Be careful when you buy used STC'd parts.

Chip Sylverne said:
Personally, I think the stc shouldbe closer to a patent, whereas it protects the property for a set period of time then expires. There are a lot of orphan stc's that cause grief.
Click to expand...

Or maybe have something where it expires when the company goes defunct. I would like that idea.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Experimental has, what, double the mechanical failures?
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact numbers, and I have complete respect for what you say. But there surely is some middle ground that doesn't make it so dreadfully expensive to incorporate what seems to be ("seems" being the critical word, here. I know, the devil can be in the details.) well developed technology, such as improved seatbelts, and avionics such that we are not locked in with old lap belts or ARC radios unless we want to spend the equivelent of a downpayment on a house. I am sure that it is possible that new electronic nav/coms might be more likely to fail if they haven't been through the certification process, but more likely than the 38 year old originals?

Maybe this bill will help.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...ing.aspx?WT.mc_sect=adv&WT.mc_id=131115epilot
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Personally, I think the stc shouldbe closer to a patent, whereas it protects the property for a set period of time then expires. There are a lot of orphan stc's that cause grief.
Click to expand...

That is a better way of saying what I was trying to above.
 
When some one develops an STC they are liable for that engineering, should they hold that liability for free?
 
PPC1052 said:
I don't know the exact numbers, and I have complete respect for what you say. But there surely is some middle ground that doesn't make it so dreadfully expensive to incorporate what seems to be ("seems" being the critical word, here. I know, the devil can be in the details.) well developed technology, such as improved seatbelts, and avionics such that we are not locked in with old lap belts or ARC radios unless we want to spend the equivelent of a downpayment on a house. I am sure that it is possible that new electronic nav/coms might be more likely to fail if they haven't been through the certification process, but more likely than the 38 year old originals?

Maybe this bill will help.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...ing.aspx?WT.mc_sect=adv&WT.mc_id=131115epilot
Click to expand...

I think the key is streamlining the certification process to make it easier and less costly. Perhaps also getting some better DER authority as well for changes.

It is a balance. I'm a big fan of experimentals, but there's no doubt that they're less reliable on the whole, and also with a greater variation. When you buy a certified aircraft, you're expecting a certain level of consistency.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I think the key is streamlining the certification process to make it easier and less costly. Perhaps also getting some better DER authority as well for changes.

It is a balance. I'm a big fan of experimentals, but there's no doubt that they're less reliable on the whole, and also with a greater variation. When you buy a certified aircraft, you're expecting a certain level of consistency.
Click to expand...

And with that consistency comes the heartburn of dealing with the paperwork that ensures it is consistent. Pick your poison.
 
airguy said:
And with that consistency comes the heartburn of dealing with the paperwork that ensures it is consistent. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

That is correct. People have that choice, as they should.
 
Norman said:
He had to jump through hoops at the FAA to get the STC. That cost him time and money. Would you expect him to get no return on his investment?
Click to expand...

He did get a return. Do you mean twice?

The whole "intellectual property" thing has been blown way out of sensible proportions driven mostly by the software and music industries. If you buy a CD they'll tell you that you are purchasing a "license" to listen to the music but if the CD gets scratched guess what - you gotta buy a whole new "license" again.
 
Silvaire said:
He did get a return. Do you mean twice?

The whole "intellectual property" thing has been blown way out of sensible proportions driven mostly by the software and music industries. If you buy a CD they'll tell you that you are purchasing a "license" to listen to the music but if the CD gets scratched guess what - you gotta buy a whole new "license" again.
Click to expand...

Nope, you don't have to buy a second license. You may have to buy a second set of media due to your own actions. But your original license is still good. You can listen to the songs on your iPhone, your PC, and even off the backup disk that you created before scratching the original CD.
 
Silvaire said:
He did get a return. Do you mean twice?

The whole "intellectual property" thing has been blown way out of sensible proportions driven mostly by the software and music industries. If you buy a CD they'll tell you that you are purchasing a "license" to listen to the music but if the CD gets scratched guess what - you gotta buy a whole new "license" again.
Click to expand...

Once per plane,

Just because I take the STC parts off doesn't mean that I need to buy the STC again to reinstall the parts
 
stratobee said:
Ultimately this procedure is detrimental to everyone. Because it means if you part out a plane, your most valuable parts might not be worth a single dime in case the STC holder has gone out of business, is deceased or not playing ball. Imagine the due diligence we're all saddled with all of a sudden.

I know for sure I will have to look long and hard at buying used STC'd parts from now on. Even at 50 cents on the dollar, that part might end up costing you a lot more than a new part. Or be completely unusable.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way, if I want to come up with the next great STC to put a pair of off the shelf Diesel engines onto an Aerostar what would be my financial motivation to invest in the engineering if all you needed was a photo copy of my STC paperwork and the engines you bought off eBay?
 
Skylane81E said:
Look at it this way, if I want to come up with the next great STC to put a pair of off the shelf Diesel engines onto an Aerostar what would be my financial motivation to invest in the engineering if all you needed was a photo copy of my STC paperwork and the engines you bought off eBay?
Click to expand...

Not quite the same. Say I buy your set up and STC for $250k, don't particularly like it and want to sell it to someone else. Under the STC rules as they sit,you can tell the person that wants to put it on their plane "sure, I'll reassign the STC, it'll just cost $250k and BTW, you'll need to send the equipment back to me so I can overhaul it, that'll just cost another $100k"

Unless you write a transfer policy assurance (or buy back guaranty) into the initial deal, it'll be hard to sell your product because you have the ability to make it worthless.
 
Norman said:
FAR 21.120.
Click to expand...

That is close but no cigar, that is the responsibility of the STC holder to provide the buyer a copy.

That FAR says nothing about who is responsible for insuring the user bought the STC.

There is nothing saying that the A&P-IA returning the aircraft to service on the 337, must prove the user bought the intellectual property from the STC holder.

The FAA does not care who bought what from who, they only care that the aircraft was properly returned to service in its properly altered condition. Who bought what from who, is a civil matter and the FAA won't go there.
 
We enjoyed paying over $900 to the current Robinson STOL STC holder -- who is a competing product's company, who bought up the Robinson assets after he died, to make sure no one else bought them to go into competition with them. -- for three HALVES of aileron hinges, to mate up with the Cessna halves that cost $45 for the whole set.

They claimed none in stock, and they had to fabricate them from scratch and it would take a week. They arrived in three days.

It's a freaking half of a piano hinge, slightly larger than the original Cessna ones, to handle the additional aerodynamic load on the drooped ailerons.

They have the rights to sell a competitor's product, engineered over 30 years ago, for whatever inflated profit they like.... because they hold the STC paperwork and the drawings.

Cessna sells the whole hinge for $45.

They've found a great way to milk that one, for all it's worth.
 
An STC isn't just selling a part. It's not all about IP and monopolies, although there is an original investment involved.

It's where somebody obtains (Supplemental) Type Certification for those areas of the existing Aircraft Type Certificated design (and whatever STCs may already be incorporated) that are affected by the change.

An airframe OEM for a GA airplane must demonstrate to the administrator that the aircraft design meets those applicable FARs in Part 23 when he first certifies the airplane.

The STC is the certificate the administrator issues to show that a modification to any given aircraft meets the applicable requirements of Part 23 where the Type Certificate approval is no longer applicable, because of the modification.

The practical airworthiness of an STC can depend on how the new part interfaces or works with other equipment on the aircraft (installed by the TC or other STCs).

Some STCs require previous or concurrent incorporation of other STC. STCs can be applicable by model, type or aircraft serial number.

I've see STCs that were only applicable when specific other components are installed.

An STC holder could in theory be held accountable for issuing service bulletins in support of ADs if their product is later found unsafe.


It's no more of a business monopoly than an airframe OEM that holds a Type Certificate has.

If there are any differences in the installation approved by the STC from one aircraft to another, (FAA Major or Minor) the holder has to get approval for that from the FAA.

For an aircraft with an STC to be legal, it has to conform to the Type Certificated and and Supplementally Type Certificated design. The only people that can determine that are the people that have the approved design data.
 
My big question of buying used parts to install an STC on your aircraft, would be with out the complete set of paper work, how would the A&P-IA know it was installed correctly before signing block 7 of the 337?

I don't believe I would do it, but there is no regulation saying I must be the one who requires the owner of the aircraft to prove they bought the STC.

otherwise I would not be able to approve any STC that is public domaine because the instructions may downloaded from the internet. When that is the case, I have a full set of instructions and can tell the STC was installed correctly and thus be able to sign block 7 of the 337 and return it to service.
 
Last edited:
On every STC that I've installed a letter of authorization was part of the paperwork. When doing an annual on an aircraft that has had an STC previously installed I just go by the logbook entry. There is no reason for me, nor is it my duty, to doubt or investigate the legitimacy of any previous logbook entry.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Or maybe have something where it expires when the company goes defunct. I would like that idea.
Click to expand...
That was the idea behind the FAA agreeing with the public domaine concept.
Years ago if you could not gain approval to use the engineering the FAA would balk at applying it to any aircraft, thus we would be required to gain approval by other means.

Now there is a list of STCs (which I'm to lazy to look up) that lists the STC that are in public domaine, which you can use with out any authorization from the holder of the STC. simply because there isn't any.
 
Norman said:
It's his intellectual property so he's within his rights to require a fee to use it.
Click to expand...

If it were a simple intellectual property issue, the first-sale doctrine would apply. It seems more like a licensing agreement between the company, the FAA and the end-user. I don't know of any other example of this.
 
In my own limited experience preparing engineering packages to upgrade Transponder/TCAS installations on airliners using the avionics OEM STCs, there was a list of MMRs, IRUs and ADCs in the data package that their equipment was alrealy tested and approved to work with.

When we wanted to install it on aircraft with different P/N units, we needed to get them to update their STC. If it wasn't approved, full functionality could not be assumed, it was the FAA Aircraft Certification Office that the OEM used that had to decode if additional testing was needed.

One place where there was a lot of confusion was where minor wiring changes were needed. On very old airplanes, the connections could not always be made were shown in the installation package. As a 121 airline, we had approval to make minor wiring modifications. The STC holder had no such approval (they were a parts manufacturer, not an operator). All of their changes had to be approved by the ACO.

Another situation I've seen is where TCAS was installed on airplanes by STC years previous. We wanted to put all new panel displays in the cockpit. The STC for the panel display had to encompass approval for it to be used as the TCAS indicator, in lieu of that portion of the original TCAS STC, as well as approval for all the other cockpit display functions.
 
I have a sky-tec light weight starter, installed under STC, for my airplane.
It goes kaput. I buy a used one from Wentworth, and install it.

Am I legal?
 
bluerooster said:
I have a sky-tec light weight starter, installed under STC, for my airplane.
It goes kaput. I buy a used one from Wentworth, and install it.

Am I legal?
Click to expand...

Yes.. The STC does not go by the component serial number. Your Aircraft was modified to use this alternate starter.
 
Well, what I feared has happened. The STC holder would not issue Letter of Authorization unless he inspected brakes. So, I sent them off and as I expected, they "found" issues of course (now that they're out of a sale of a new set of brakes). Some scuff marks to the paint job on the rim literally, nothing more, but that was enough for them. "Not economical to repair" as they said, meaning, I should buy there brand new set for $8K. I now have a perfectly fine set of STC'd break systems for the plane, with paperwork, that are useless. I now have to try sell them on to some other sucker who doesn't know the law or has an A&P who doesn't know the law and is willing to put them on.

Oh, the joys of aircraft ownership. But basically, from now on, I'll never buy a used STC part ever again. Which is exactly how they planned it, of course. Which also means that that plane you're parting out with STC'd parts has to rely on suckers not knowing the law buying them. And pretty soon we'll run out of suckers.
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Sell them to someone with the STC,
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll do that. But am basically relying on someone else to be as uninformed as I was and conning them into a sale. Just think it's a sad and dishonest system, myself.
 
Now that the FAA is under a Congressional mandate to simplify the approval process for certified aircraft - and I assume that includes parts - issues like this should be brought to the bargaining table .
 
stratobee said:
Well, what I feared has happened. The STC holder would not issue Letter of Authorization unless he inspected brakes. So, I sent them off and as I expected, they "found" issues of course (now that they're out of a sale of a new set of brakes). Some scuff marks to the paint job on the rim literally, nothing more, but that was enough for them. "Not economical to repair" as they said, meaning, I should buy there brand new set for $8K. I now have a perfectly fine set of STC'd break systems for the plane, with paperwork, that are useless. I now have to try sell them on to some other sucker who doesn't know the law or has an A&P who doesn't know the law and is willing to put them on.

Oh, the joys of aircraft ownership. But basically, from now on, I'll never buy a used STC part ever again. Which is exactly how they planned it, of course. Which also means that that plane you're parting out with STC'd parts has to rely on suckers not knowing the law buying them. And pretty soon we'll run out of suckers.
Click to expand...

So let me make sure I understand your complaint.

You bought parts without researching what would be required for install or how the STC holder would assist. You didn't like their answer, and so this is somehow their fault, and your only way out is to sell the parts to someone else uninformed so that you can pass your bad decision on to them?

The parts are just fine for anyone with the STC to buy as I understand it. But if they're red tagged and you sell them, then you're liable. If I found out you sold me a red tagged part advertising as anything but, you'd be giving me a full refund if you were lucky.
 
So let me make sure I understand your complaint.

You bought parts without researching what would be required for install or how the STC holder would assist. You didn't like their answer, and so this is somehow their fault, and your only way out is to sell the parts to someone else uninformed so that you can pass your bad decision on to them?

The parts are just fine for anyone with the STC to buy as I understand it. But if they're red tagged and you sell them, then you're liable. If I found out you sold me a red tagged part advertising as anything but, you'd be giving me a full refund if you were lucky.
Click to expand...

Ted, you really don't think there's the slightest conflict of interest here? It's like having the police police itself. They're not red tagged. They're just not willing to issue LoA.

There is no doubt that I hadn't done my research and wasn't familiar with the need for a LoA. I wasn't the first one to make that mistake and I won't be the last. Hence why I started this thread as a warning. I think most people people are/were unfamiliar with this specific. I have a hunch that this legality is often broken - I bet used STC'd parts are put on every day somewhere without this..:rolleyes::yes:
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Ted, you really don't think there's the slightest conflict of interest here? It's like having the police police itself. They're not red tagged. They're just not willing to issue LoA.

There is no doubt that I hadn't done my research and wasn't familiar with the need for a LoA. I wasn't the first one to make that mistake and I won't be the last. Hence why I started this thread as a warning. I think most people people are/were unfamiliar with this specific. I have a hunch that this legality is often broken - I bet used STC'd parts are put on every day somewhere without this..:rolleyes::yes:
Click to expand...

Sure there's a conflict of interest, but as the owners of the intellectual property, they're also well within their rights. Were it me, I'd issue the STC paperwork for a fee and also need to inspect the parts. I'm just seeing you complaining because you spent money on something without properly researching it, and are now complaining because someone who did the work to get an STC isn't playing how you'd want them to. So don't give the guy money.

Of course, you could just break the rules as many have, and you probably wouldn't get caught for it. So I do commend you for following the rules.

I've been in a similar position. Last year when we did the engine overhauls on the 310, one option I wanted to do was to upgrade the 520s to 550s, which has an STC owned by Mike Jones aircraft, previously Colemill. Because we had basically the same STC (except with 520s) I called them up and asked what they were willing to do. It basically amounted to nothing. Was it annoying? Yes. But Mike also has to recoup his investment and has no obligation to give me his intellectual property, which is why I researched before buying 550s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top