have a Lycoming engine, and take it apart to
overhaul it. You see you need new jugs when you pull them off. You see you
need new pistons, valves, crank and cam, and.... Bearings and seals go
without saying. Then you see you need a new case, and what do you have? A
new Superior engine. You just intended to go through your old engine,
right?

Now, all you need to have is an old engine, to get the data plate from the
old engine. Minor details, that you replaced *every* single part, but since
they are all PMA'ed, it comes off as legal.

I like it! :-)
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004

[Del Rawlins]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:41:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
>> How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
>> don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
>> for them, somehow.
>
>Do they use old dataplates? If so that is all the FAA cares about. If you
>own the dataplate you can build an airplane around it with not one original
>part except the data plate.

My understanding is that Cub Crafters makes their own data plate with
their name on it. I've kind of wondered how they got that past Piper
and the FAA too.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Del Rawlins]

On 20 Nov 2004 08:33:50 -0800, (psyshrike)
wrote:

>"Blueskies" > wrote in message >...

>> Superior is working on it:
>> http://www.superiorairparts.com/
>> http://www.xp-360.com/
>
>
>This engine is being certified under a new TC. So technologically yes
>it may use the same technique. From a regulatory perspective no it
>isn't. So yes and no, depending on how you scope "technique". The
>costs associated are really the major factor, which is a whole other
>ball of wax.

A friend of mine bought the superior kit and assembled it with a
Lycoming data plate, and is flying that engine in his PA-20. I
believe the engine log reads something like "overhauled using all new
PMA parts....etc. etc." The FAA inspector he consulted with
apparently didn't have a problem with it but then again this is Alaska
and the FAA is in many cases actually here to help you in these parts.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Dave Hyde]

Morgans wrote...

> Minor details, that you replaced *every* single part, but since
> they are all PMA'ed, it comes off as legal.

I have the original axe George Washington used to cut down the
Cherry tree. 'Course I had to replace the handle...and the head...,
but it occupies the same *space* as the hatchet.

Dave 'Mr. Wright' Hyde

[Morgans]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote

> I have the original axe George Washington used to cut down the
> Cherry tree. 'Course I had to replace the handle...and the head...,
> but it occupies the same *space* as the hatchet.
>
> Dave 'Mr. Wright' Hyde

Right.<g>

This is about like the Glacier Girl, since every (or nearly every) part had
to be replaced or copied, since it was so badly damaged. It is the thought
that counts, right?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004

[Doug]

No they are not using old data plates (they did up until about 4 years
ago). Somehow the FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates, with Cub
Crafters building on the Piper Super Cub design (without owning the
design, and Piper is letting them get away with it). Cub Crafters is
also somehow incorporating a bunch of STC's into the design. Don't ask
me how, but they are doing it. How do you search for AD's on such an
airplane? I dunno. Shows you how much we don't know, and from what I
hear, the FAA doesn't really know either.

One thing, it seems the Piper Super Cub design has become emminent
domain. Anyone can use it. I hear of individuals building Super Cubs
from PMA's Super Cub parts and getting a certified (NOT experimental)
type certificate!

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message >...
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> om...
> > How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
> > don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
> > for them, somehow.
>
> Do they use old dataplates? If so that is all the FAA cares about. If you
> own the dataplate you can build an airplane around it with not one original
> part except the data plate.

[Mike Spera]

Well, currently, nobody is challenging the duplication of any particular
airplane design. I do believe that if you started knocking off Barbie
dolls and called them something else, you would probably get a bit of
"resistance" from Mattel. Same thing can apply to an airplane. Building
something "substantially similar" in design is O.K., up until the time
you try to sell it. The original owner/designer can claim you owe
him/her some royalty. Whether or not you actually have to pay depends on
the courts.

Where this gets weird is when the copycat includes some small change in
some detail and claims the whole thing is now original. If his country's
legal system is nonexistent or sympathetic because the copier is a
national (like in Japan, Russia, or China to name a few), prosecution
will probably not happen. And good luck to an American court going after
the copier. That probably won't happen either because the copier's
country won't cooperate.

P&L attorneys, feel free to weigh in. It has been a while since I looked
into this and the rules may have changed (or I interpreted what I read
back then flat out wrong). Depending on how much energy I have on
Monday, I may actually check this out with my patent and licensing
attorneys. Since I cannot quote chapter and verse from any authoritative
source yet, I will yield that it is entirely likely that I am full o'
"stuff" on this one.

Good Luck,
Mike
>
> First, I think you mean public domain. But second - nobody owns the
> design to any airplane. Tony and I used to talk about this widespread
> misperception a lot.
>
> Someone can own a type certificate, or a production certificate. They
> can own a utility patent if it's genuinely original (like Chuck
> Slusarczyk's patent on reduction drives for ultralight aircraft) or a
> design patent. But very few airplanes are covered by either design or
> utility patents. There is no copyright protection. If you want to
> start making perfect copies of a Cessna 172 for sale as lawn
> ornimants, you have every legal right to do so. If you try to sell
> them as Cessnas, there's trademark protection. Otherwise you're free
> to do it.
>
> Now, I don't understand how Cub Crafters is getting away with the
> certification issues either. But "design ownership" is not a logical
> phrase. Nobody owns an airplane design.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[psyshrike]

Ron Natalie > wrote in message >...
> psyshrike wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> What the FAA has you by the horns, is the ability to manufacture and
> in term have your customers get approval for use in certficated aircraft.
> I could clone the Continental engine and use it in an airboat just fine.
> I could clone it and use it in a homebuilt just fine. It's the use in
> certificate aircraft.
>

You make my point for me. The same engine built with same materials,
designs and quality assurance can't be sold in an intended market. If
everything safety related has been resolved, why should I not be able
sell to GA?

> There's certainly lots of NON-FAA precedent out there as well. If you
> think the FAA parts certification is full of crap, try getting a medical
> device certified. The FAA paperwork process looks streamlined compared
> to the FDA.
>

OK. So two regulatory agencies are drawing poorly defined boundaries
between oversight and right-of-manufacture. Saying X sucks doesn't
make Y stop sucking. (unless X is your mistress and Y is your wife) :P

> > So every TC is effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.
>
> Nope, it's not a patent.
>

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

> Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
> all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
> Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
> choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
> engine is safe to the FAA's standard.

OK. Why no free pass? Provided that you could get a production
certificate to have manufacturing facility inspected (Which you can't
without a TC) you could demonstrate empirically that there is no
difference. So what justifies the redundant testing requirement? And
even preceding that, what justifies denial of the right to even have
your manufacturing process inspected?

They are prempting due process.

<SNIP>

>
> > The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
> > it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
> > allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
> > market competion, and they ain't the SEC.
>
> It hasn't been challenged because there's no basis to challenge it.
>
> How does this affect competition at all? There's no preferential structure
> given to any entity. All are free to put their part through certification
> (even if it is the same as before).
>

I would have to disagree. Your rights to federal protection from
competition dissipate with the expiration of your intellectual
property rights. Since none of this is under patent, and the products
are indestinguisable from one another, then redundant testing
requirements should dissipaite too.

Since they don't appear to, everybody having to jump through the same
hoops is preferential to the established manfufacturer. Though the
hoops are the same, the baseline from which the manufacturer starts
their jump is supposed to move forward. It doesn't under the FAA regs.
Or at least thats my interpretation.

> As a matter of fact your idea will most likely decrease competition. People
> wouldn't want to be the FIRST to go through certification if they knew that the
> second guy is just going to steal the idea of the first.

Products have life cycles. The existing life cycle is stuck in
autorewind courtesy of redundant labor requirements. Per a previous
post, there are many ways to compete, not all require techical
innovation. Two companies can create exactly the same product and
still be competetive. Just look at the shelves of your grocery store.

So why can't I make a generic Lycoming, run my company with a superior
manufacturing system and better financial model? Because I can't price
compete due to fully redundant R & D costs.

Whether this is the way it works in practice I don't know. This whole
excercise sort of came from a question, "why it is there are a half
dozen companies trying to build new engines, when a new engines
already certified in dozens of aircraft are so expensive?"

It would make more sense to use modern manufacturing advancements to
cut costs, rather than go through the whole certification process over
again. Yet nobody seems to do this. The end result is that the
existing manufacturers can dictate prices without concern for
competition. Lycoming doesn't have to use monopolistic tactics do
control half the GA engine business. The FAA does it all for them. Or
at least thats the hypothosis.

Thanks
Matt

[psyshrike]

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:41:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Doug" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> How is it that Cub Crafters is building brand new "Super Cub", yet
> >> don't own the rights? The FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates
> >> for them, somehow.
> >
> >Do they use old dataplates? If so that is all the FAA cares about. If you
> >own the dataplate you can build an airplane around it with not one original
> >part except the data plate.
>
> My understanding is that Cub Crafters makes their own data plate with
> their name on it. I've kind of wondered how they got that past Piper
> and the FAA too.
>
> ================================================== ==
> Del Rawlins--
> Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
> http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
> Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Forgive the superfluous "Me Too", but.. ME TOO!

Knowing this would answer all my questions.

Thanks
Matt

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
psyshrike > wrote:
>Ron Natalie > wrote in message
>...
>> psyshrike wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>You make my point for me. The same engine built with same materials,
>designs and quality assurance can't be sold in an intended market. If
>everything safety related has been resolved, why should I not be able
>sell to GA?

You _can_. All you have to do is *PROVE* that all those standards have
been met. With _your_ own data. When you _do_ prove that, to the FAA's
satisfaction, they will award *you* a type certificate of your very own.

You just can't use "somebody else's" test data to show that _your_ engine
meets the requirements.

Okay, so your 'design' is reverse engineered from the 'tested' design.

Two Simple Questions:
1) Was the _tested_ engine built from *your* design specifications?

If "no", then the testing shows *nothing* about _your_ actual
specifications.

2) How do you _know_ you haven't "overlooked something" in the specification
that renders the engine unreliable/unsafe?

Obviously, you _don't_. You *cannot* 'prove a negative'. Thus the
"test" requirement for _your_ engine, just as if it was a totally
untried design.

>> There's certainly lots of NON-FAA precedent out there as well. If you
>> think the FAA parts certification is full of crap, try getting a medical
>> device certified. The FAA paperwork process looks streamlined compared
>> to the FDA.
>>
>
>OK. So two regulatory agencies are drawing poorly defined boundaries
>between oversight and right-of-manufacture.

Alternatively, two regulatory agencies are not compromising on the
assurances required in situations involving a high probability of
life-and-death risk to human life.

>> > So every TC is effectively a patent, with NO EXPIRATION DATE.
>>
>> Nope, it's not a patent.
>
>If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Then your glasses need cleaning/adjusting. <grin>

A patent prevents somebody else from doing the _same_thing_ you did.
*Even*if* they come up with it 'independently'.

*Anybody* can 'do what you did' (*exactly*, every step) to get a TC, and
get their own TC for an identical product. The original TC 'owner' has
*zero* power to restrict them from doing so. There are *NO* barriers that
prevent them from doing so.

It is simply 'not easier' for that party to do so, because they cannot
use -your- work as a 'springboard' for their TC application.

"Not harder, not easier" -- sounds like 'fair to everyone', to me. :)

>> Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
>> all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
>> Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
>> choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
>> engine is safe to the FAA's standard.
>
>OK. Why no free pass?

Wrong question. Why *should* the Johnnie-come-lately be _entitled_ to
the 'free pass'?
> Provided that you could get a production
>certificate to have manufacturing facility inspected (Which you can't
>without a TC) you could demonstrate empirically that there is no
>difference.

"Empirical evidence" is not the same as "proof".

If you don't have access to the specifications/standards of the _original_
design, you cannot be _sure_ that yours is identical.

The _best_ you can say is that your design is 'consistent' with the 'samples
that were examined'. Plus/minus any error in the reverse-engineering process.

>> > The thing that interests me, is why hasn't it been challenged? Or has
>> > it? If it actually went to court, there could be all kinds of nasty
>> > allegations and investigations. This does after all directly effect
>> > market competion, and they ain't the SEC.
>>
>> It hasn't been challenged because there's no basis to challenge it.
>>
>> How does this affect competition at all? There's no preferential structure
>> given to any entity. All are free to put their part through certification
>> (even if it is the same as before).
>>
>
>I would have to disagree. Your rights to federal protection from
>competition dissipate with the expiration of your intellectual
>property rights. Since none of this is under patent, and the products
>are indestinguisable from one another, then redundant testing
>orequirements should dissipaite too.

They may, or *may*not* be built to the 'same specifications'. From
'reverse engineering', you _cannot_ say with authority what the original
specifications are. At the absolute best, you can say that the *samples*
you tested 'fall within these limits'.

e.g., the original spec is 0.500+/- 0.005. The samples you reverse engineered
were all on the small side. Your set your manufacturing spec at 0.497+/-.002

BUT, suppose your reverse engineering is a little bit off, and you come up
with 0.497+/- 0.0025, or 0.496+/-0.002. Guess what?, some of your "same"
part are _not_ 'in spec' with the original manufacturer. And, thus, *NOT*
'indistinguishable' from the original.

Like it or not, these are *not* the 'same' part. It may be 'interchangeable',
(or, in the case of that margin error, *NOT* interchangeable) but it *is*
"built to different specifications".

Hence the requirement to go through the _full_ certification testing.

You can argue that it is an 'inconsequential' difference. Fine. Now go
_prove_ it. :)

After you've got the proof, you'll have no trouble getting your own TC.

>Since they don't appear to, everybody having to jump through the same
>hoops is preferential to the established manfufacturer.

Or, you can look at it as merely a truly 'level' playing field.
*Everybody* has to jump through *exactly* the same hoops.
Anybody who chooses to do so, _can_ do so. Nothing is preventing them from
doing so.

Yes, being _in_ the market is an advantage. The same is true in _any_ market.
The 'early bird' always enjoys an advantage.

However, _any_ other bird is free to come along, and do _exactly_ what
the first bird did.

> Though the
>hoops are the same, the baseline from which the manufacturer starts
>their jump is supposed to move forward. It doesn't under the FAA regs.
>Or at least thats my interpretation.
>
>> As a matter of fact your idea will most likely decrease competition. People
>> wouldn't want to be the FIRST to go through certification if they knew
>that the
>> second guy is just going to steal the idea of the first.
>
>Products have life cycles. The existing life cycle is stuck in
>autorewind courtesy of redundant labor requirements. Per a previous
>post, there are many ways to compete, not all require techical
>innovation. Two companies can create exactly the same product and
>still be competetive. Just look at the shelves of your grocery store.
>
>So why can't I make a generic Lycoming, run my company with a superior
>manufacturing system and better financial model? Because I can't price
>compete due to fully redundant R & D costs.

Awww, shucks.
Apparently your 'superior manufacturing and better financial model' company
is *not* as good a company as Lycoming -- since they *did* manage to pay all
those R & D costs, *and* the costs of developing the design you're going to
use.

Looks to me like the the marketplace worked -- the 'most efficient/effective'
company is in business, and the 'inferior' one is lying in the dust.

>Whether this is the way it works in practice I don't know. This whole
>excercise sort of came from a question, "why it is there are a half
>dozen companies trying to build new engines, when a new engines
>already certified in dozens of aircraft are so expensive?"
>
>It would make more sense to use modern manufacturing advancements to
>cut costs, rather than go through the whole certification process over
>again. Yet nobody seems to do this. The end result is that the
>existing manufacturers can dictate prices without concern for
>competition. Lycoming doesn't have to use monopolistic tactics do
>control half the GA engine business. The FAA does it all for them. Or
>at least thats the hypothosis.

"Everyone has the inalienable right to be wrong."

Glad to see you're exercising your rights.

The hypothesis is flawed. *anybody*else* can do _exactly_ what Lycoming
did to get into the market. They can even start with a (now public domain)
Lycoming design. *NOBODY* is discouraging them from doing so. Yeah, they
have to *prove* that _their_ implementation of the design is 'acceptably'
solid/reliable, before they can get a TC. No different from what any other
manufacturer in the market has _already_ gone through.

However, there are other considerations:
1) The marketplace is *tiny*, and approximating 'fixed' in size; you have
to capture a significant 'share' to have any hope of recouping your
start-up costs.
2) The buyers in that market are, in general, *conservative*. _VERY_
conservative. Those 'willing to take a risk' on a new manufacturer,
absent a *compelling* reason to do so, are a _tiny_ minority.
3) As a result of #2, just being 'better' is _not_enough_ to get you
significant sales. You have to be "enough better" that people will
switch. Demonstrated reliability of construction counts for a *lot*.
A 'clone', built to 'apparently' the same standards, will still take
a _long_ time to acquire the same degree of reputation for reliability.
4) 'Superior manufacturing and a better financial model' alone has *not*
been perceived as "*enough* better" to have any hope of capturing
enough market share to make the expenditure worth doing.
5) To be 'enough better' to have a hope of capturing enough share to
make the thing 'worth doing', major design changes are required.
Getting a 0.02% weight reduction for the same horsepower won't
get any attention. Get a 20% weight reduction, with the same horsepower,
and _lots_ of people will be knocking on your door, at least for
'evaluation' purposes. Get a demonstrated 20% weight reduction, and a
30% reduction in fuel consumption, and you can probably sell your entire
production line output for _years_ ahead, before the first customer
delivery has 100 hours on it.

[psyshrike]

(Robert Bonomi) wrote in message .com>...
> In article >,
> psyshrike > wrote:
> >Ron Natalie > wrote in message
> >...

<SNIP>

>
> You _can_. All you have to do is *PROVE* that all those standards have
> been met. With _your_ own data. When you _do_ prove that, to the FAA's
> satisfaction, they will award *you* a type certificate of your very own.
>
> You just can't use "somebody else's" test data to show that _your_ engine
> meets the requirements.

The whole argument is based on the assumption that two engines exactly
identicle. I'm not argueing about whether that is possible. I'm
arguing about the jurisdiction of the FAA's regulation in the case
that they are. Given the assumption, you still haven't explained why I
shouldn't be able to use somebody elses test data.

>
> A patent prevents somebody else from doing the _same_thing_ you did.
> *Even*if* they come up with it 'independently'.
>
> *Anybody* can 'do what you did' (*exactly*, every step) to get a TC, and
> get their own TC for an identical product. The original TC 'owner' has
> *zero* power to restrict them from doing so. There are *NO* barriers that
> prevent them from doing so.
>
> It is simply 'not easier' for that party to do so, because they cannot
> use -your- work as a 'springboard' for their TC application.
>

'springboard'ing is the reason why patents expire. Denial of the right
to 'springboard' without concurrent provision for expiration, is
denying something to the new player that is otherwise provided
implicitly through expiration of patents.

> "Not harder, not easier" -- sounds like 'fair to everyone', to me. :)

I am sure comrade Stalin would have agreed with you.

>
> >> Sorry, nothing prevents them from using previuos art. I can steal
> >> all the aspects of Lycoming or Continentals design to build a new engine.
> >> Their design (which is what patents support) is free for me to pick and
> >> choose from. What I don't get a free pass around is showing my new
> >> engine is safe to the FAA's standard.
> >
> >OK. Why no free pass?
>
> Wrong question. Why *should* the Johnnie-come-lately be _entitled_ to
> the 'free pass'?

Is that really what you meant to say? In a free market economy all
things not specifically regulated are implicitly entitled. IOW, if the
law doesn't say I can't, I can.

Your implying that the business has to justify why they should be able
to copy, rather than the state having to justify why copying should be
prevented. I think an 8th grade civics book aught to clear that one up
for you.

"Why shouldn't he be entitled?" _is_ the right question. You made the
original point, I didn't. You failure to consider your own argument in
greater detail suggests that you are not interested in exploring the
concept; rather just ****ing from a rooftop to make yourself feel
superior. Which of course you are free to do. Unless _your_ regulatory
practice applies, in which case you'll have to apply for a permit.

>
> "Empirical evidence" is not the same as "proof".
>

Your right. But if aircraft were "proof" safe none of them would ever
crash from defect then would they? "Proof" is a red herring. What you
call proof is defined by the whole of part 21, which is where the
conflict is in the first place.

<SNIP long drawn out argument about how duplication can't be
accomplished>

Again, I wasn't asking if it could be done, I was asking about whether
the FAA dictates licensing rights based on TC, and whether that
conflicts with intellectual property law. My observation is that you
don't have any more information than I do. You think your right. I'd
like to know if I am. Sufficed to say, further argument will yield
nothing.

I'll just leave it at that. Your welcomed to the last word.

Thanks
Matt