Hear Hear. You two. Well said, Iv been a member since 2006 and from what iv seen the BMAA have not helped the situation we are in now with P&M Not letting anyone else compete Whereas the BMAA should be encouraging others to compete
Hear Hear. You two. Well said, Iv been a member since 2006 and from what iv seen the BMAA have not helped the situation we are in now with P&M Not letting anyone else compete Whereas the BMAA should be encouraging others to compete
Last edited by Gentreau; 01-06-19 at 11:49 AM.
Two very capable sail makers x P&M employees Denises in the north and Top Flights in the south
I spoke to Denise last year about a repair to my Quik wing and she told me she could do the work But was blocked by P&M who would not let her work on Quiks
So how about the BMMA doing something about that
BMAA, I presume you mean. Repeatedly misnaming doesn't help getting help. Anyway...Originally Posted by garry
Your problem is a commercial one between P&M (the design rights owners) and the independent sail suppliers. That would change if P&M machines become orphaned and the BMAA got responsibility.
However, it is possible to get things fabricated outside the original supplier via the BMAA. It is necessary to be willing to work with the system and perhaps get a tame technologist to assist.
It is indeed a lot easier if the design rights holder is supportive - we recently got a set of Top Flight dacron skins for our TST easily approved via the BMAA after the ground work had been done by Mark Garner (who bought the rights a couple of years back) in co-operation with the BMAA tech office.
So it can be done, but if P&M chose to refuse to co-operate, that was P&M's decision and perhaps, just perhaps, they have paid the price and let their aircraft owners down in the process.
Finger's firmly crossed that the new P&M owners, whoever they turn out to be, prove to be more customer friendly in their after-sales service.
Back to just bimbling in the TST.
No longer instructing - just pontificating..
OK, I suspect we're using different senses of the word...
We are not talking about the technical side of airworthiness. It's the Tech Office's job to make compliance with the law easier for us by the delegated powers they exercise.
E.G. Tech Office can now issue the initial permit to fly. Easier/less delay that the CAA doing it.
The political issue, which the BMAA Council with the CEO acting under their direction might decide to deal with, is if, say, a two seater flexwing under 500kg needs a permit at all.
A good analogy is that the Post Office issue International Driving Licences. They don't make the rules about them or decide where you need them.
SSDR came from the BMAA Council, didn't it? So we understand that liberalisation of rules is a political fight we take to the CAA. The Tech Office can't unilaterally relax/change/disregard the rules or they'll lose their approval and fail their audits.
No, the problem is a legal one. The legislation creates the problem that forbids any other supplier. If it were a hang glider, you'd get the sail made where you wanted and take the risk. As it stands, you can buy third party parts for a car which then drives past bus queues and and speeds up to 70mph on the motorway which you share with loads of other people who are all at risk.
Take tyres for example. Imagine if you could only buy tyres for your car from the manufacturer. Imagine also that the DoT was charging large amounts for tyre homologation.
It is indeed a lot easier if the design rights holder is supportive - we recently got a set of Top Flight dacron skins for our TST easily approved via the BMAA after the ground work had been done by Mark Garner (who bought the rights a couple of years back) in co-operation with the BMAA tech office.
He's packed it in as the hassle supplying Thruster parts isn't worth it. Thrusters are orphans. I've been down the road of a sail for an orphaned aircraft, it's not my idea of Fun, no pun intended. Contrast with an SSDR, I can pick up the phone and order a sail and that's all that's needed apart from payment.
The sail you'd buy from a third party sail maker who was working under contract to P&M is the same as the one you got from P&M, with a mark up. Now P&M are no longer in operation, you could, in theory buy that sail direct and it would be exactly the same as the one you'd have bought from P&M two months ago, but you are not allowed to use it. This may change once the aircraft are orphaned.
The system is farcical and will ground perfectly good aircraft needing a sensible repair, and creates unnecessary work for the Tech Office.
We've had a CofA scheme in the UK for the last 30 years+ for hang gliders without any of this gold plating. It works. The US CofA for hang gliders is declarative - still no problems.
French system, ditto.
The only people who are served by the current system are those in regulatory jobs in government.
Steve U.
PG, HG & microlights
"Weekend bimbler, day to day car driver & genuinely undeserving Southern oik who has never done anything of any worth"
We've got legal and political reasons then for the demise of p&m. Will sorting these out automatically fix the economic reason? I think that may be the kernal of the issue?
I think the legislation & associated regulations permit the design rights holder to forbid any other supplier to manufacture copy parts - IP rules (copyright etc) apply. The airworthiness regulations permit the BMAA to approve alternative parts, even without the design rights holder's agreement, subject to an adequate technical justification.
It may also be (I'm speculating) that P&M source their skins via Denise and others, and have a contract agreement that they, the manufacturers, supply exclusively to P&M. This sort of agreement is perfectly ligitimate business practice and not at all unusual in the real world.
A difficulty arises when the design rights holder (eg P&M) chooses not to co-operate with an owner wishing to modify their aircraft, or use an alternative part supplier, by withholding original airworthiness approval data from the BMAA or the designer of the alternative part, or assembly or whatever, thus requiring the design proof to be run from first priciples (as with Kev Armstrong's undercarriage mod, for instance).
Further, the UK rule changes which now allow flight training to take place in amateur-built microlights (such as Skyranger) have reduced the training markt monopoly of the few approved factories. Nowadays schools only need enough approved factory-build machines to support their trial lesson market - the size of which depends on the school's business model.
I could rabbit on further, but won't.
Back to just bimbling in the TST.
No longer instructing - just pontificating..
Who OWNS the intellectual property rights of the hard-won Quik wing design?
Maybe an outfit in China will reverse-engineer and offer an inferior copy, without appreciating the importance of a certain detail - as has been my experience. Then what?
Are not those IP rights in the control of the Administrator to best use for the 'best outcome' of the creditors and the saileability of the business?
Last edited by Antoni; 06-07-19 at 14:54 PM. Reason: speling and stupid logical error
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - G.B.S.
You've painted yourself into a corner with this level of regulation. In contrast, HG manufacturer goes bust, another buys the IP, starts making the bits. Like Airwave, Villinger bought the business, moved it to Austria, and started supplying the stuff. With the exception of Germany, there were no approvals to obtain, the existing designs were covered by the CofA obtained by the previous manufacturer. In Germany the hang gliders were no safer, but more costly.
This has ready happened with a big flexwing manufacturer. The copy process failed and a BIG order went in for the genuine item. I've seen the delivery pictures.
OTOH, Bill Brooks wasn't the first one to design/make a very small winged, very successful trike. And won't be the last.
We need to be wary of the sneering attitude reminiscent of the British motorcycle industry who believed that people from the far East would never be able to make a proper motorcycle. They could copy, and rip off, and duplicate badly, but make a proper motorcycle? No. They were just referred to in an insulting way by a shortened version of their own name for their country.
Then the Honda 750 Four came out. Madness. Who'd want a four cylinder motorcycle, FFS?
Look around. Who indeed? The British and Italian motorcycle industries emerged with, at the very least, sore bottoms.
History answered the question as to who wanted a four cylinder motorcycle.
A copy is just the first stage. Be wary of the next one, or the one after that. It can involve a kicked ****...
Steve U.
PG, HG & microlights
"Weekend bimbler, day to day car driver & genuinely undeserving Southern oik who has never done anything of any worth"
You can't have it both ways Steve! Do you want to argue that P&M were a victim of their own hubris like the motorcycle industry, or, on the other hand, over-regulation?
My view is that it was neither of these - simply some really silly commercial decisions over the last few years.
Martin
BMAA 5370
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks