Aircraft certification questions.

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" 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?

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.

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

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 . com...
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" 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.

"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/

"Blueskies" wrote in message om...
"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

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

"Blueskies" wrote in message om...

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

"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