Aircraft certification questions.

"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

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:41:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. com...
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.

My understanding is that Cub Crafters makes their own data plate with
their name on it. I've kind of wondered how they got that past Piper
and the FAA too.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

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

Morgans wrote...

Minor details, that you replaced *every* single part, but since
they are all PMA'ed, it comes off as legal.

I have the original axe George Washington used to cut down the
Cherry tree. 'Course I had to replace the handle...and the head...,
but it occupies the same *space* as the hatchet.

Dave 'Mr. Wright' Hyde

"Dave Hyde" wrote

I have the original axe George Washington used to cut down the
Cherry tree. 'Course I had to replace the handle...and the head...,
but it occupies the same *space* as the hatchet.

Dave 'Mr. Wright' Hyde

Right.g

This is about like the Glacier Girl, since every (or nearly every) part had
to be replaced or copied, since it was so badly damaged. It is the thought
that counts, right?
--
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: 11/16/2004

No they are not using old data plates (they did up until about 4 years
ago). Somehow the FAA is issuing airworthiness certificates, with Cub
Crafters building on the Piper Super Cub design (without owning the
design, and Piper is letting them get away with it). Cub Crafters is
also somehow incorporating a bunch of STC's into the design. Don't ask
me how, but they are doing it. How do you search for AD's on such an
airplane? I dunno. Shows you how much we don't know, and from what I
hear, the FAA doesn't really know either.

One thing, it seems the Piper Super Cub design has become emminent
domain. Anyone can use it. I hear of individuals building Super Cubs
from PMA's Super Cub parts and getting a certified (NOT experimental)
type certificate!

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message .com...
"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.

Well, currently, nobody is challenging the duplication of any particular
airplane design. I do believe that if you started knocking off Barbie
dolls and called them something else, you would probably get a bit of
"resistance" from Mattel. Same thing can apply to an airplane. Building
something "substantially similar" in design is O.K., up until the time
you try to sell it. The original owner/designer can claim you owe
him/her some royalty. Whether or not you actually have to pay depends on
the courts.

Where this gets weird is when the copycat includes some small change in
some detail and claims the whole thing is now original. If his country's
legal system is nonexistent or sympathetic because the copier is a
national (like in Japan, Russia, or China to name a few), prosecution
will probably not happen. And good luck to an American court going after
the copier. That probably won't happen either because the copier's
country won't cooperate.

P&L attorneys, feel free to weigh in. It has been a while since I looked
into this and the rules may have changed (or I interpreted what I read
back then flat out wrong). Depending on how much energy I have on
Monday, I may actually check this out with my patent and licensing
attorneys. Since I cannot quote chapter and verse from any authoritative
source yet, I will yield that it is entirely likely that I am full o'
"stuff" on this one.

Good Luck,
Mike

First, I think you mean public domain. But second - nobody owns the
design to any airplane. Tony and I used to talk about this widespread
misperception a lot.

Someone can own a type certificate, or a production certificate. They
can own a utility patent if it's genuinely original (like Chuck
Slusarczyk's patent on reduction drives for ultralight aircraft) or a
design patent. But very few airplanes are covered by either design or
utility patents. There is no copyright protection. If you want to
start making perfect copies of a Cessna 172 for sale as lawn
ornimants, you have every legal right to do so. If you try to sell
them as Cessnas, there's trademark protection. Otherwise you're free
to do it.

Now, I don't understand how Cub Crafters is getting away with the
certification issues either. But "design ownership" is not a logical
phrase. Nobody owns an airplane design.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

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

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:41:17 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. com...
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.

My understanding is that Cub Crafters makes their own data plate with
their name on it. I've kind of wondered how they got that past Piper
and the FAA too.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

Forgive the superfluous "Me Too", but.. ME TOO!

Knowing this would answer all my questions.

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.