Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on 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.

64 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by sjames · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Or, upon your return, ask the enraged Siemens rep: "Letter? What letter? We didn't read our morning mail before taking off today". What are they going to to, go to the press or even the courts after a successful flight?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by WoOS · · 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.

    4. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by Hagaric · · 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??

    5. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by sjames · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Also, it's harder to recover the plane/engine to figure out what went wrong. I can completely understand a limitation on over water flights.

    7. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side, when you find it, it will be water logged but otherwise in much better condition than if had smacked into something not involving water. Of course, anticipation of recovery from catastrophic crashes are not a usual concern with flight paths, rather the probability of flight and safety during are the usual concerns. Are they implying that their engine fails when in the vicinity of large bodies of water?

    8. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

      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). 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 them* if there were an engine failure.

      I think this just confirms my dislike of Airbus; they've had a good number of shady dealings in the past, and given the extensive time period such things have gone on, I don't think that leopard is going to change its spots.

    9. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by michelcolman · · 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 that?

    10. Re:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers? by WoOS · · 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).

  2. Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I mean, what is going on here?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by galabar · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that corruption is more expected and accepted in Europe. In the US, it is illegal for a corporation to pay a bribe and is certainly not tax deductible. I believe this is now true in Europe, but is a much more recent phenomenon. I was shocked in the 80s and 90s when I learned that France actively spied on foreign corporate interests for economic gain (I guess I shouldn't be shocked now at how the NSA has gone in that direction after 9/11). There is an idea of fair play here, even if it is often violated.

    3. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a difference of semantics. In Europe we call it corruption, in the US you call it corporate lobbying.

    4. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      They're changing the "approved use" under the safety regulations, not permission/license grounds.

    5. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      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 much the case for aviation as I understand it. If this thing crashes into the Channel, it kills anyone it lands on, smashes any ships in its path, and probably costs lots and lots of money to recover the thing from the bottom of the ocean before it can release whatever chemicals might be inside it (batteries) and cause pollution. The component manufacturers of the parts of a plane have the ability to block use of their parts for applications which they know to be unsafe (or don't know to be safe).

      Now... No argument what so ever that the timing and other business relationships (dare I say conflicts of interest?) at play here make Siemens' actions more than a bit suspect. But the underlying legal mechanism that allows them to object is probably not a bad thing.

      Hypothetically, suppose they know the windings on their motors won't hold up to the salty sea air over the Channel, and they'd be likely to fail. I don't see anything to suggest that's the case, but it's at least scientifically plausible I think that there might be some limitation of their design that would make it inappropriate for Pipistrel's use. (Yes, I'm giving Siemens a huge benefit of the doubt here. "Plausible." Barely...)

    6. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by galabar · · Score: 1

      I don't think the NSA was spying for economic gain (France was). I do agree that having a government spying for economic gain is very "Anti-American," and I don't know what they'd do with the information. So, it may just be paranoia.

    8. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by galabar · · Score: 1

      Public campaign donations != privately bribing public officials. Voters can make decisions based on the former. For the later, voters can make a decision only if the perpetrator is caught. We may hold different views on money in politics, but let's at least have a reasonable conversation, minus the hyperbole.

    9. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by fustakrakich · · 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.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... Company bribing a government.
      Of course it's for economic gain because it sure as h#%% isn't to a better seat at the football game!

    12. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by lucien86 · · 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.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    13. Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      and then there are countries which positively makes the US look like Greece

      That's funny, you actually think Greece is more corrupt than our government.

  3. What's the big accomplishment here? by Sowelu · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:What's the big accomplishment here? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the first time it's done in a more or less commercially viable electric aircraft (not solar); apparently they are planning to sell these planes to the public. That makes it quite a different achievement.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:What's the big accomplishment here? by matfud · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:What's the big accomplishment here? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay. That does make a lot of sense. Thanks!

    4. Re:What's the big accomplishment here? by meerling · · Score: 1

      Well, the solar craft IS electric. After all, those photovoltaic solar cells are definitely not making JP8.

  4. Scratching your head? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Scratching your head? by JanneM · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Scratching your head? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  5. streisand etc. by Hagaric · · 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.

    1. Re:streisand etc. by MrLint · · Score: 1

      "threaten to go to the press over it."

      Done and done.

  6. Just bad press Siemens and go for another motor by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  7. Do it anyway by luckymutt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Do it anyway by mvdw · · Score: 1

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

  8. Disgusting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Okay, that does it! by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

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

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re: Okay, that does it! by nnull · · Score: 1

      In what way? The passenger comfort level is up to the airline on how to position seats. Both Airbus and Boeing have sophisticated aircraft that are similar in performance. The airline on the other hand pretty much determines how much comfort you get on their planes, not Boeing or Airbus.

  10. Fly anyway by spiritplumber · · Score: 1
    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.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  11. Deliver the engine to the other country via air by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 4, 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?

  12. Risk Adverse, lol. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:Airbus is so far behind Pipistrel that they can by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    This is the real truth, and apparently Siemens is helping them do it.

    Sad, really.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  14. over-the water use? for an ariplaine? by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

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

    --
    4wdloop
    1. Re:over-the water use? for an ariplaine? by Kyogreex · · 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, IMO this is probably about politics and not the engine. This is an experimental aircraft, not a passenger carrier. Seems like a convenient excuse to shut this project down.

    2. Re:over-the water use? for an ariplaine? by meerling · · Score: 1

      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 ways. Heck, there's a whole list of people that have swam across it.

  15. Where's the asteroid? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Where's that fucking killer asteroid? We need that now. The Earth needs a reset.

  16. Siemens, the company that enabled Stuxnet, by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  17. Let the bastards fulminate by fnj · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:Let the bastards fulminate by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
      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, and engaging in this behavior is punishable by economic destruction, and possible criminal prosecution.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    2. Re:Let the bastards fulminate by meerling · · Score: 1

      True, but they can always try a Hughes move and fly it across on their way to return it. :P

  18. But Siemens, your motors ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... are still OK for our centrifuges?

    Yours truly,
    Ali Khamenei

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. heh by Anonymous Coward · · 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 company is a really down to earth dude who's ambition is innovation and not money. Unlike airbus.

  20. Siemens motor controllers may be replaced by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Siemens motor controllers may be replaced by bmo · · Score: 1

      Commenting to remove fat-finger-mis-mod.

      Hnnnggggg....

  21. Cultural differences by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Everybody, slow down! They have a very valid point by fustakrakich · · 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?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  23. Re:WTF by nnull · · Score: 1

    More than likely Siemens is offering them discounted motor prices for production. Which is typical if you purchase exclusively Siemens products. It's the same with ABB and Allen Bradley. You get some huge discounts for products which makes it worth it (Yes, I know the manufacturers are doing this to lure people with some cartel pricing, even though they can sell the products for cheap).

  24. Doctrine of first sale by GoddersUK · · Score: 1

    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?)

  25. Re: Airbus is so far behind Pipistrel that they ca by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they just became unplaned.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  26. Official statement :-( by Hagaric · · Score: 1

    http://www.pipistrel.si/news/e...

  27. Re:Link to the original Siemens letter (English) by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Hi!

    The German article leads to the letter from Siemens, written in English:

    > https://www.pilotundflugzeug.d...

    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.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.