Harer (Barber) STC update

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

NOT TRUE - Per the following...


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060914aircraft-rule.pdf

"The MCC, AOPA, AAA, and AFA, as
well as eleven individual commenters
believe there are hundreds of TCs and
STCs that no longer have owners and
are, thus, considered ‘‘orphaned’’ and in
the public domain. In their opinion, the
public owns these TCs and STCs, and
anyone should be able to use them.
The fact that the original holder of a
TC or STC no longer exists, or that the
FAA may not be able to locate the
holder, does not automatically sever the
rights of that certificate holder with
regard to the contents of the TC or STC.
These TCs and STCs, including their
supporting technical data, are not
automatically transferred into the public
domain. Absent a surrender,
suspension, or revocation of the
certificate, the FAA cannot sever the
rights of a holder to the privileges of a
TC or STC, and the FAA cannot
unilaterally extinguish any intellectual
property rights that a person may have
to the technical data or other contents
of a certificate.
Although the original holder of a
certificate may no longer exist, the
holder’s intellectual property rights are
not automatically extinguished, but
rather are passed to the legitimate
successors or heirs of the holder by
operation of law. They do not
automatically revert to the public
domain. The holder of a TC or STC, or
its legitimate successors or heirs, may
choose to make the technical data or
other contents of a certificate available
to the public, however a person may
neither infringe upon, nor otherwise
exercise, the rights of the owner of this
property without that person’s consent."

OK Terry, then why is the FAA allowing me (I have a letter to prove it) to use the data contained within STC SA1-210 as the basis for my own "one time" STC?

[barnstmr]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

This is correct. HOWEVER........
Right now anyone can use the data for there own STC since SA1-210 is now considered defunct according to the NY ACO office. (Its under there jurisdiction)

NOT TRUE - Per the following...


http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060914aircraft-rule.pdf

"The MCC, AOPA, AAA, and AFA, as
well as eleven individual commenters
believe there are hundreds of TCs and
STCs that no longer have owners and
are, thus, considered ‘‘orphaned’’ and in
the public domain. In their opinion, the
public owns these TCs and STCs, and
anyone should be able to use them.
The fact that the original holder of a
TC or STC no longer exists, or that the
FAA may not be able to locate the
holder, does not automatically sever the
rights of that certificate holder with
regard to the contents of the TC or STC.
These TCs and STCs, including their
supporting technical data, are not
automatically transferred into the public
domain. Absent a surrender,
suspension, or revocation of the
certificate, the FAA cannot sever the
rights of a holder to the privileges of a
TC or STC, and the FAA cannot
unilaterally extinguish any intellectual
property rights that a person may have
to the technical data or other contents
of a certificate.
Although the original holder of a
certificate may no longer exist, the
holder’s intellectual property rights are
not automatically extinguished, but
rather are passed to the legitimate
successors or heirs of the holder by
operation of law. They do not
automatically revert to the public
domain. The holder of a TC or STC, or
its legitimate successors or heirs, may
choose to make the technical data or
other contents of a certificate available
to the public, however a person may
neither infringe upon, nor otherwise
exercise, the rights of the owner of this
property without that person’s consent."

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

If my airplane has a modification that is based on an STC, I am not saying it does, and I did not purchase that STC or get the owners permission to copy it, does that mean my airplane is unairworthy from a legal standpoint?

That's what the reg says.

IA's know this, they are supposed to prevent it from happening.


Dave

[Pearson]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

If my airplane has a modification that is based on an STC, I am not saying it does, and I did not purchase that STC or get the owners permission to copy it, does that mean my airplane is unairworthy from a legal standpoint?

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

yes, I have DTW FSDO, NY ACO, and Chicago ACO involved.

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Hi Bob,

Did you talk with the NY ACO? ie that comes from them?

Its an interesting twist.

Dave

[freightpilot27]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

You are correct, here are the regulations :

§ 21.120 Responsibility of supplemental type certificate holders to provide written permission for alterations.
A supplemental type certificate holder who allows a person to use the supplemental type certificate to alter an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller must provide that person with written permission acceptable to the FAA.
[Doc. No. FAA–2003–14825, 71 FR 52258, Sept. 1, 2006]



§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under §91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–267, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 91–293, 71 FR 56005, Sept. 26, 2006]

This is correct. HOWEVER........
Right now anyone can use the data for there own STC since SA1-210 is now considered defunct according to the NY ACO office. (Its under there jurisdiction)

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

I can't imagine a letter like Bill suggested going out to her... I'd be so ashamed to see something like that happen....talk about "strongarm" manipulation!!! This STC has been around for a long time, and there haven't been any liability issues with it. You should be ashamed of that idea.

It was an idea that was based on a report that she agreed to one thing, and then backed out of it... and then the additional idea that someone who likely did not know how to manage an STC was going to wind up with it... and that the entire STC might evaporate or become even more convoluted and confusing than it is already.

That was the issue which prompted me to write that post.

I did not come up with the $1500 figure, and it is not my place to say what the value is. However also remember that the offer included an additional percentage royalty for five years. Agreed, my STC is worth quite a bit more to me than $1500.

Sorry I offended anyone ops:

[N96337]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Sounds to me like it's a good thing that she at least has one son that's somewhat looking out for her best interests! All I'm seeing is vultures circling!I wonder why, if Mr.Harer was so worried about the STC going to the "foundation", he didn't sign it over before he died???? Or even put something in writing????? Forrest states that "he knew life was short".. and by the sounds of it, they discussed the STC, so why wasn't something put in place at that time???? In my opinion, the offer of $1500 is like a slap in the face....I'd be hesitant to offer even 3 times that amount. I would hope my wife has better sense in the event of my death, than to take a sum like that for the STC I own! The whole thing stinks to high heaven to me! I sure hope someone can come forth with a legitimate offer and can obtain the STC for the future. I can't imagine a letter like Bill suggested going out to her... I'd be so ashamed to see something like that happen....talk about "strongarm" manipulation!!! This STC has been around for a long time, and there haven't been any liability issues with it. You should be ashamed of that idea.
John

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

You are correct, here are the regulations :

§ 21.120 Responsibility of supplemental type certificate holders to provide written permission for alterations.
A supplemental type certificate holder who allows a person to use the supplemental type certificate to alter an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller must provide that person with written permission acceptable to the FAA.
[Doc. No. FAA–2003–14825, 71 FR 52258, Sept. 1, 2006]



§ 91.403 General.
(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under §91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission from the holder.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34311, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–267, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001; Amdt. 91–293, 71 FR 56005, Sept. 26, 2006]

[barnstmr]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

No mystery ; ALL this is discussed with the Foundation Board of Director's at our meetings. There are a lot of copies out there, someone needs to do it again under their name and reap the profits!! I still just do it on an individual basis using a copy of the STC as "acceptable data" . Check with your IA's they should understand how to do it.

Since we are on the subject of legalities, I would like to know how someone else can be allowed to use data that they do not legally own and have not been given permission to use. As I am aware, Mr. Harer issued a letter with the following statement for all of the STC's he sold...

"This letter gives the authority to use STC # SAI-210, on this specific airplane: model # ____, serial # ____, year ____. It is a federal violation to use this STC on any other airplane. This letter must stay with the STC paperwork at all times... Approved by:_____ (C.R. Harer)."

It seems pretty clear to me that if anyone uses Mr. Harer's data without a written letter of permission, there would be legal grounds for the family to bring a lawsuit.

Am I missing something?

[flyguy]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

How about, "Can I talk to the Kid?"
DC

[VictorBravo]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

She is supposed to be a nice lady who lost her husband. I would vote for a gentle approach (which I think Forrest is going for). Maybe the fire and brimstone should be held for the son and his friend at the QuickMart.
Hank

Oh I know... I'm just stamping my feet and spewing a little brimstone out of frustration... it just miffed me that she apparently made one deal and then backed out of it, and that she didn't give Forrest a chance to plead his case. A five minute conversation between Forrest and the family members (yes, including the consumer retail mogul) would have resulted in everyone being happy.

I never met Jack Gilberti or Bob Harer, but I would bet that they would want that STC in the hands of the Foundation and that they would want their families to have a little income out of it but none of the liability.

[lfries]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Sounds like the Kid thinks he may have a lucrative deal on his hands. It would be interesting to know how many stc's were sold in the last 5 to 10 years. Perhaps then he would realize he won't be able to take an early retirement.
Perhaps the 50% of the NET is a stickler to the deal. Its not difficult to reduce the NET. Perhaps just offering her a flat amount per STC sold would be better solution.

[akndrifter]

Re: Harer (Barber) STC update

Can't there be a gentle approach that still lays out the facts? I think if I didn't know about that kind of responsibility/liability I would want to know!