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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

"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...

"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