Aircraft certification questions.

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.

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.

"smjmitchell" wrote in message u...
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

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.

"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" 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...

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.

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.

Ron Natalie wrote in message om...
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

In article ,
psyshrike wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote in message
. com...
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.