Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation

Siemens Sends Do-Not-Fly Order For Pipistrel's All-Electric Channel Crossing 107

Posted by timothy from the in-the-event-of-a-water-landing dept.
An anonymous reader links to Flyer's coverage of a squabble that seems to feature the aircraft giant Airbus aiming bad sportsmanship in the form of corporate pull against much smaller light aircraft maker Pipistrel, thereby "squashing the ambitions of light aircraft maker Pipistrel to be the first to fly an electric aircraft across the English Channel." Though Pipistrel acquired the flight permissions it anticipated needing in connection with its announced ambition to cross the channel, they've been grounded by allegedly underhanded means: Siemens, which supplies the electric motor used in the craft which was to make the journey, contacted Pipistrel to prohibit over-water flight with that motor (partly German). U.S. Pipistrel dealer Michael Coates believes he knows why (as quoted by Flyer): "Airbus managed to flex their muscle with Siemens who are supplying motors to Pipistrel and have the Pipistrel motor agreement immediately terminated," he said. "The Airbus E-Fan project does not use Siemens motors but it does have Siemens stickers over the side of their aircraft.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Siemens Sends Do-Not-Fly Order For Pipistrel's All-Electric Channel Crossing More

Siemens Sends Do-Not-Fly Order For Pipistrel's All-Electric Channel Crossing

Comments Filter:

  • Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? (Score:3)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @02:37PM (#50064441) Homepage

    Maybe this was just some lawyer deciding they wanted to avoid liability from someone using a motor which isn't rated for that?

    • Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @02:52PM (#50064531) Homepage Journal

      Except that they already had an agreement with Siemens and their plan to fly over water has been known for over a year. The timing is suspicious to say the least.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by WoOS ( 28173 )

        Except that they already had an agreement with Siemens and their plan to fly over water has been known for over a year.

        The letter from Siemens claims otherwise: "It came to our attention and you confirmed yesterday ..." sounds like Siemens had to find out on their own.
        If one loans a prototype motor from a big company with the limit "[nobody] may use our motor without our consent during any flight whatsoever", one better has consent in a provable paper trail before informing the press (but seemingly not the motor owner) about a record flight attempt.

        • Does anyone else find it odd that a letter signed by the head of e-aircraft at Siemens to an aircraft company claims they're not expected to use it for flight??

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by WoOS ( 28173 )

            No, you may want to read that letter again: They are expected to ask for consent before flying. As I wrote: If one wants to do a record flight with such a clause in the loan contract, one would be well advised to get consent in writing before announcing it in the press (and awakening competitors).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          They had been flying for a while, including flights to get certified for a flight over the channel.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Sangui5 ( 12317 )
        The even more disgusting thing is that the motor doesn't even need to be running to make a cross-channel flight.

        The aircraft in question has a 15:1 glide ratio and a 16,000 foot service ceiling (per spec [pipistrel.si]). That means it can do a 45 mile glide. At the Straights of Dover the channel is only 20 miles wide; that's a over a factor of 2 safety factor. Wind could be an issue, but if there are headwinds, they could run the engine to make the crossing against the wind, but abort backwards *with the wind helping

  • I mean, what is going on here?

  • What's the big accomplishment here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sowelu ( 713889 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @02:42PM (#50064461)

    Uh, wasn't there someone flying around the world in a solar plane or something? Going across the Channel seems like really tiny potatoes.

  • Scratching your head? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @02:55PM (#50064547)

    Apparently someone was planning to fly across the English Channel today and they were stopped by someone planning to make a similar flight on Friday. One presumes that there is a reason why someone should care, but neither article says why. Reading between the lines, it appears that one or both of these battery powered planes is now certified for sale. Perhaps this is the first time you've been able to buy an electric plane with enough range to fly a round trip across the channel?

    That isn't the big question. Oddly, neither of the articles answers the big question that all of slashdot is wondering about. The authors don't even seem to be aware that there is a question.

    How the hell did the motor manufacturer prevent the flight?

    Looks like the motor in question was a loaner, probably an engineering sample. The quoted letter directly demands that it be returned, presumably because the loan agreement allowed them to recall it at any time. I'd expect a different quote if it was an appeal to the aircraft licensing authority.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JanneM ( 7445 )

      How the hell did the motor manufacturer prevent the flight?

      As you say, it's a prototype on loan for testing, and the contract terms explicitly say Siemens get to say what they can and can't do with it.

      The Airbus thing is complete bull; they'd have zero interest in preventing a test flight like this, and plenty of professional interest in seeing it fly.

      • The competing flight on Friday is an Airbus project, E-Fan.

        So, Airbus wants to be first. Siemens is in bed with Airbus. Siemens pulls their motor so that Pipistrel doesn't make it first.

  • streisand etc. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hagaric ( 2591241 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @03:00PM (#50064567)

    Siemens claims they don't want their reputation risked by using the motor this way, and threaten to go to the press over it.
    Both UK & French authorities have signed off that they find the safety aspect acceptable.

    I can't see how this can do anything but harm Siemens' reputation, and the sudden day-of-departure withdrawal of consent stinks a long way.

    Some say Siemens is a very risk-averse & conservative company, and it is this that is driving their "better safe than sorry" attitude..

    I don't buy it, and neither should you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrLint ( 519792 )

      "threaten to go to the press over it."

      Done and done.

    • Risk Adverse, lol. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I work for Siemens, so posting anon.

      Risk averse is so minimalistic, it doesn't even come close.

      Recently, to totally prevent Innovation, all semiconductors used now must be pre-approved.

      By an MBA with no clue, no less. :)

      Their US Medical operations are in crash and burn mode, and have been cut adrift.

      They are arbitrarily reclassifying systems built to last for 10 years to be good for 15 years. :)

      This will not end well for them; the rats are already swimming away.

  • I know it is a bit late, but maybe we should be flame-baiting news headlines with "Siemens electric motors incapable of flying over water, teams goes with company X". I wonder how fast Siemens makes a retraction?

    Siemens may be making a legitimate request, but the way they went about it does make you wonder?

  • Do it anyway (Score:4, Interesting)

    by luckymutt ( 996573 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @03:22PM (#50064703)
    They have nothing to lose. Either do our and risk Siemens not selling you any more motors, or not do it and never need to worry about buying motors again. This isn't a legal cease and desist.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mvdw ( 613057 )
      ...Or return the motor to Siemens. In the aircraft. By flying it to them, (not-)coincidentally over the Channel.

  • Disgusting... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @03:32PM (#50064743)

    I know I will never buy another aircraft motor from Siemens if this is how they act...

  • I will stop buying things from Airbus. That'll show 'em!

  • what are they going to do, cry and say "It doesn't count"?

    Didn't work with Google and my robotics stuff in 2010, why would it work now.

  • Deliver the engine to the other country via air (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hotawa Hawk-eye ( 976755 ) on Tuesday July 07, 2015 @04:37PM (#50065103)

    Okay, Pipistrel is going to have to deliver the engine back to Siemens. What if the way they choose to do that is by flying it from France across the Channel to a Siemens facility in England?

  • What?
    Is the engine getting scared over the water?
    Does it shiver?
    It's not a darn hover board, is it?

    • The issue of flying the engine over water does not have to do with interaction between the water and the engine, it has to do with the lack of places to land other than the water. If you look at commercial aviation, you can see where the standards for flying two-engine aircraft over long stretches of water has been higher than for more than two engines (EROPS and ETOPS) at least until recently. It makes sense to be more concerned about the engines when there are no suitable places to land.

      With that said, I

      • Someplace to land?
        It's the fricking English Channel!
        It varies from 150 miles to 20.6 miles across.
        There's a different electric plane, solar powered no less, that flew over the Pacific Ocean from China to Hawaii !
        That's about 4481 miles, mostly over water!
        Sorry guys, but over the water thing is a weak bullshit excuse no matter how you look at it, and as to the English Channel, small potatoes at this point. The only reason why anyone cares at all is the long tradition of people crossing it in new and exciting
  • Where's that fucking killer asteroid? We need that now. The Earth needs a reset.

  • Siemens, the company that enabled Stuxnet, (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    may have caused a DQ for the Airbus attempt to set an official record for the first electric flight channel crossing.

    It seems Pipistrel might challenge based on this:
    http://www.fai.org/downloads/fai/code_of_ethics

  • Apparently these losers don't even own the motor they are using. Stupid. Nevertheless ...

    Fly the goddam thing anyway. Fuck Siemens. What can they do? Send a stiff protest and proclaim their assholery to the world even worse than they have done by letting this escalate to slashdot as it is?

    • I'm sure that Siemens/AirBus can drive Pipistrel out of business. I doubt that Pipistrel has deep enough pockets to survive the kind of legal mugging that the big boys could dish out. Plus, Siemens could just refuse to sell them any more motors and that would set them a long ways back.

      Welcome to our post capitalistic society. The law and the courts exist primarily to enforce the continued dominance of the entrenched players. Innovation and actual risk/reward capitalism are de facto prohibited activities, a

  • ... are still OK for our centrifuges?

    Yours truly,
    Ali Khamenei

  • heh (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "these losers" as someone called them won a million dollar award from NASA. These losers were contacted by siemens and helped them build that engine. These losers make planes for LITERALY 50 less funding then airbus. Their plane CAN fly across the channel AND back. Their plane can ALREADY be purchased and will FOR SURE cost 3 or more times LESS than anything airbus produces(their plane is not in production). These losers are pioneers in the field of electric planes.
    Had to write this because the owner of the

  • Siemens motor controllers may be replaced with inexpensive software. Siemens DC motor controllers can be replaced with inexpensive embedded controllers AC controllers are trickier but doable, any EE can do it. Research it, you know I'm right. The time is ripe to get the necessary payback happening Please go crazy and have loads of fun.

    First to post an open source design for a Siemens-compatible AC motor controller wins a larting tool.

  • This was is the comments (Translated):

    Suppose, on the flight is really happening thing, motor setting out, no longer works, aviator falls on oil tankers,
    Oil tanker explodes - sinks and have coasts for years lubricant ....

    So let's think before jumping, eh?

  • Whatever happened to the doctrine of first sale? Yes, I know that's about IP, but the same principle surely applies here: "I bought the f***ing motor, I'll do what the f**k I like with it!"

    (Obviously there's legitimate grounds for the government to stop them flying over your house if there's an unreasonably high risk that the plane will drop out the sky, but over the sea?)

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close