Is an STC owned for eternity?

[Ulysse]

If I own an STC for a modification/enhancement, do I have exclusive right for this enhancement forever or does it, at some point, become public as for some patents?

[Sabremech]

3 hours ago, Ulysse said:

If I own an STC for a modification/enhancement, do I have exclusive right for this enhancement forever or does it, at some point, become public as for some patents?

Good question, but I believe you own it forever. Unlike a patent, you need to hold PMA to make any of the STC parts. Unless it’s written somewhere in the business agreement that they can be sold, they may just become unsupported like the ModWorks STC’s. 
David

Edited November 28, 2021 by Sabremech

[carusoam]

With all that said…

 

what defines ‘inactive’ for three years?

what keeps the Mod-Works STCs from re-surfacing?

 

There are a few MSers with STC writing skills…

There is one MSer that buys up old STCs to keep them alive…

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Ulysse]

On 11/28/2021 at 9:12 AM, bluehighwayflyer said:

FAA is unable to locate the owner of record or the owner of record's heir. 

What happens if the STC is inactive in the sense that the owner of the STC is  no longer willing to deliver new products, although there is an interest from buyers?

 

[takair]

3 hours ago, Ulysse said:

What happens if the STC is inactive in the sense that the owner of the STC is  no longer willing to deliver new products, although there is an interest from buyers?

 

The STC owner does not have any obligation to sell the product if they don’t want to.  As Dave mentioned, most STCs also require a PMA.  The cost to maintain the PMA can be quite expensive.  It requires annual audits, calibrations, etc.  also, depending on the product, there are parts obsolescence issues and supplier management to deal with…..and there Is the never ending insurance and product liability risks.  When volumes are low, it may not pay to sell any products.  There is an obligation regarding airworthiness.  For example, if an Unsafe condition exists, the holder of the STC is responsible for notifying the FAA and working on corrective actions….so there is also a liability.  

[Patrick Horan]

Sort of unrelated, I just wish I can buy Monroy fuel tanks.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Patrick Horan

[sekomel]

I wısh that too..I have talked with Mr.Monroy like 2 months ago..his sound was fine nut still struggling with the stroke for sure..not easy..

He said he might be able to do it next summer but no promises..

Hope he will be better soon.

[midlifeflyer]

On 11/28/2021 at 5:22 AM, Ulysse said:

If I own an STC for a modification/enhancement, do I have exclusive right for this enhancement forever or does it, at some point, become public as for some patents?

Good question. I've never had a reason to look at this, but my off the top of my head reaction is that the STC itself belongs to the person who went through the process of obtaining it.  But "the STC itself" means the right to use the STC in production.

OTOH, unless it is also protected by patent, there is probably no protection for the resulting product. Oversimplified example: I have an STC for a special type of gas tank. Never got a patent for it but I did the work and jumped through the hoops and got my STC. Went into production and it's been pretty successful. 

Scenario A: You obtain a copy of the STC without my permission, build the tank, get the conforming PMA,  and sell the tanks There is likely infringement there because you used my property (the Supplemental Type Certificate) to get your product approved.

Scenario B: You purchase get a production model of the tank. You take it apart, see how it works, make your own and jump through the hoops to get your own STC. Probably not infringement.

 

[N201MKTurbo]

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8110.120.pdf

here is what the FAA says about it:

[midlifeflyer]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8110.120.pdf

here is what the FAA says about it:

Interesting. In the case of an abandoned STC, "Section 44704(a)(5) was intended to assist owners and operators in maintaining their aircraft; accordingly, a requester may only use released data on their aircraft. The data cannot be used to apply for a new STC or TC."

[Hank]

30 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Interesting. In the case of an abandoned STC, "Section 44704(a)(5) was intended to assist owners and operators in maintaining their aircraft; accordingly, a requester may only use released data on their aircraft. The data cannot be used to apply for a new STC or TC."

So it all boils down to how the FAA defines, and later interprets the definition, of "abandoned STC."

[midlifeflyer]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

So it all boils down to how the FAA defines, and later interprets the definition, of "abandoned STC."

That's discussed in the Order. I only did a quick browse (I may read the whole thing at some point) but "abandonment" comes down to lack of use for three years combined with a search for the STC owner (or heirs). Actually, the definition is not the FAA's. It's statutory:

===== 

(5) Release of data.—

(A) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator may make available upon request, to a person seeking to maintain the airworthiness or develop product improvements of an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance, engineering data in the possession of the Administration relating to a type certificate or a supplemental type certificate for such aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance, without the consent of the owner of record, if the Administrator determines that—

(i) the certificate containing the requested data has been inactive for 3 or more years, except that the Administrator may reduce this time if required to address an unsafe condition associated with the product;

(ii) after using due diligence, the Administrator is unable to find the owner of record, or the owner of record's heir, of the type certificate or supplemental type certificate; and

(iii) making such data available will enhance aviation safety.

=====

 

[1980Mooney]

On 12/15/2021 at 8:12 AM, midlifeflyer said:

Good question. I've never had a reason to look at this, but my off the top of my head reaction is that the STC itself belongs to the person who went through the process of obtaining it.  But "the STC itself" means the right to use the STC in production.

OTOH, unless it is also protected by patent, there is probably no protection for the resulting product. Oversimplified example: I have an STC for a special type of gas tank. Never got a patent for it but I did the work and jumped through the hoops and got my STC. Went into production and it's been pretty successful. 

Scenario A: You obtain a copy of the STC without my permission, build the tank, get the conforming PMA,  and sell the tanks There is likely infringement there because you used my property (the Supplemental Type Certificate) to get your product approved.

Scenario B: You purchase get a production model of the tank. You take it apart, see how it works, make your own and jump through the hoops to get your own STC. Probably not infringement.

 

Without the written consent of the STC holder you cannot legally install/modify the parts that comprise an STC.  You can physically do it but it means that your plane will have an illegal modification and will never be certified Airworthy every again.  The FAA states on their site that if you cannot locate the owner the FAA through the "ACO" can issue the STC but I would not hold your breath.  It seems like a huge liability that the FAA has no incentive to take. - And I have never heard of them doing it.

[1980Mooney]

On 12/1/2021 at 1:28 AM, JohnZ said:

A few STCs that come to mind which fall under the nice to have category are the RayJay turbochargers and extended range (100 gal) fuel bladders. Given the opportunity  I would love to buy both.  

RayJay (TALCO Aviation Corp. dba RAJAY Turbo Products) has the STC's for Mooney:

SA 3555 WE for M20J (there is a typo in the number on the Rayjay page)

SA 1156 WE Installation of Roto-Master turbocharged Lycoming IO-360-A1A or O360-A1D engine on Mooney M20A, M20B, M20C, M20D, M20G (held by ModWorks but RayJay says they can install)

https://rajay.aero/pages/list-of-stcs

Both searchable on the FAA site.

But you show that you own an M20F so I think you are SOL.

[1980Mooney]

37 minutes ago, JohnZ said:

I’ve reached out to RayJay directly. Zero response. Also reached out to the current holder of the ER fuel tank STC. Also, zero response after multiple inquiries. I’ve been a little bit tempted to investigate these further (especially the fuel tanks), and see what would be required to fabricate a similar setup or something but honestly it is almost certainly more trouble than it’s worth. 

Have you contacted this person?  I think he owns the STC and he is actively online on MS. 
 

https://mooneyspace.com/profile/16702-tomgo2/

 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Without the written consent of the STC holder you cannot legally install/modify the parts that comprise an STC.  You can physically do it but it means that your plane will have an illegal modification and will never be certified Airworthy every again.  The FAA states on their site that if you cannot locate the owner the FAA through the "ACO" can issue the STC but I would not hold your breath.  It seems like a huge liability that the FAA has no incentive to take. - And I have never heard of them doing it.

If you are talking my second scenario, nothing illegal. The  "new" guy is creating his own STC not using the existing one. The reason for the FAA's position is because of the original owner's intellectual property rights. (not many, but there are cases on this). Without a patent or a violation of trade secret laws, generally speaking, nothing prevents someone from "reverse engineering" the product and creating their own and going through the process of getting it FAA approved. 

of course, if one wanted to do this, a consultation with an intellectual property lawyer is a very good idea,

Edited December 17, 2021 by midlifeflyer

[tomgo2]

Hi Guys, RAJAY doesn't own the airframe STC for the legacy M20A thru M20G. Only the M20J. The Engine STC that applies to the M20A thru G is only 1/2 of the puzzle.

STCs that officially become abandoned end up being locked away forever in the FAA. Technically, the FAA is supposed to be able to release necessary data to maintain an existing modified aircraft for continued airworthiness, but they don't do that without an act if congress...they are afraid of litigation by third parties who may also have proprietary data in that file. For example...RAJAY uses the same exhaust gasket for all their STCs. If the FAA were to release that specific drawing, they would have a lawsuit on their hands. So, the FAA just doesn't do it.

[canamex]

I might be out of the loop here @tomgo2, but is there any way to put a RAJAY turbo on my M20F?

[tomgo2]

Hi @canamex, the short answer is no. Even if it was possible the cost of a new kit nowadays would be in the $35,000 range plus 80 hours of installation time. 

[canamex]

Thanks for the reply @tomgo2, that's too bad. I guess it will be half fuel and one passenger for me for a while up here at 8000 ft. If I find a used RAJAY on the market would I be able to install that or is the STC not transferable?

[tomgo2]

Unfortunately, STC use authorization for your specific aircraft is required. It is more self-policing and between you and your A&P/IA though.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, tomgo2 said:

Unfortunately, STC use authorization for your specific aircraft is required. It is more self-policing and between you and your A&P/IA though.

Or if you try to sell it.  The pre-buy inspection will be looking for the STC paperwork for your plane, especially something major like this on the engine. Not sure about the changes to the POH but I bet there is more paperwork needed.  You could quickly convert your plane from certified to “experiential”…..

I wonder what impact it has on insurance also. Let’s say you have an engine out off field landing after adding the turbocharger  If the insurance company finds that it is an unapproved STC mod (that may or may not have properly conformed to the original STC) might they deny the claim?….

Edited January 5, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[mike_elliott]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

You could quickly convert your plane from certified to “experiential”

I had no idea one could do that. For some reason, I was led to believe you had to perform 51% of the construction tasks of the aircraft for the experimental class. You learn something every day here on Mooneyspace.

[Hank]

18 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I had no idea one could do that. For some reason, I was led to believe you had to perform 51% of the construction tasks of the aircraft for the experimental class. You learn something every day here on Mooneyspace.

There are much tighter operating limits on certified aircraft put into Experimental category. This is often done for testing, such as when Hartzell / MT are working on a new prop. It is pretty much for flight testing purposes, not for "normal" GA stuff like flying to lunch or taking the family on a trip.

[rbp]

On 12/14/2021 at 12:24 AM, sekomel said:

I wısh that too..I have talked with Mr.Monroy like 2 months ago..his sound was fine nut still struggling with the stroke for sure..not easy..

He said he might be able to do it next summer but no promises..

Hope he will be better soon.

i want the LR tanks too