Siemens Sends Do-Not-Fly Order For Pipistrel's All-Electric Channel Crossing 107
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.
Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? (Score:3)
Maybe this was just some lawyer deciding they wanted to avoid liability from someone using a motor which isn't rated for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can someone prohibit someone from using one of their products in a particular, non-commercial way (a private test flight)? If I wanted to cross the channel with a dozen kitchen blenders and a really long extension cord, surely that's my decision? Siemens can say that the motor is not designed to be flown over water, and then, if a crash occurs, they can say "see, we told you it wasn't fit for that purpose, we take no responsibility". But preventing the flight from taking place? What allows them to do th
Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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)
They had been flying for a while, including flights to get certified for a flight over the channel.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pipistrel did not buy the motors? (Score:1)
I mean, what is going on here?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the contract says they 'leased' the motor. If they own it, I don't see how it is possible to stop them, I mean, aside from the usual bureaucratic corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
safety regulations
would imply the government is making the ruling. And who went in there to seize the motors? Sounds weird.. I hope there is an alternative. If there is only one manufacturer, they should be treated as a monopoly and told they will sell the motor or license its plans.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's for economic gain because it sure as h#%% isn't to a better seat at the football game!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Can we have a vaguely believable source for the "for economic gain" part of NSA spying? Seriously? I keep asking, and get sources even less credible then Fox News."
But an anonymous kid in a playground is a more reliable source than Fox, Fox / News International.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a difference of semantics. In Europe we call it corruption, in the US you call it corporate lobbying.
Re: (Score:1)
...in the US you call it corporate lobbying...
No, we call it business. Just another regular day at the office, with a single purpose of maximizing return on investment. Efficiency is the prime directive.
Re: (Score:1)
Cultural differences (Score:2)
Americans tend to be more open than Europeans, at least within the EU where you have to navigate a minefield of different national/culural sensibilities. An NSA-like scandal wouldn't be possible in Europe or would die down quickly. So within the context of a less open (or more discreet, depending on your perspective) society, private corruption is practically the same as well-publicized corruption, aka lobbying.
Re: (Score:1)
That's funny, you actually think Greece is more corrupt than our government.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's expand that analogy a bit:
Imagine if by the act of firing up these linked cores, AcmeCo could somehow cause serious damage or death to property or people anywhere near where this computer might be. Further suppose that this possibility was a relatively common thing and regulation existed to allow manufacturers such as Intel the ability to object to particular uses of their products on the grounds that such damage or death was likely to occur with a particular (mis-)use of their products.
That's pretty
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like AcmeCo want to use the processors for life support systems and Dell gets Intel to reclassify the processors AcmeCo is using as not qualified for life support systems.
What's the big accomplishment here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, wasn't there someone flying around the world in a solar plane or something? Going across the Channel seems like really tiny potatoes.
Re:What's the big accomplishment here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, okay. That does make a lot of sense. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a commercially built and purchasable aircraft (powered glider really). It comes in petrol and electric versions. It is not solar powered. So a totally different category of aircraft.
Scratching your head? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
"threaten to go to the press over it."
Done and done.
Risk Adverse, lol. (Score:1)
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.
Just bad press Siemens and go for another motor (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Disgusting... (Score:5, Funny)
I know I will never buy another aircraft motor from Siemens if this is how they act...
Okay, that does it! (Score:2)
I will stop buying things from Airbus. That'll show 'em!
Re: (Score:1)
Fly anyway (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the real truth, and apparently Siemens is helping them do it.
Sad, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they just became unplaned.
over-the water use? for an ariplaine? (Score:1)
What?
Is the engine getting scared over the water?
Does it shiver?
It's not a darn hover board, is it?
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 the asteroid? (Score:1)
Siemens, the company that enabled Stuxnet, (Score:1)
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
Let the bastards fulminate (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But Siemens, your motors ... (Score:2)
Yours truly,
Ali Khamenei
heh (Score:1)
"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 (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Commenting to remove fat-finger-mis-mod.
Hnnnggggg....
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody, slow down! They have a very valid point (Score:1)
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?
Doctrine of first sale (Score:2)
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?)
Official statement :-( (Score:1)
http://www.pipistrel.si/news/e... [pipistrel.si]
Re: (Score:2)
Hi!
The German article leads to the letter from Siemens, written in English:
> https://www.pilotundflugzeug.d... [pilotundflugzeug.de]
Seems like the motor was just a loan and flying over water was specifically not agreed apon in the terms and conditions. But what's actually worse: Siemens terminated the loan and want's to have the motor back, immediatly!
Informing Pipistrel that flying over water violates the loan terms is on thing, but terminating the loan immediatly is another. I would recommend Pipistrel to look for another supplier and never look back!
Well, I'm sure the NSA has supplied the necessary information to build an identical motor to an American company. OTOH, they may not be allowed to export it so terrorists can build a Electric Motor Glider Of Death.