Aircraft certification questions.

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.

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.

"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.

"smjmitchell" wrote in message . au...
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

"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...

"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/

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.

"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