Slashdot Mirror
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.
Uh, wasn't there someone flying around the world in a solar plane or something? Going across the Channel seems like really tiny potatoes.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I know I will never buy another aircraft motor from Siemens if this is how they act...
It is a difference of semantics. In Europe we call it corruption, in the US you call it corporate lobbying.
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?