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

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.

Comments

Bad sportmanship, or lawyers?

[gstoddart]

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?

[sjames]

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:Bad sportmanship, or lawyers?

[michelcolman]

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?

What's the big accomplishment here?

[Sowelu]

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?

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:What's the big accomplishment here?

[matfud]

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?

[Orgasmatron]

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.

streisand etc.

[Hagaric]

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.

Do it anyway

[luckymutt]

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.

Disgusting...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Pipistrel did not buy the motors?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Deliver the engine to the other country via air

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

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:Let the bastards fulminate

[Required Snark]

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.