Aircraft certification questions.

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

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.

Ron Natalie wrote in message om...
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

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?

"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" 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

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.

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.

"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 he
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...4/14tab_02.tpl

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