Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Lessig's "Creative Commons" @ The FAA 149

Posted by Hemos from the flying-machines-scattered-on-the-ground dept.
tramm writes "The FAA, working with the EAA have put together a proposal to release old type certificates and blueprints once the copyright holders no longer exist. Sort of like Abandonware for airplanes. This very closely resembles Lawrence Lessig's idea of a creative commons, into which source code would be escrowed. Once the copyright expired or became abandonded, the sources would be released. "This set of legal guidelines will help the FAA develop a set of procedures to legally release what had previously been unnecessarily protected as proprietary data.". Hopefully the Copyright office will take note of the success here, as well as the Supreme Court's hearing of Eldred v Reno."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lessig's "Creative Commons" @ The FAA More

Lessig's "Creative Commons" @ The FAA

Comments Filter:

  • Doesn't the Bono act make this a moot point? Exactly when are these copyrights ever going to expire?

    • What part of antique do you not understand?
      • From THE MOUSE THAT ATE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN [findlaw.com] (reported here [slashdot.org]):
        The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.
        I don't think very many airplanes were designed prior to January 1, 1923; I suspect the bulk of the aircraft the EAA [eaa.org] is talking about [eaa.org] were designed between then and 1978.

        I don't doubt that the FAA is going to do this, but I also don't doubt that they'll get their butts sued over it. Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes, and Bono gives them the right to sue. Not that they will, but they could. I doubt the FAA has the authority to violate copyright law, even if the copyright holders don't care -- the RIAA and MPAA might just care enough to sue to enforce copyright law in general (although IANAL and don't know if a 3rd party can bring suit in a copyright case).

        • I would really doubt that a 3rd party could bring suit in a copyright case. After all, how were they damaged by the violation/infringement? Also, if the party being sued was found guilty, who would recieve the money from the judgement?

          • The lawsuit might not seek damages. It might just seek an injuction barring the FAA from further copyright infringement, effectively ending this program. A 3rd party might sue simply to prevent the government from violating copyright laws. Indeed, the suit could be brought by anyone seeking to force the government to enforce it's own laws, such as a Congressman who voted for the Bono act, or the company that paid for it [disney.com]. Hell, they might sue the Justice Department for failing to sue the FAA. In this litigous country, anything's possible.

            • You probably are right, but to me it doesn't seem logical that a 3rd party can sue for copyright violation. After all, what if the copyright owner doesn't care? Then what?
              • You probably are right, but to me it doesn't seem logical that a 3rd party can sue for copyright violation.

                IANAL, but...

                When it comes to suing the government like he's suggesting, I don't think it's a matter of parties. The only way the Judicial Branch can check the Executive Branch's abuse/ignorance of the law is for someone to bring suit against the Executive Branch. Then the court can rule on whether the Executive Branch actually understands the law it's charged with carrying out.

                If the FAA does this, anyone can ask the court if it's legal by bringing suit. You don't have to be a damaged party.

                As I understand it, the Legislative Branch has sued the Executive many times just for the purpose of getting the Judiciary to weigh in on what a law they wrote really means and to explain it to the Executive.

                Aren't checks and balances fun.
                • It has been awhile since my civics class, but as I recall you need to get permission from the government to sue the government.

                  To your point, this may not apply to the government suing itself, as would be the case in one branch suing another.
        • Somebody owns the assets of those defunct aircraft companies, even if they're no longer supporting the airplanes
          No - no one can be found. There are many airplanes from "The Golden Age" (the 20s and 30s) which are orphans. If you happen to own one of them (perhaps the only one still flying) you need FAA-certified parts. (Unless you want to fly the airplane in the "experimental" category which means you can't carry passengers or offer instruction except in a few limited cases.) For example, the "New Standard D-25" of the late 20s.

          Then there are STCs - Supplemental Type Certificates. These are authorized post-production modifications. Getting an STC accepted by the FAA is expensive. For example, an STC might allow you to run an OX-5 in a JN-4 Jenny on "blue" 100LL fuel instead of "green" 135 (hypothetical example, I have no idea what an OX-5 likes to drink). If it's not a popular STC, it's possible that the company went defunct and no one bought the STC. If you now want to use blue gas in your Jenny, you can't use the data that's already been given to the FAA proving that it's safe (that was the basis the original STC was issued on) -- you have to start from scratch.

          The important things about this: i) no owner can be found (and it provides for a 60 day search period) and ii) the data will be released under FOIA.

          • (Unless you want to fly the airplane in the "experimental" category which means you can't carry passengers or offer instruction except in a few limited cases.)

            Just a small point. But you can definitely carry passengers in an Experimental. In fact, I'm building a 4-seater right now. The regulation is that you have to inform all passengers that it is an experimental, and you have to have placards that state the fact. You can also offer instruction in one. In fact, several people have gotten their Private Pilot's Liscense in planes they built themselves (though, the cases of this are rare).

            There are many things an experimental can't do (mostly revolving around not making money off the craft), but these two are not amoung the forboden.

  • Sounds like a good idea to me, sorta like software companies that put their source code into escrow so that if they go under, their customers can legally obtain it.
    • Software companies that go under (like Be) sell their assets, so they're not really "orphaned".

      Besides, I don't think I'd have much use for the source code for a defunct company's 1992 ASCII-based word processor, let's say, where I need Win 3.1 and Borland's 16-bit C++ IDE and some other defunct companies' C utility libraries just to (attempt to) compile it, more long lost third party DLLs just to run it, and after all that it would crash or deplete system resources every two hours same as it did 10 years ago.

  • FAA legal counsel has agreed that "posting a public notice for 60 days would serve as constructive notice to anyone with an interest in the data, and if we receive no response, we can release the prints to the requesters."

    Too bad there's not already a way to show that intellectual property has been abandoned. This would be a great method to be able to re-publish old books, movies, and Atari 2600 games.

  • Start with NASA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by owlmeat ( 197799 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @06:57PM (#3127871)
    I'd love to see acutual engineering documents and code for stuff like the Saturn V, the lunar module and the ground control computers
    • While that would be cool, I don't think it will happen. Military aircraft do not have to undergo FAA certification. I doubt the FAA have blueprints of most military craft. I think the same thing probably applies to NASA craft. Was a Saturn V ever certified by the FAA? Doubtful.
      • This topic was hit-upon in Stephen Baxter's novel Manifold Time (or was it Manifold Space? The first one to come out). One of the main characters was starting an asteroid mining company in a near-future setting against heavy government opposition. I may have the details slightly incorrect due to lossy memory compression, but as I recall the FAA got onto him because the launch vehicle was going to be manned, so should have to pass FAA regulations. However, there Are no FAA regulations for extra-atmospheric vehicles, so it was a race to see if he could get off the ground before they could draw up requirements that he wouldn't be able to pass under the extremely tight budget of his operation.

        Absolutely nothing to do with copyrights, but what's life without amusing little side-forays?

      • Re:Start with NASA (Score:2, Interesting)

        by WinPimp2K ( 301497 )
        Actually, the designs for the rockets were PATENTED. The patents on the J5 (I think, it's been a long time - the engine used in the second and third stages of the Saturn V anyways) expired in the late 70's so those engine designs are fully in the public domain. Of course, given how the gubmint is getting about anything that might have "security" implications, it is entirely likely that Dan Goldin has had them retroactively classified before anyone going for the 'X' prize uses them in a manned ICBM.

        Other than that, remember that we are talking about experimental aircraft - the FAA doesn't do a lot with them anyways.
        • The patents on the J5 (I think, it's been a long time - the engine used in the second and third stages of the Saturn V anyways) expired in the late 70's so those engine designs are fully in the public domain.

          That's right, if you've been craving more power for your vehicle, you can now strap a genuine moon rocket motor to it with no restrictions or license fees.

          However, being a practical-minded guy, I'd use the Saturn-V's first stage F5 instead. It's a whole lot more powerful, and it uses kerosene so you won't have to wait around for the "hydrogen economy" to refuel it.

          Bring your credit card along, though, because it burns something like 3 tons of fuel per second.

          • F5

            That would be the F-1. Yes, 1.5 million pounds thrust is a bit of a kick, although RP-1 isn't exactly just kerosene.

            And my comments above for the J2 go several times for the F1 -- starting that thing was a bit of a black art, the ignition sequencing had to be done just right -- it wasn't a matter of just opening valves in the 17-inch oxidizer and fuel lines and lighting a match underneath!
        • That would be the J-2. LOX-hydrogen engine. Mind, there's a lot more to building a rocket engine (and getting it to work) than just looking at the patent drawings and description. If you're not "versed in the art", there are a lot of subtleties that will lead to a few blown up or burnt through engines before you get it right.

    • Then check THIS out... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      it's not quite engineering blueprints, but Nasa's Mission Reports [amazon.com] are pretty close for a single book. Detailed overview of the operation of the vehicles with lots of nice drawings detailing the nuts and bolts. So if you're curious about turbopumps or how you ignite a Saturn V rocket engine you'll like these books. They also generally include the crew debriefing where they talk about most of the interesting glitches in the mission...
    • You might find this [ddj.com] interesting, then.
    • I'd love to see acutual engineering documents and code for stuff like the Saturn V, the lunar module and the ground control computers

      So would China, Iraq, and many other dangerous rouge states. The US spyplane that crashed in China gave the Chinese an important look at our technology. What would entire engineering documents do?

      Think about national security and protecting our way of life right now. We are in a war if you haven't noticed.

      • Re:Start with NASA (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by NiceGeek ( 126629 )
        Our way of life is pretty much shot to hell right now if YOU hadn't noticed. Spare me your concerns about someone getting ahold of some ancient NASA docs.
        Yep mods it's a flame...go for it.
        • Well, you just *might* be able to retrofit a Saturn V with a payload that is, well, just a little bit on the large side. They aren't exactly small rockets, nor would I call them short range. So printing the blueprints for one of those might be called "risky."
        • Our way of life? Are you for real? A day in the life of your typical american is EXACTLY the same today as it was 5 years ago. Grow up and stop being spoon fed by Bush and his cronies (the media).

    • check out http://www.openchannelsoftware.com/
      (it was mentioned on /. some time ago). As far as I remember, it started when NASA decided to give some of its code to Open Source community.

      Stuff like "An Advanced Engineering Model for the Prediction of Airframe Integrated Scramjet Cycle Performance". It's a pity I do not have too much time anymore to study all the programs available there... :)

      And, of course, we all know that Beowulf started in NASA/JPL when Don worked there...

      Paul B.
    • 10 If something breaks, then 20
      20 Print "We're fucked"

    • Re:Start with NASA (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Caraig ( 186934 )
      Unfortunately, you won't be able to. At least for the Saturn V.

      Y'see, the blueprints and engineering docs for the Saturn V were stored on microfilm. Time passed and, unfortunately, the ability to build the Saturn V was lost -- financial reasons, mostly. The aerospace industry had been given the financial equivalent of 100cc's of adrenaline with JFK's "space race." By the time the Apollo program ended, we were already unable to build the Saturn V. (This is why NASA moved on to cheaper, unmanned launches and the Space Shuttle.)

      If you really want them, though, I think we can work something out. Supposedly I live a few miles from the Saturn V's plans' final resting place. Legend has it that they are located somewhere in the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York City. This is probably incorrect, though. More likely, they were incinerated.
      • I was wondering that myself. I had heard that the plans for the Saturn V were lost. But that seems to be mostly an urban legend. You can get the full story on the Saturn V plans here [space.com] (warning: pop ups).

        • They say they have 2900 cu ft of documents. If thats all microfiche density it could be about 4 billion letter sized documents.
        • Thank you! I'm very glad to hear that, actually. Even if we can't build the Saturn V anymore, there's significant historical interest in those documents.

          And, yes. Copious popups. My screen was half red courtesy of SpyBlocker. =6 An interesting article, though. =)
    • That's a lot of data. There were something like 10,000 engineering drawings for the LM alone, at the peak Grumman's design group was cranking them out at 400 a week. (I just finished Tom Kelly's semi-autobiographical book on the project, "Moon Lander"). And that's just the drawings. The documentation overall probably took warehouses to store -- and because of the cost of that storage, a lot of it is probably long gone.

      However, a surprising amount is starting to turn up on the web, as the personal collections of old retired (and in too many cases, dead) Apollo-era engineers become available and enthusiasts put them on line. The NASA sites have some stuff too, but it's mostly the watered-down stuff they release to the general public.
    • I'll bet North Korea would love to get a gander at that Saturn V data. Sure, it might be a little overkill, but scaled down it would make a bitchin' ICBM.
    • I'd love to see actual engineering documents and code for 'Vger' Voyager 6, so that I could build a living machine. This would allow me the option of sex0ring it... I mean, "interfacing" with it, or else removing the infestation of carbon lifeforms from the surface of the 3rd planet. You earthlings had better hope I'm in good mood, or hard up, lest yee shall all perish before me.

      Sure, that is lots of power to wield. That's probably why NASA denys the existence of any probes beyond Voyager 2. Don't believe it!

  • How soon does the GPL Copyleft expire? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The GPL is based on Copyleft, which is just an construct on top of copyright law. When the copyright on GPL'd software expires, does the software fall into the public domain?

    If copyrights are to be shortened to, say, 7 years, does GPL'd code then become public domain after those seven years?

    It's a point worth pondering.
    • Yes yes it would. many overlook that point but all in all I think it is a good thing.
    • The GPL is based on Copyleft, which is just an construct on top of copyright law. When the copyright on GPL'd software expires, does the software fall into the public domain?

      If copyrights are to be shortened to, say, 7 years, does GPL'd code then become public domain after those seven years?

      Copyleft is a made-up word, not a legal concept. GPL'd software is copyrighted, with a license that grants permission to use the code in certain ways (which you normally wouldn't be able to with a copyrighted work). If the copyright expires, the software falls into the public domain, and you can now do those things with the software without using the GPL to do it, and thus not being restricted by the terms of the GPL.

      However, since a GPL'd app can be copyrighted by many people (each contributor is a copyright holder), you'd need to wait until all the copyrights expired, or all the copyrights that pertain to the section you want to use. If copyrights have been assigned to the FSF or some other group, that would simplify things.
  • I've always wanted to know how to build my own
    P-47! Woo-hoo! Now all I need is a couple hundred thousand dollars. Hmmm...

  • Sounds Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sasha328 ( 203458 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @07:03PM (#3127899) Homepage
    Just so people don't get confused about what this will achieve: It will only help vintage aircraft oweners. Most of the old vintage aircraft have no manuals (IPCs etc); and the repairs would generally be applied through FAA approved engineers. Most, if not all newer aircraft will not be affected by this. I do not think that the FAA will let any one build an aircraft using these blueprints because the certification nw is totally different than earlier last century. They may however be built as experimental aircraft. That is where I think te EAA comes in.
    • Actualy there is an airplane the Waco Classic that is being manufactured in just this way. The original Waco Aircraft company built about 8 of the big bi-planes in the 30's and went under. The plans ended up in the Smithsonian, and a company is now makeing an up to date version of it. If I had a spare $350,000 that I didn't know what to do with I might buy one. (OK probably not) Its very nice looking plane but not what you call in any way practical.

      Also remember that the Cessna Skyhawk introduced in 1956 is still buing built. (And the Beach Bonanza which first was built in '47 is still being built as well in some form)

  • not quite the same thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @07:04PM (#3127902)
    While it may be perfectly sensible in this case (hey, aircraft and software are very different), I think a LOT of people would be nervous if their source code was automatically made available once their 'copyright' was over, this is a MUCH more serious step than just loosing your copyright.

    if you loose a copyright, people can copy the program, but still need to reverse-engineer the source if they want to know your implementation.

    of course, I'm totally supportive of fully open source, but we should remember that copyright is peoples right if they decide to go that way, and we should not assume that when this lapses we have the right to ALL of their work, they just loose that particular bit of protection.

    there is a world of difference between copyright on a particular implementation, and the massivly 'general' patents currently being handed out in the US over quite obvious software techniques, the second are much more... stuipd, dangerous, ridiculous, etc, etc.... however copright is a MUCH simpler concent, so long as it's length is kept reasonable, and it's extent is limited.

    of course, in the case of the copyright holder 'ceasing to exist' the case becomes much more hazy.. since ther is noone to defent the copyright, I guess all bets are off, but should their 'source code' (or exact plans/designs) be automatically made public? and who do we trust to hold these? hmmm... I personally think that would be excessive.

    • if you loose a copyright, people can copy the program, but still need to reverse-engineer the source if they want to know your implementation.

      Here's a question - don't you need to publish in order to get copyright protection? If so, then how is the source protected when it isn't actually published?


      • I doubt the companies involved here copyrighted the blueprints to the aircraft either, just (I would imaging) the actual parts making it up, in a lot of way source code is just 'blueprints' to a program.

        The FAA obviously required the blueprints to be given to it, and are not releasing them (a great thing, in a number of ways), I would be quite concerned if this kind of thing happened to source code (due to the ease of recreating software, much easier than building an aircraft).

        I can see a 'risk' of goverments making a power grab to have source code 'registered' within some goverment organisation for similar reasons to why the FAA has the aircraft blueprints, and I think this would be a VERY BAD THING for the freedom of developers, partially due to the verhanded generalisation that seems to prevade software legislation these days.
        • Paragraph by paragraph:

          Copyright is implicit the moment something is created, you aren't required to register for it (although it is recommended, and stands up much better in court), so the blueprints are likely covered by copyright.

          And why are you concerned about source code to abandoned programs being released? I can't think of a single reason, so please share. (Okay, one: if id folded and the Quake 3 source code were abandoned, you would see a lot more cheats, but Quake doesn't have much in the way of security and safety.)

          Finally... what 'risks'? The FAA requires aircraft blueprints (I assume) to check them for safety. Unsafe software can be almost as dangerous as an unsafe airplane, so it may not be a bad idea to have a Federal Software Security Association. What "freedom" would this take away from developers? The freedom to make insecure software?

    • I'm not sure I understand you. The whole point of having a copyright period is that it ends at some point and then whatever was copyrighted goes into the public domain. The public domain belongs to the public (duh) so therefore I have full rights to anything that has an elapsed copyright. That's the way it works.

      Of course, if someone 'ceases to exist' before their copyright is up, why shouldn't the same thing happen? We're not depriving the copyright holder of their rights because they don't exist anymore. If there was a sale or transfer of intellectual property then the copyright went to whoever the new owner is and this scenario doesn't apply. All this FAA/EAA move does is ensure that things pass into the public domain as they should.

      What, exactly, are you proposing? Keeping things in the public domain a secret? Banning all copying of information? Leaving orphaned information out there to die? I'm not sure what you're arguing for.

    • "I think a LOT of people would be nervous if their source code was automatically made available once their 'copyright' was over, this is a MUCH more serious step than just loosing your copyright."

      I can see arguments both ways: one, since source-code for many projects is never published, it isn't copyrighted (I guess it's a trade secret... not sure.) On the other hand, if it IS published, then when the copyright is over, it rises to public domain, and everyone does have the right to do whatever they want with it.

      In the hypothetical case of a federal software association requiring that all source code be regitered with it... does that count as publishing? It probably would have to. So it would have to, eventually, become public domain. But what's so wrong with that?

  • Copyright (Score:4, Informative)

    by JimPooley ( 150814 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @07:43PM (#3128034) Homepage
    This is a damn good idea. Lots of planes are flying long after their original designer and manufacturer are defunct, and anything that helps that is a good thing. People may even take this occasion to bring well loved classic aircraft back into production.

    However, I would like to take this occasion to point out one very worthwhile extension of copyright. J.M.Barrie, creator of "Peter Pan" bequeathed his royalties to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital. When the copyright was due to expire in 1989, a special case was made in UK courts that the copyright be held in perpetuity by the hospital.
    Now that's a good copyright extension. It helps people.
  • This information (the plane plans) is apparently considered under copyright as unpublished material.

    But copyright was intended, I assert, to allow limited protection for material to be published and thus accessible to all readers who wish to buy the work.

    Since these plans serve as a sort of public law document (they must be recorded with the FAA by the plane manufacturer and need to be accessible to them in order to check plane maintenance) then the question arises: Why copyright the plans in the first place? What public interest is being served by locking them up?

    Yes, recent U.S. law allows airplane plans just as boat hulls to be protected as "intellectual property." But at least they could be published and thus available for a fee, instead of being locked up as trade secrets. Citizens ought to have a right to know (which is why the involvement of the Freedom of Information Office is interesting here).

  • hold off on Creative Commons.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EricEldred ( 175470 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @07:51PM (#3128058) Homepage
    tramm is right in proposing that this abandonware project is similar to what has been discussed about the Creative Commons. But as one of the directors of the Commons, may I suggest we hold off much public discussion until the Commons is ready--maybe within a few weeks...

  • There's a big difference (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With the blueprints to software, you just run them through a compiler and a few minutes later, presto, you have the completed program. Want to manufacture another identical program? A few clicks, a few keypresses, and it's done. Not only that, but no bureaucrat is going to look over your shoulder or ask you to justify yourself as to why your assembled it that way instead of this way. Generally no one is going to tell you what you can or can't do with your precious program. No licenses, no training. Almost complete and total freedom.

    Now let's move from the make-believe world of software and Slashdot to the real world of airplane building. You have the blueprints? Great. How about the BOM? You do know what a BOM is, don't you? Go make a BOM, once you've figured it out. Go assemble everything together by yourself, or pay someone to do it for you. Keep in mind that it will require ~1000+ hours for assembly. Keep in mind that a 40hr workweek is about 2000hrs a year. Some assembly operations may require special jigs, or tools. Go buy or build those.

    Now you have a plane. Guess what? You can't do squat with it, until some bureaucrats say you can. They're not too evil, but they will require you prove the plane is safe, and they will restrict what you can do with it and where you can go.

    It's not the same. Slashdot, stick to the kiddie stuff and leave the real world to the big boys.
    • But also the EAA has a large membership percentage that are very talented aerospace professionals by day, who are also aerospace fanatics for fun by night.

      There are also a small number of planes that probably would attract a large enough following that stand a chance at being kitted if the blueprints suddenly came available... a couple of legendary WWII warbirds immediately pop into my mind: F-4U Corsair, P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang.

      I have no idea about the legal status of the current owners of the F-4U or P-38. Sadly I don't think the P-51 will be among those up for release since as of the late-80s Piper owned the assets of the former North American Aviation and had been revamping the P-51 design as a South American counter-insurgency ground attack plane.

      And based upon the flyers I know, I can tell you that the coolness factor of flying into Oshkosh in a shiny new P-38 would attract a lot of manpower.

  • "The issue for us will not be which system of exclusive control--the government or the market--should govern a given resource, but whether that resource should be controlled or free."

    http://www.spectator.org/AmericanSpectatorArticles /Lessig/Control.htm [spectator.org]

  • I was in the music biz earlier in my life and a copyright lasted for 25 years. Then could be renewed for another 25 years. After that it became pubic domain. Now the 25 years twice IMO is a little long and 25 years total makes more sense, but I believe is fair. I think patients should work the same way 25 years and then public. That gives the indivisual or company who invested time and money creating the idea time to reap the rewards of there investment, then the public gets it to use freely.

  • What this will bring to aviation. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drink85cent ( 558029 ) on Thursday March 07, 2002 @08:40PM (#3128220)
    Many of you have this all wrong.

    This only really applies to homebuilders. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) is out there to promote building of homebuilt aircraft. They want these documents out there in the open to promote homebuilding, not lets build such and such WWII aircraft and know how to build this jet.

    Most of these aircraft, most likely are little single-engined aircraft that most people dont understand one from another. This is really only applicable to you if you want to BUILD it and you want the plans or want to do some sort of coversion and you need the FAA approved STC.

    These plans and STCs are very expensive to get so people like to hold on to them and charge for their usage. SO when you cant find the person anymore, you're SOL.
    • keep in mind that many members of the EAA are Warbird collectors, Restorers, and pilots. One of the central draws of the major EAA events is their B-17 that flies daily "Aluminum Overcast" you can hitch a ride on it for a nice donation.
      Or check out the Superfortress, FiFi, owned by the Confederate Air Force.

      I had the pleasure to attend Sun N Fun in Lakeland, FL a few years ago. The warbird flightline is impressive and has hundreds of WWII heavy iron including several bombers and many fighters.
      The antiques are beautiful and lovingly restored. The competiton for awards is on par with Concours De Elegance but you can't trailer in the plane. Very cool.

      This information is great for these kinds of enthusiasts. And yes, there are many projects that include jets. I've seen F-104 starfighters, F-86, several different migs, There are projects for F-4s and others.

      All it takes is money. This is a great program for all of general aviation.
  • ... who doesn't know what EAA stands for? It's not mentioned anywhere on their website what their acronym means. The closest I could find by searching http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym [www.ucc.ie] is "Experimental Aircraft Association". Is that right?

    • Yes (Score:2, Interesting)

      by elfuq ( 89094 )
      They are a fine organization that helps homebuilders of various unusual aircraft.

      Ya see, if you want to get a new aircraft FAA approved, it costs millions of dollars and a couple of years of expensive testing. Until Cirrus Aviation got the SR200 certified in 2000, no one had got a new light General Aviation aircraft certified in years, everyone was just building them off the old type certificates.

      But, if you build it yourself. (More than 50% of the effort) you can fly any weird-assed kind of airplane, with a very minimal level of certification.

      Most homebuilders use kits, though theres still a lot of work to do to complete the aircraft, and qualify under the 50% rule.

      The EAA exists to help these people.
    • That's right - Experimental Aircraft Association. The EAA is to small aircraft what the open source movement is to computers. Basically they're all about design & built it yourself aircraft. There's a lot of political opposition trying to take away the freedom to build and fly your own machines, and the EAA is a strong voice to help us preserve that freedom.
  • There are a few things I'd like to point out. I hold this particular subject near and dear, as both an aviation enthusiast (for example, http://xb70.interceptor.com/), a computer geek, and a commercially rated pilot who has owned several aircraft.

    IANAL, but:

    1) it concerns me that all the EAA article mentions is the availablilty of the documents. There's no protection should a copyright holder appear post-fact to sue you for building his STC'd widget without license.

    2) A difference between most abandonware and this is that certainly the intent here is to only deal with entities that no longer exist. That's entirely different from entities that don't care. most "abandonware" it seems, is indeed owned by someone and is copyrighted; it's just that they don't care to support, sell, or do anything but sit on it. This example won't change that a bit.

    3) The reason that type certificates (TC) and Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) are zealously protected is because a lot of expense goes into them. Due to the nature of aircraft, even fairly small changes (such as replacing an engine with an almost identical model that 'bolts in' without physical changes) have to be documented and tested extensively. The only way for people to recoup those costs is to charge users of the STC a fee for a 'license.'

    4) as others have pointed out, virtually everything the EAA is talking about is very old and has been abandoned for decades.

    Steve

Slashdot Top Deals

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira

Close