Thursday, April 24, 2008

America really IS the land of the Free....

... and the home of the BRAVE.

I have been under considerable pressure over the past week, as I'm sure you will all understand. But nothing like those on our 'Roll of Honour'.

For new readers of our blog, a little background is necessary. A number of people, supporters of Eclipse and known to some as The Faithful, have a long history of defending Vern Raburn on the blog.

One of the more visible has been 'Ringtail'. Herewith a posting from his wife, earlier today. I felt it deserved greater visibility, called the Johnson's and asked their permission to do what you see here. You will gather that it was freely given.

Greetings from Ringtail's wife- Becky Johnson. My loving husband is David Johnson (Ringtail). The reason I am posting is since Vern selected our name (Ringtail) from this blog, he (Vern, et.al,) must be checking this site very often since the "honor roll" was announced. So Vern- now that you know our personal identities, are you satisfied? You can call us at xxx-xxx-xxxx to get more detailed information from the horse’s mouth, (directly in other words). Then Google can refocus its efforts on its stock price. Although we (Ringtail and I) have our opinions about Eclipse, we are not affiliated with Eclipse in any way. If you were to read my husband's (Ringtail) comments, which we will be glad to provide you with your own personal copy; you will find that we supported Eclipse alongside other bloggers: Ken Meyer, Alexa, Mirage and Cessna421. Everything we posted on this blog was based on our own opinion gleaned from reading and participating on this blog and other aviation magazines and news articles. People have the rights to say what they want and I believe you have initiated an opposition on that right. I also encourage you to participate on this award winning blog. This blog has provided a very interesting debate amongst very impressive individuals. Just like Hillary Clinton can lie about Bosnia snipers and today WSJ article shows she made 10 million for her campaign, all people can express themselves openly. I again question why this action has occurred. Thank you for your time, Becky J, wife of David Johnson (Ringtail)

I thank you, Becky and David, on behalf of the blog, and bloggers everywhere.

Please note I've (just) deleted the Johnson's home phone number, as suggested by a more experienced blogger - Shane

175 comments:

gadfly said...

"Abdominal thrusts (also known as the “Heimlich maneuver” (HIM'lik mah-NOO'ver) are a series of under-the-diaphragm abdominal thrusts. They’re recommended for helping a person who's choking on a foreign object (foreign-body airway obstruction)."

Question: Are both feet firmly caught in a person's mouth considered "foreign objects"? . . . if they're the victim's own feet? . . . and self inflicted?

gadfly

('Just about now, me thinks a certain victim is having second thoughts on how much he set out to chew. Health care can be quite expensive these days . . . a dollar here, a jet there . . . pretty soon, you're talking real health care costs.)

Shane Price said...

And another from the blog email, headed

Vern's subpoena - Why I won't buy a Eclipse

I'm a stereotypical Eclipse buyer candidate. Fly a pressurized twin, would be happy to step into a turbine, faster, etc.

Didn't like Eclipse's completely one sided deposit agreement. They succeed, you have to buy, OK. They fail, they keep the interest on the money, etc.

Thoughts on their business practices confirmed by Vern's heavy handed need to see who is critics are. What a spoiled little boy. You can print my email address, IP, whatever, for Vern to see.

Name, David Welsh.

email address supplied....

chickasaw said...

I applaud the ringtails courage, facing off with Vern directly. I don't see what leverage or threat he has over them since they are not affiliated with EAC. Vern is shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something.

I would have never heard of this blog if I was not warned NOT to go to it. I have always been a contrary person and am now proud to be a curmudgeon.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Methinks perhaps Vern should sue himself, or maybe the BoD will sue him on behalf of the rest of Eclipse.

When the dust clears from this episode, and he has egg all over his face and has eaten his helping of crow, it will noneother than the Vernperor himself who will have damaged his company in ways previously unthinkable.

You want it all in the open Vern, let us put it ALL out on the table and let the chips fall where they may, let the public and the media review the bare naked truth and choose for themselves.

If you want to unmask we little ol' bloggers how about unmasking Eclipse.

Who really owns it and in what percentage?

How complete is the WeeJet?

What is the true warranty exposure for all those IOU's?

What are the actual DOC's?

When will FIKI really be done?

When will EASA Cert really be done?

When will the G400's really be done?

When will the full functionality really be available?

How many orders are there, really?

What really happened with Williams?

What really happened with Electromech?

What really happened with BAe Systems?

What really happened with GE?

What really happened with Avidyne?

What really happened with DeVore?

What really happened with Hampson?

What really happened with the stunt Provisional TC?

What really happened with the TC?

What really happened with PC?

What really happened with ODAR and Quality?

How much money has Eclipse really raised?

How much MORE money has Eclipse really spent?

How many vendors are currently not being paid IAW their contracts?

How late are the payments?

Why so much employee turnover?

How are you going to deliver the remaining 400 aircraft that you promised you would deliver this year after the ummteenth schedule revision - given you need to deliver about 13 per week from this point?

Do you honestly believe scabbing on a couple G400's relieves you of the duty to provide FMS and RNAV that you promised not only when you introduced us to the plane 10 years ago, but at each and every re-invention since?

Will the G400's somehow drive autothrottle or is that now gone?

What really happened that has potentially driven your own customers and employees to share their frustrations and disgust with our august little group of heretofor unknown bloggers?

And finally we come to the $64,000 question (more like $1.X B):

Is your failure to perform the fault of some guys who are wasting their lives speculating about things they cannot possibly know (but have been disturbingly accurate about), or could it be that YOU are the problem.

I am ready to drop trou or fight this thing out Vern but it is going to be in the arena of public ideas - no gag orders or court seals to hide behind.

The curtain has been raised and we find no great ruler, no powerful wizard, only Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs - funny thing is Toto (the blog) didn't pull back the curtain, you did it to yourself.

eclipso said...

It is now believed that this person.... (From: Reality Check [mailto:creality95@yahoo.com]....thinks that one of the people at EAC is Shane. In a letter to said employee, it was implied they know who Shane is as well as myself. Shane has a copy of the letter and I will getting in touch with Gunner. I would think with what seems to be a real mess, they (EAC)would be having more to do with their time. Thanks to the Ringtails. Shane is welcome to give Gunner my email and I am ready for it all to come to a head.

gadfly said...

Cold fish

"Oooh! . . . that's going to leave a mark."

gadfly

("Curmudgeon" and I will sit here in the shade, and enjoy the show. Alright, who's next on the program?)

eclipso said...

To clarify my last entry...I KNOW this person is not Shane. Someone is on a fishing expedition and IMHO I think more than one person there will be getting the same emails.....Perhaps we shold all email creality95@yahoo.com and ivite them to join the blog....

eclipso said...

Coldfish...these may be questions to ask when all is unsealed?

gadfly said...

No, there is no direct connection between “Shane” of Dublin, and “Eclipse” . . . unless you can make a connection with “Belfast”, the birthplace of the “Titanic”.

gadfly

(It would be easy to become confused with the similarities . . . between Eclipse and the Titanic, that is.)

Dave said...

McCarthyism at Eclipse - that should help attract and keep top talent at Eclipse!

baron95 said...

The Johnson's and other Eclipse owners and position holders should write to the Eclipse Chairman and BoD and ask them to "terminate" Vern or at least put him under the same restriction Vern is trying to enforce - no comments to the press or the public.

He is doing more damage than good to the company. Maybe Vern was the right CEO for Eclipse in the past (when the main job for any start up aviation company is to raise money). Now, like many other startup founder-CEOs, Vern should understand and accept, that, in orther to salvage his legacy, he needs to hand the batton over to a new CEO.

chickasaw said...

This new hobby of mine (this blog) is addicting for a number of reasons;
1. some of you people sound scary smart.
2. When I started my career there weren't even thermal roll fax machines yet. (I think gadfly might have had smoke signals.) Now look at the everyday technology.
3. This instantaneous exchange of ideas (even stupid ones) across the globe is truly amazing and a tribute to all you nerd types. I wonder how many people appreciate it.
4. Aviation is new to me and I am always amazed that airplanes, one of the most high tech machines around use the most low tech manufacturing techniques.

Sorry I tend to ramble

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Not to toot my own horn (much) but another of my damn lies (predictions) has come to pass re: the 51% rule and kit aircraft.

The FAA issued a policy letter on the 22nd stating that previously evaluated aircraft placed on the so called '51%' list will be grandfathered - just as I predicted back on the 9th and before.

Am I an FAA insider - no. I am just able to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4 based on a couple decades in industry and a little common sense.

Gee, if it is possible with the arcane workings of the government bureaucracy of the FAA, could it possibly be the same with the occult secrets of the Church of Flyantology - surely not. ;^)

Full disclosure - I have no NDA with the FAA and do not work for the FAA.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ExistingKitsGrandfathered_ByFAA_197698-1.html

gadfly said...

An interesting “aside”:

‘Had this enterprise been “up forward” from the start, sharing both successes and failures, in an honest and straight-forward way, an entire community would have rallied in support. The truth is that Albuquerque, New Mexico, and General Aviation were all ready and eager to help the little jet achieve everything that was promised.

(You should have thoroughly checked on the integrity of the politicos in charge, that offered you vast sums of taxpayer money to open your operation . . . with the upcoming election, your friends have made some very interesting commitments.)

Many of us had everything to gain . . . and everything (in many cases) to lose, if it did not succeed. All looked bright . . . until a friend, a leading expert in aerodynamics and head of a major government “laser in space” program (with a long and proven track record of success, in the military and scientific community, and “bucking the establishment” when it meant saving lives) told me about the questionable early “wind tunnel testing” (of the Eclipse) in the northwest. And then, in the news, a “questionable” test flight was performed, engines overheating and below needed thrust, but “success was claimed” . . . and deposits in escrow were called (nothing secret here . . . it was front page news). Immediately, there was a “whiff” of something slightly rotten. And having not fallen off the “green chili wagon” the day before yesterday, I recognized that smell.

A local supplier told of a last minute effort, to prevent the little bird from “falling on its fanny” (literally), to place “weights” in the nose, before an upcoming show to potential buyers, and others (but why am I telling all this stuff that you already know?). And I thought to myself, “what in the world . . . working with 3D computer programs . . . with a complete analysis of weights and CG . . . everything a designer could possibly wish . . . and the night before a “show”, they don’t even know the CG of this simple little aircraft?” . . . and a quick request from a local supplier to furnish weights, to hide in the nose, to make the plane “look good”. Well, anyone can make a mistake, and I’ve made my share, for sure . . . but by now the red flag was up . . . and that “call” on escrow funds for a plane that didn’t fulfill the requirements . . . that bothered me, most of all.

The interesting thing, here, is that I never left my office . . . I have no connection with Eclipse . . . and I probably learned more within the four walls than the guy out on the floor that “bucks rivets”. And, by the way, the closest I have ever come to “Eclipse” is on final approach at ABQ, in a 737 or an MD90 or driving south on I25, looking up to see the top of the “Eclipse” sign, while dodging the lunatics on the highway . . .driving my wife’s ES330 (now there’s a product that needs no apology).

In the early days, I would have welcomed work on the little jet . . . we can sure use more work . . . and have done much with GE Jet Engine Division (think of us, when you watch those blades begin to turn as those big “fans” come up to speed . . . yeh!, we have something to do with all that sort of thing) . . . and in years past, with DeVore Aviation (and, by the way, a highly respected and excellent company of impeccable integrity ). But Albuquerque is a “small town” in many respects, and very little is “secret”. The manufacturing community has been “burned” so many times, those of us who have been around for a few decades have learned the old warning, “buyer beware” . . . in spades. Unfortunately, this thing did not then, nor today, pass the “smell test” . . . nothing you have offered comes together to give enough confidence to warrant further pursuit. And yet, Albuquerque needs the industry. But the “big guys” learn after a few years to “pack up” and “move out”. They’ve seen enough . . . I’ll not list them (I’ve got enough things buzzing around to give me grief, just now ) . . . . seeing as how the “gadfly” is on “the hit list”. (Please note: I am terrified and shaking in my boots, as the “bully” on the block makes threats . . . etc., etc., and so forth. Should I get pale with fright just about now? . . . lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Somehow, I was never very good at playing the “victim” . . . sorry ‘bout that! . . . maybe next time!)

“Eclipse” . . . had you been honest, from the “get-go”, we could have had a great relationship, Albuquerque and Eclipse, but it seems that you chose to treat us rude. And we are not amused.

And it matters not what you may win in court, . . . you are the loser . . . and unfortunately, your actions affect the lives of many in your employ, and your many (potential) customers.

gadfly

(And tonight, I will sleep well!)

And a final note: In all the years . . . decades that I have been in Albuquerque, I have never, once, heard anything to discredit DeVore Aviation. They were here before I got here, and may well be here long into the future. You . . . or anyone, should have such a good reputation!

(A note to chickasaw: Tell Shane that it's OK to contact me direct . . . maybe we have some good things in common.)

chickasaw said...

gadfly, thanks for the trust. I e-mailed Shane to pass along my e-mail address.

Dave Ivedorne said...

Hear ye! hear ye!

All rise, for this session of the Eclipse Aviation Critic NG Court of Public Opinion - Judge Me presiding...

(you may be seated)

Before the Court is Movant Chickasaw - a F---ing New Guy, just like My Honor.

Chickasaw has filed a Motion of Apology to the Court for rambling on about His New Hobby. The Court has been fully briefed; no objections have been filed, and I'm prepared to rule on the motion.

Whereas:
-Movant has lavished praise on the other participants on the blog,
-and has demonstrated insightfulness about the progress of humanity,
-and whose "rambling" was brief and concise to the point of not being "rambling",
-and who managed to seamlessly squeeze in a gratuitous Old Fart joke at Gadfly's expense,

The court DENIES the motion of apology, on the grounds that apology is unnecessary.

Court is adjourned, beers are on Me.

Would you like the Valu Meel?
IANAL

PubGrubber said...

Gadfly,

It just dawned on me that we may have crossed paths in the Duke city. I don't want to incenuate any details that might lead to exposure. Shane, if you don't mind and Gad is willing, could you forward him my E-mail address?

Thanks

gadfly said...

Cold Fish

You have totally destroyed my day. In 1943, I had developed some "wings", using "cedar shingles" . . . and by running down the hill, jumping from terrace to terrace on the path that went by my Grandpa's machine shop (that my Grandma dug out for the garden on the Verdugo Hills hillside, north of Burbank for the garden), I almost flew. And now you're indicating that the possibility of approval is "closed". Bummers!

At least the "turkey flew" . . . and like the "Eclipse" soon ran out of fuel over the creek . . . but it crashed straight down through the "live oak" tree. 'Missed Grandma . . . both survived, at least until Thanksgiving . . . Grandma lasted a few more years.

There were few neighbors . . . and fewer "kids", but I had a cast aluminum Boeing 247 (yep, it's still on a shelf at home) . . . and I dreamed of flying.

Thinking back, those were the days of the Lockheed "YP38" . . . great days, when flying was not a joke, nor a thing to use to exploit the public. And the Lockheed "Vega" ("Hudson Bomber" . . . painted up with camoflauge, and the British symbols on the side of the fuselage . . . for flight to our British allies) . . . day after day, they flew overhead over the Verdugo Foot Hills and Burbank.

And then one day, we all came out to yell to each other that the "War" was over . . . Japan had surrendered. And soon, things like the P-80 flew over our house . . . and the Lockheed "Constellation" (and the "Constitution" . . . yeh, I was there as it made its "maiden flight", and it suffered major pitch control problems, "porpoising" to the extent that landing seemed to be a major problem. My "Daddy" (who would soon invent the cable tension control system that would reduce those early problems . . . and is still used on many Boeing and Douglas jets) had taken me to the airshow, and I still have the aluminum "casting" of a P80, with "drop tanks" . . . we watched the Northrop B49 "Flying Wing" . . . flew right over our house . . . and the P2V Neptune came over one night ('turned on the submarine search light and shined down on our neighborhood, the next-door neighbor was in charge of all P2V and Constellation flights, back then) . . . 'Little did I know, then, that less than four years later our submarine would be "hiding" from "Constellations" and "P2V Neptunes" as we made our way to distant enemby ports, to keep things "cool" during the "Cold War".

Oh, I could tell you so many stories, and never in my wildest dreams could I imagine that people would use airplanes for anything other that "honorable purposes" . . . but then, what does a little kid know!

Today we do not have a problem with aerodynamics, nor even technology (the "little jet" cannot even equal the "norm" of forty years ago) . . . The real and present problem is integrity.

Play any tune you wish . . . the lyrics are the same.

Think about it . . . or as it says thousands of years ago, "Selah" . . . pause and meditate on what has been said.

gadfly

(All this to get your attention . . . and take care of the business at hand!)

gadfly said...

And now to "pubgrubber":

So much is going on, at present, that I do not wish to rock the boat. I have no problems with "identity", but you need to check with the Irishman. And if he says it's "OK", then I have no problem. Oh, don't forget the heavily armed one in the "southeast" . . . he's a friend of mine.

Since I am one listed on the "hit list", and would more than welcome a head-on collision with "his nibs", I have no problems with "whatever" . . . but hesitate to cause problems for others.

Do the right thing . . . then give it all you've got! 'Fair 'nough?

gadfly

(There are very few things that scare me . . . and "his nibs" is not one of them.)

(Yep . . . we can say, "we're all having fun!")

(And, No! . . . we're not about to give up our "First Amendment Rights", nor "Second" . . . not now, not ever!)

MetalGuy said...

Well, now that the entire aviation industry is intently watching this blog, why don’t we summarize just a tad:

1) Day Jet utilization is flat lined out of the gates. There has been no noticeable up-trend in the last 30 weeks. The current utilization is probably adequate to pay for half of the staff employed, certainly nowhere near enough to even break even. Air Taxi, as implemented by Day Jet and Eclipse simply does not work and the numbers prove this to be a complete failure.

2) AVIO and all its benefits have been a complete failure. Very very few of the benefits touted as being the strong points of the Eclipse “advanced” avionic design have succeeded. Electronic circuit breakers are perhaps the one exception. Oh wow, watch out Cessna.

3) Part 135 requires a third attitude indicator literally to be bolted to the glare shield as a complete afterthought. Good planning there and obvious indication of the foresight and care taken in the design of this little jewel. Collins Pro Line we are not. It looks like perhaps this little bird was designed by a Silicon Valley techie. Oh wait, it was. Perhaps we should expect some difficulty with EASA cert…

4) You guessed it, EASA certification seems highly suspect. Multiple statements from the authority hint that a fairly major re-design is required to meet their requirements. Time estimates publically stated by Vern seem absurd when compared to what EASA states. Yet again. It could take years. There may be exceptions, but in general, don’t expect sales from this market to rescue the struggling company.

5) Basics such as FIKI are delayed with no explanations forthcoming. What’s up, no one knows. No transparency remains into the status of the little jet. All estimates, expectations, and “facts” coming from Verns lips have the validity of, well, nothing.

6) Vendors have been thrown under the bus left and right. Vern blames the non performance of the vendors. Seeing as how Eclipse are the only ones to experience these “difficulties”, perhaps Eclipse is to blame for selecting the wrong vendors, not specifying the full requirements, changing the requirements at whim… Just a thought.

7) Production numbers, even after substantial effort and recovery time, have simply not panned out. Poor planning? Unrealistic expectations? Who knows. But it certainly puts the cash crunch on, yet again.

8) Take out all of the Air Taxi sales, and “real” sales are estimated in the mid 500’s. As Eclipse seems not to want to publish the real numbers, this is a guess, but is nowhere nearly enough to get return on the investment. Where are the other 10,000 sales going to come from to provide a ROI? Anyone?

9) Vern has apparently lost control and respect of the employees within the company. Outright threats of termination, lawsuits and public humiliation are now the norm to keep the worker bees in line. This is not a sign of a healthy, stable company. Expect the real talent to quietly step aside.

10) One would certainly expect a little bit of criticism to stem from these continued failures. No other aviation company has promised so much, and delivered so little. And of course Vern then sues to retaliate and attempt to silence those who dare criticize his exemplary performance. Vern even sues the few that publically support his program. This might be characterized as the winner of the all-time “Dumb-Ass Award”. What the hell are you thinking???

These are not the actions of an individual capable of running a company like Eclipse. Eclipse is, in theory, simply an aircraft manufacturing company. It is no longer a startup in need of big visions and outlandish goals. It is desperately in need of mature, experienced management with enough common sense to keep out of hot water like it is now in. Until the BOD recognizes this, expect the failures to continue. Expect the smooth talk of Vern to pacify you. But also expect to continue to write big checks to cover his continued failures.

Sue us all if that what it takes to satisfy your overblown ego, but this is the truth.

chickasaw said...

Judge DREAD (Dave Responding to Eclipse Aviation Diatribe),

Thank you for your ruling. I withdraw my motion (for now).

You know..Vern might be trying to revive that old TV show "What's My Line? or was that "I've got a Secret" , how about "Let's Make a Deal", "Maybe Press Your Luck". I could go on but the Judge might reverse his decision.

gadfly said...

All right, everybody! Stop right here, back up, and read "carefully" metalguy's comments.

To date, they are the most intelligent and concise comments concerning Eclipse, yet written.

If you can pass up the facts that he has given, in concise detail, then there is really nothing more to be said.

Thank you, metalguy . . . your thoughts are precise, and extremely well written.

gadfly

Black Tulip said...

After reading MetalGuy’s fine summary, it’s interesting to reflect on a couple of assertions by Baron95:

“They (Eclipse) are the ONLY startup company that has successfully designed, developed, certified and produce over 100 GA jets, since Learjet - and they did it with a lot less turmoil than Lear did.”

“And by the way, they have produced a much better plane than Learjet did. The original Learjet was an UNSAFE/INCOMPLETE?RESTRICTED plane that had to go through several design changes over many years to just be flyable.”

Learjet was a lot more successful with the introduction of their first aircraft, the Learjet 23, than Eclipse has been. Nobody was using the term ‘disruptive technology’ nearly half a century ago but the aircraft was revolutionary. Like any new aircraft it had teething problems but pilots and customers loved it… it was functional and met the need.

The safety record turned out badly with a quarter of the fleet lost to accidents. But this is more complicated than it seems. Most early pilots were previously flying retreaded World War II piston aircraft – Douglas DC-3, Lockheed Lodestar, Beech 18 or OnMark B-26. They were unprepared for a near supersonic, high altitude, short duration aircraft. Stan is an expert on this matter and has written the book elsewhere.

Learjet set the standard that other business jet manufacturers sought to achieve. Eclipse struggles to equal the functionality and performance of decades-old aircraft.

Shadow said...

NTSB Identification: CHI08IA109
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Incident occurred Thursday, April 17, 2008 in Pontiac, MI
Aircraft: Eclipse Aviation EA500, registration: N539RM
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On April 17, 2008, at 1830 eastern daylight time, an Eclipse Aviation EA500, N539RM, experienced a stuck rudder trim during a simulated single-engine instrument approach to the Bishop International Airport (FNT), Flint, Michigan. It diverted and landed without incident at the Oakland County International Airport (PTK), Pontiac, Michigan, about 1845 since PTK had more favorable winds for landing. The instructor pilot and the pilot/owner receiving training were not injured. The 14 CFR Part 91 instructional flight departed Detroit City Airport (DET), Detroit, Michigan, about 1815 on a local flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident. An instrument flight plan was filed.

airtaximan said...

Shadow,

expect to be added to the hit list

John said...

N539RM is registered to:
LAKESHORE LEASING LTD
GROSSE POINTE, MI

It is S/N 101 with a 1/11/08 registration date.

Since the reported incident it flew back to KABQ, presumably for inspection.

20-Apr-2008 EA50/A Coleman A. Young Muni (KDET) Coffey County (KUKL) 08:24 EDT 10:05 CDT 2:41

20-Apr-2008 EA50/A Coffey County (KUKL) Albuquerque Intl Sunport (KABQ) 10:51 CDT 12:32 MDT 2:41

Bonanza Pilot said...

We now know that Vern reads this blog ...and knowing his ego, I find it hard to believe that he would just stand by and watch these postings without commenting or fighting back. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that Vern may have posted to this blog using an anonymous name. Sure it is a silly thing for a CEO of a company that presumably has better things to do - but then look at the lawsuit.

so the question is this...if Vern did post on the blog, which of the faithful was he? Was he Mirage00 - a man who spent a lot of time "amusing" himself? I think Gunner knows who Mirage is, so doubt it - so what alias was Vern posting under if he was posting? Do you think we should file discovery with google to get everyones IP info and find out if he or anyone affiliated with Eclipse actually participated on the blog? If they did, perhaps they spread misinformation that painted Eclipse in too positive of light....or made false statements. I am sure there would be liability there.

I don't advocate doing that...just pointing out how the tactics would feel if they were turned onto Vern

airtaximan said...

bonanza..

expect to be added to the hit list


great idea, BTW.

PS. I think Vern was using Ken's email to post!!!

stan said...

bp,

My guess was and is, eclipseblogger though he has not posted for quite some time.

He knew too many details about too many things...he wasn't your casual observer.

ThisWillHurt said...

More in depth coverage at: http://www.charterx.com/resources/article.aspx?id=3286

airtaximan said...

Great CharterX article:

"...as inside company information has been leaked, has angered many people..."

HEY FOLKS... this blog has "inside information from eclipse" according to Vern - infomration he would rather you not know...

Keep reading...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Kudo's to Karen Di Piazza at CharterX, that was a good read and well written.

Looks like it may be time to stock up on popcorn and your favorite adult beverage, this show just keeps getting better.

John said...

Summary utilization data added for North American and Linear Air.

Link to VLJPlanet Forum

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So here we are almost a month after the announcement of scabbed on independent G400-W's becoming the FMS and RNAV functionality for the E-500 rather than the previously promised 'total aircraft integration' of Avio NfG, and Chelton and NexNav are still on the roster of Eclipse Suppliers - still described as providing the oft promised but yet delivered WAAS GPS technology and previously certified FMS.

Then we have the attack against some of we bloggers here. And I began to wonder if I was picking up on a pattern, and it became clear to me to consider the wider situation and find the bad news.

Why look for 'other' bad news?

It has become a typical pattern for Eclipse over the past few years to make large announcements about small things shortly in advance of either announcing bad news quietly itself or when it knows that bad news is coming and that it cannot be avoided (e.g., Hampson suit).

So recently we have the G400 news and the feign against the blog and low and behold what has happened in the background - EASA has come out and clearly stated that it intends to develop NEW guidance material, for VLJ's, and that it is in part a result of the Eclipse 500 (capability not specific safety issues).

New guidance potentially means new issue papers, new special conditions, new requirements. Among the items mentioned are operational impacts for private owners equivalent to commercial operators due to the capabilities of the E-500.

Also mentioned about the E-500 are specific concerns about the lack of spoilers for emergency descents, the previously identified issues re: engine control and backup power.

So the European Aviation Safety Agency has now spent months evaluating the Eclipse 500 and as a result has identified a series of design concerns that must be addressed (either by design change or proving an equivalent level of safety to EASA's satisfaction), and has now also stated it will develop new regulations and operational specification.

It is possible that Eclipse could be grandfathered for its' ongoing EASA struggle but any further delays will likely add to the already daunting burden of EASA certification for Eclipse.

If only Eclipse were already EASA certified, like the Cessna Mustang, which was announced years AFTER the Eclipse, and which certified both domestically, and EASA, more than a year ago.

Had they buckled down and just finished, they would not be facing the delay and cost of this EASA issue - talk about 'irreparable damage'.

I wonder how any rational person can come to the conclusion we bloggers are responsible for that?

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that Wikileaks has not yet been discussed as they recently won a major victory for anonymity on the web. Internal documents from Julius Baer were posted that showed the bank was engaged in tax fraud. Wikileaks was not held liable for hosting the information. Granted, this only protects the hosting site but posters will also be protected if they remember to use a proxy.

http://tinyurl.com/3t6rn8

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the Church of Flyantology, Wikileaks also picked a big fight with Scientology. This is how they responded to the scieno take-down demands:

"in response to the attempted suppression, Wikileaks will release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week."

http://tinyurl.com/53buvg


Shane and Stan have nothing to worry about and bloggers won't either if they use a proxy.

Niner Zulu said...

Unless there is a huge disconnect between the court and the general public, it is likely that this is another case of a legal action by cash-strapped Eclipse that is doomed to failure.

I don't believe the courts are ready to toss out the 1st Amendment (yet, anyway...) which they would pretty much have to do if Eclipse were allowed access to poster's IP addresses.

From what I seen so far, the only people that really haven't had anything negative to say about the subpoena have been "the faithful" (with the exception of the Johnson's, my heroes!). It would appear that protecting the value of their jets is more important to the faithful than their rights of free speech.

There are a huge number of articles available on this if you google the words "Eclipse" and "subpoena", but this one at EyeOnAlbuquerque.com summed up my thoughts:

"One more note about the Eclipse fishing expedition. Having the IP addresses of individual posters is just the tip of the judicial ice berg. Even if Google does turn over the IPs, there will have to be a whole new round of subpoenas issued to multiple Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with their own set of lawyers and privacy policies. We doubt that any court in its right mind will continue to allow Eclipse to go on an open-ended fishing expedition through multiple ISPs to find a group of unknown posters who may or may not have ever been Eclipse employees."

Shadow said...

Eclipse v Skupa

http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/app?component=cnLink&page=SearchResults&service=direct&session=T&sp=SD-202-CV-200804029

Gunner said...

I think we ALL owe Karen Di Piazza and CharterX a debt of gratitude for investigating this breaking story in depth and reporting it in an unbiased fashion.

Had she slanted the story in our favor (more than FACTS already do so), it would carry far less weight. As it stands she reported it honestly and hit all the key issues; she also offered Vern every opportunity to respond. He apparently passed, preferring to do his talking thru hired legal guns.

Read Karen's Coverage Here

Many thanks to Norman Malinski, world class litgator's litigator, for the measured manner in which he summarized the case also.

In other news, we have been contacted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding this subpoena. Within internet circles they are everything the ACLU might once have been. We welcome their interest.

Hey, Vern, tell us again:
How's that familiar "Scorch the Earth and bury 'em, in legal fees" game playin' out for you on this one? The Russians must be aghast and agog at your deft touch in the world of Public Relations. Look....over here....can't you see we're waving the white flag of surrender?

Hump
Rich Lucibella

Dave said...

Eclipse v Skupa

Eclipse is being very litigious. In an approximate 30 day period, Eclipse has filed three separate lawsuits. The first lawsuit is against the bloggers filed 3/18 for "breach of contract" *NOT* defamation. The second lawsuit was filed a few days later on 3/20 with Eclipse suing Composite Systems Inc for "breach of contract." The latest lawsuit is against Skiba filed on 4/21 and guess what it's for? Breach of contract.

Why has Eclipse decided to pursue litigation instead of innovation? (and Vern as a Microsoft alum should know where what I'm saying comes from)

So far only one of the three lawsuits appears to have hit the news. This certainly looks bad if it turns out that Vern is threatening the families of Eclipse employees as was broke on this blog earlier.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

A quick review of the nmcourts.com website does not paint a pretty picture when 'Eclipse' is entered into the name search function.

Looks like several human resources/employment suits that have been referred to District and Federal Courts, several with vendors.

It appears our friends in the 505 are no strangers to the court system, but it doesn't look like they win very often. It would be interesting to see the results of the arbitrations they have been involved in or the results of the Federal courts - I wonder if they are as 'successful' there as they have been with designing, building, certifying and delivering fully functional aircraft.

And to think, had Vern not gone and poked the bear with a sharp stick nobody would be looking at Eclispe litigation record at nmcourts.com, or reading this blog, and he would not have to be refusing comment to countless reporters, bloggers, investigators every day.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

OT:
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH today filed for insolvency.

http://www.thielert.com/

I wonder if they are going to sue me for linking people to the bad news on their own website?

airtaximan said...

I expect, eventually Vern will sue his lawyers, for "breach of contract" when this also does not go his way...

Stay tuned. I imagine there's big BS coming soon from ABQ, based on the color and thickness of the of the smoke screen...

John Luftenberg said...

Here's a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Eclipse this morning. I suggest that everyone do their part to create a huge PR nightmare for these people.

From: John Luftenberg
Subject: Google Groups Blog Witch-hunt
To: pr@eclipseaviation.com, info@eclipseaviation.com,

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/EclipseSeeksToReveal_CriticsNames_197710-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/eclipse-google_subpoena.pdf

What is your problem??? Are you all such a bunch of little sissies that you can't handle any creative criticism? Want to take me on? Bring it on, and we'll see who prevails in a court of law.

I'm very active in the aviation community and I'll make sure that this news is spread far and wide - this is America, not the Third Reich. The sooner you learn that little fact the better off we'll all be.

--
John Luftenberg
ATP/CFIA-I

airtaximan said...

The only thing that surprises me, is that Vern is not selling advertising on this blog site...

It would be the only commercially reasonable way to explain his activities..

..then again...

Black Tulip said...

With recent events we must have many new readers and contributors. Some may have missed a press release published on the 'old' blog nine months ago:

ECLIPSE AVIATION FIRES ECLIPSE AVIATION CRITIC

July 15, 2007

Albuquerque, NM – Vern Raeburn, President & CEO, announced today that his company’s ties with Eclipse Aviation Critic had been severed. “This outfit joins a long line of those who have failed to meet our company’s high standards,” said Vern gravely. “First it was Williams with the engines, then Avidyne with avionics, then United for training,” he sighed, “And now we have to part ways with Eclipse Aviation Critic.”

“We’ve given them every chance that we could, but they just can’t get ‘er done. The quality of criticism on the web log has declined by any reasonable standard. We think there is a failure in the blog’s leadership to set a good example. The debate has degenerated to the point that they are questioning whether I could fly our Eclipse 500 most of the way across the country,” added Raeburn. “Remember the Allies used gliders at Normandy and the Germans invaded Crete with them. It’s real quiet for the last hundred miles in our jet and so far there’s been no extra paperwork on landing.”

“But I digress,” said Vern. “Of course, we are open to consistently good introspection, and even criticism of our company and product. We are replacing Eclipse Aviation Critic with a much improved blog. It will be called Eclipse Aviation Critic XP, for eXtra Performance. We wanted to use NG for New Generation, but that was taken.”

“The new web site will offer better functionality and performance thanks to proprietary Eclipse Aviation software and hardware. We borrowed leading edge technology from the Eclipse cockpit suite and will be able to display Jeppesen enroute and terminal charts on the web site. We expect to be online in August and are accepting modest deposits. Early adopters will get reduced monthly pricing for access. I will personally edit each entry to assure the high standards you have come to expect from Eclipse Aviation.”

Shane said...

Gadfly, Chickasaw,

Request processed. Check your inboxes.

And sorry for the delay.

However, It's been awfully busy around here, since that pest Mr. Raburn stuck his lawyers into our private discussion.

As a result I, for one, am thinking of re launching a grand old Irish 'tradition'.

In the 1880's, a landlord's agent here was making a fool of himself trying to collect rent. He made himself so unpopular that everyone totally ignored him. When he went into a local shop to buy something, he couldn't get served. The postman would not deliver his mail. His own people pretended he was invisible. The might of the law was mustered to get help him, and troops were dispatched from England. After less than 6 months he was defined as the problem and he left, never to return.

His surname entered the language and the 'method' remains an effective form of passive resistance to bullies every since.

That name?

Captain Boycott.

Shane
PS I know this story has nothing to do with Eclipse, but it might be an effective way to deal with Vern...

Shane said...

NOTICE TO NEW READERS

Black Tulip is the offical satirist for the blog.

And he is very good at it.

However, and I think I can speak for everyone here...

Vern (luckily for the First Amendment) can't FIRE a blog.

And BT, thanks for reminding me of the time when blogging was fun and flying was dangerous.

Or is that the other way round?

As the time here in Ireland is 23.30hrs, I must leave you for today. Sleep beckons...

Shane

MetalGuy said...

And to think, had Vern not gone and poked the bear with a sharp stick nobody would be looking at Eclispe litigation record at nmcourts.com, or reading this blog, and he would not have to be refusing comment to countless reporters, bloggers, investigators every day.

This brings to mind three questions:

1) Wouldn’t the smart thing have been to spend a little effort and get one of the customer relations people at Eclipse to formally participate on the Blog - as an official representative of Eclipse? It seems they could have easily snuffed out any “incorrect facts” that may have surfaced over the last couple of years. A single fact can quench a hundred rumors. From a certain perspective, Eclipse is directly responsible for the “success” of this blog given their complete passive attitude toward the whole thing. If you don’t like it, try to fix it. If you don’t lift a finger to fix it, don’t complain.

2) In reviewing quite a few postings, I can’t ever quite seem to put my finger on any outright “lies” ever posted here. Certainly lots and lots of speculation, guesses, estimations and predictions. Some right, some wrong. However, even when a critic posts something wrong, often as not, it’s corrected by another critic. But an outright conspiracy to “lie” about the little jet? I just can’t seem to find anything that rises to that level. Just something to think about.

Ok, I only had two questions. Perhaps that was a lie. So sue me.

Steven H said...

> I expect, eventually Vern
> will sue his lawyers, for
> "breach of contract" when
> this also does not go his way...

At this point it would be very difficult for anyone who didn't have a deep understanding of the history of the Unix(tm) operating system and who hadn't followed the The SCO Group vs. IBM (and later vs. Novell) case from the beginning to jump in and understand it. And the web sites that track the case are deep into the esoteric details now with the basic explanations buried 5 years back in the archives.

But if you are involved in this assault on the First Amendment i would strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with that case. You can go over to Investor Village, find the SCOX message board, and ask one of the regulars to give you a primer and pointers. The parallels would be eerie, except that I suspect those parallels are no accident/coincidence.

And yes: TSG started out by suing its own customers, only it made the mistake of suing the largest (IBM) first rather than the smallest. Then it tried to sue /the entire world/ (literally, since I bet there is no one here who isn't part of some organization that has has a Linux(tm) server humming away somewhere). And the long-time observers strongly suspect that they will in fact end up by suing their own lawyers.

sPh

airtaximan said...

“incorrect facts”

actually, Vern's worried about things that were posted that were true... insider info, private confidential stuff, subject to INDA.

So, apparently, we've posted stuff that he wishes no one ever saw, that was TRUE.

I can only imagine what this was, and WHY he would not want it made public?

It was true, and it was hurtful, and apparenlty, no the sort of intel anyone should have.

Think it was that FSW saves only a few pounds, the tires blow, the fleet is grounded or the Dayjet orders ratio to order book report is a complete hoax?

I can only imagine what pissed him off... and I know one thing - this reaction is of someone who is pissed off, hurt, and refuses to be truthful or take responsibility.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

According to Vern, only if a blogger says it does.

airtaximan said...

Steve H,

I swear, I know nothing about that case, and I only use reason and accountability for my posts... some have suggested I am an insider - I swear, it is not true. I have no connections whatsoever with EAC or the principals or any companies connected to them.

I watch, and I imagine what Vern could be up to, given his record.

Thanks for the post about SCO, and the lawsuit, and them probably suing their own lawyers. Validation.

Thanks

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

A Critical Review of Eclipse Decision Making

It occurs to me in thinking about the developments of the past few weeks that in addition to a pattern of obfuscation, there is another pattern evident from the leadership at Eclipse – a pattern of arrogant brogadoacio and jealous child overstatement, followed by one of utter and complete failure.

Consider the turnover in the Executive Team over the last 6 or 7 years:

Eclipse picked Larry Jones as its’ world class VP Manufacturing. Result – Larry left.

Eclipse picked Chris Finnoff as its’ world class VP Sales – Result – Chris left.

Eclipse picked Chris Herzog as its’ world class VP Supply Management – Result – Chris left.

Eclipse picked Don Taylor as its’ world class VP Training and Safety – Result – Don left. He has not been replaced.

Eclipse picked Dottie Hall (Vern’s now former wife) as its’ world class VP Marketing – Result – Dottie left.

Eclipse picked Rod Holter as its’ second world class VP Manufacturing – Result – Rod went back to Cessna.

Eclipse picked Peter Reed as its’ world class VP Finance/CFO – Result – Peter left.

Eclipse picked Oliver Masefield as its’ world class VP Engineering – Result –Oliver was ‘promoted’ to ‘Senior Fellow’.

Eclipse picked Ken Harness as its’ second world class VP Engineering – Result – Ken left.

Eclipse picked Don Burtis as its’ world class VP Electrical/Avionics – Result – Don was ‘promoted’ to ‘Senior Fellow’. He has not been replaced.

Eclipse picked Gene Garnes as its’ world class VP Program Management – Result – Gene left. He has not been replaced.

Eclipse picked Perry Denker as its’ world class VP Investor Relations – Result – Perry left. He has not been replaced.

Eclipse picked Michael Brown as its’ world class VP and CIO – Result –Mike left.

Essentially, Eclipse is on its’ 3rd VP Engineering, 3rd VP Manufacturing, 2nd VP Finance – all in 7 or so years. In fact, only Vern, Dr. Masefield and Jack Harrington date back to the announcement of the program – the other 13 VP’s have been there about 6 years or less. Almost as many VP’s have left as there are VP’s there currently (and THAT is no small feat in itself).

And how do I know this? Nothing more than a quick review of the changing names on the ‘team’ list present on the website over the years (thank you internet archive wayback machine).

Stick that in your subpoena and smoke it Vern.

Maybe rather than concern yourself with ‘outright lies’ as you libeled us about the other day, but which you then claim to be the result of ‘inside’ information (which was very likely gleaned just as I did the Executive team history from the very public domain), perhaps you could focus on completing the design, getting it all certified here and in EASA, and then just deliver a fully functioning and complete aircraft.

Or you could continue to waste precious time, energy and money tilting windmills – your choice.

Oh and by the way, thanks for the audience Vern, I always wanted to write a best seller.

Dave said...

Consider the turnover in the Executive Team over the last 6 or 7 years

Also consider Eclipse not too long ago laid off 10% of their workforce.

Copernicus said...

Shane,

Black tulip as satirist? OK, but a bit verbose, n'est pas? What about the Limerick? Concise and Irish, don't you think?

No E jet fan yet has withstood
Each lie, each deception, falsehood.
But God up in heaven
Plus Chapter eleven
May yet have it work like it should.


Though some of its systems are late,
I think that my E Jet is great.
And Ike's CAA
Most surely would say,
"Your aircraft isvrigt up to date".

Gunner said...

I'm wondering if someone can help us out on the employee communication that was ostensibly from Vern and which referenced Brian Skupa.

Just for grins, I'd like to verify authenticity. I need an original copy of that memo, complete with headers. By all means, send it from an anonymous mail account but it MUST be forwarded as an attachment, complete with headers.

Please email to eclipse@thefiringline.com

Thanks much-
Gunner

John said...

Link to summary of flight hours as divided among new and old service areas

eclipso said...

Gunner, check you email

Gunner said...

Eclipso-
I need an original copy of the emal sent as attachment, not inline to the message. That's the only way to confirm the headers are authentic.

There's got to be about 1500 of those originals floating around.

Thanks again-
Gunner

eclipso said...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/defending-anonymity-online-legislation-would-give-



You GOT to love it

Gunner said...

BwaHaHaHaHa!

Eclipso-
Now THAT's funny!

Thanks much-
Rich

MetalGuy said...

I was going to post more links to the news as it gets out, but it’s blossoming so fast, it’s too hard to do. Traffic to the blog must be huge.

If this keeps up, the critic blog will bubble to the top of the Google search on “Eclipse Aviation” instead of their own web site!

Now THAT would be justice for you.

Six Romeo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Six Romeo said...

Shane,

In light of the recent development, and the headache this is sure to be causing you, and on behalf of those of us who mostly read this blog (and occasionally make posts that don't contribute much), I wanted to extend a sincere Thank You! I am sure that when you stepped up to take the torch from Stan, you didn't plan on expending the energy you had to. You've done a phenomenal (no Embraer pun intended) job!

Gunner,

You told Becky J that she rocks. You sir, ROCK! In this case and the HCI case.

Gadfly,

As a fellow NM taxpayer, thanks for whatever role you had in the ABQ journal's interest. Also, thanks again for being the "soul" of this blog.

Thanks to those of you who may have risked personal interest in the pursuit of the truth, and what is right.

Finally, thanks to Vern for validating this blog.

Niner Zulu said...

Eclipso - excellent link!

I wonder how far Vern is going to take this farce. He is fighting public opinion, his employees, and the law. This case has the potential of bringing down Eclipse as a company - Eclipse is unable to stand on it's own financially, and the bad smell from this fiasco might halt or delay investors from providing funding at a critical time. That would spell the end for Eclipse as we know it.

Here's the gist of the article:

"The California Assembly took a crucial first step yesterday towards closing a significant gap in protection for anonymous speech online. One of the most pernicious threats to anonymity is the filing of bogus lawsuits as an excuse to force ISPs to reveal speakers’ identities. Once such a lawsuit is filed, speakers who want to protect their anonymity must find a way to pay a lawyer to go to court and prevent disclosure of their personal information. That can be a real hardship—in fact, even the threat of having to go to court may intimidate many people from speaking out in the first place.

Fortunately, Assembly member Paul Krekorian with co-authors Sally Lieber and Anthony Portantino introduced AB 2433 to help answer this problem. If AB 2433 becomes law, speakers who successfully oppose the use of bogus litigation to obtain their identities could also demand attorneys' fees. The bill has now passed the Assembly unanimously and is moving on to the Senate. EFF, the California AntiSLAPP project, and the California Newspaper Publishers Association are all supporters of this bill."

The rest of the article is at the link Eclipso posted above.

eclipso said...

9Z'

Actually, I can't take credit for the link. it was presented further up from Gunner. (Electronic Freedom Foundation). thanks to him and all the hard work he is putting into this. All here are to be commended. This is not an Eclipse, Vern, lack of performance, etc issue. This is about a group of REALISTS and observations. I spent WAY too many years serving this country while the likes of Vern were busy making their fortunes. These are the freedoms and rights (including his)I served for. If he thinks it's hot now, wait until the core of veterans start posting here...(they are just starting to read here)So while he was getting rich, there were a lot more folks protecting his right to do so. How dre him or ANYONE think they only apply to him...

Shane Price said...

9Z,

I think Vern is one of those rare beasts.

An egotist who truly believes there is no such thing as bad publicity.

However, I begin to suspect that he is about to learn an expensive lesson.

And thanks for 'standing tall'. I'm one of the few who knows the hassle you have already been through.

Shane

Dave Ivedorne said...

It is with some distress that I read the details of the restraining order against Brian Skupa as listed on the nmcourts.com site (doing a name search for 'skupa' is simpler than entering the docket number D-202-CV-200804029 - at any rate, links to the docket appear to be session-specific):

"...IMMEDIATELY SURRENDER THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO A BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF TO BE HELD UNTIL IT CAN BE DELIVERED TO PL'S COMPUTER EXPERT, SO THAT PL'S CAN EXAMINE AND COPY THE INFORMATION ON THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT; WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THIS RECEIPT OF THE ORDER..."

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that requiring the defendant to turn over his computer(s) to - in essence - the plaintiff, opens the door for the plaintiff to go on a "fishing expedition" in violation of Skupa's privacy rights. A fishing expedition, for the uninitiated, occurs when a movant is allowed to go looking around for ANYTHING - related or unrelated to the action under which the discovery is being conducted - that might be used to cast the respondent in an unfavorable light. This creates a situation of causing prejudice that would otherwise not be "due" to the defendant.

In this respect the Skupa case is similar to many of the RIAA cases, and there's some caselaw to suggest that the defendant should be allowed to turn over his computer to a neutral third party for 'directed' inspection' at the plaintiff's expense. This puts the burden on the plaintiff to specify just which information is being sought and as such can be turned over to the plaintiff. I believe it is in the Tanya Anderson case, but don't have time to look it up right now. More info on the RIAA cases can be found here

I find it interesting that Vern would be "stealing" tactics from a legal effort that DayJet's Iacobucci was board overseer to. And ironic, too. Ed has spent over $200 million starting up a business built around Vern's product - a product which Vern has provided in incomplete, crippled form, and very late - to the detriment of DayJet. I gotta think that Ed is thinking pretty strongly about suing Vern right about now.

Vern really is an albatross around Eclipe's neck right now. If I was on the Eclipse board of directors (and I'm NOT), I'd be thinking of giving Vern a going-away present (something appropriate), contingent on Vern stepping down...

Would you like the combo?
IANAL

airtaximan said...

"An egotist who truly believes there is no such thing as bad publicity."

perhaps compared to whats coming, this IS good publicity?

I can only imagine.

Dave said...

Since Eclipse insists on reaping the whirlwind, here's another website people should become familiar with:
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/casemanagement/
By the way, does Perry Denker still work for Eclipse? It's also funny that while he's been CEO of Eclipse taking people on flights, he's had to take traffic school...not exactly confidence-building going up on a flight with someone who has to take remedial lessons on driving a car. Since Vern and Eclipse want to pursue obtaining people's *private* information, it's only reasonable for them to expect more digging into Eclipse's *public* information will happen...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Fishy Lessons in Critical Thinking, Part Deux

So the other day (24th) another of our intrepid bloggers (john) provided stats gleaned from reports in the public domain that DayJet has suggested 85 aircraft flying 5 or more revenue flights per day, each, as breakeven point – in other words, 425 revenue flights, per day, or nearly 2,000 revenue flights per week.

Based on the recent work analyzing DayJet flight patterns analysed by ‘moriarty’, we are seeing some interesting things emerge.

Basically, DJ is at 35% of the breakeven fleet size, but only 7.5% of the breakeven flight ratio (and that is taking credit for all flights over 10 minutes that land at a different airport).

Specifically, DJ has suggested 5 revenue flights per day as one element of breakeven and review of posted flight activity (excludes training and flights under 10 minutes) suggests an average of .8 to .85 hours per flight.

Using the numbers that DJ itself has reportedly provided, the existing fleet, even allowing 3 aircraft as spares (10%), should be seeing about 675 revenue flights per week, instead of the current average of under 150 (total flights, likely includes many deadhead/repositioning flights).

As an aside, about 6 aircraft of the 28 aircraft are doing the heavy lifting, and the highest time aircraft, only has about 160 hours on it (via FlightAware), TOTAL, after 30 weeks of operation.

So, if DJ is seeing 20% of the volume it needs to see on the 30 planes it already has, we can probably safely assume that capacity is not a constraint for DJ. The issue would appear to be demand.

Now if memory serves, DJ was on the books for around 230 firm orders, 70 firm options, and then another 1100 psuedo options.

Since Eclipse and their shenanigans have effectively redefined industry terminology such as ‘order’ and ‘delivery’, I think we can add a new term every now and then (you know, the goose and the gander).

Since DJ is operating in Florida and the likelihood of the pseudo options ever being exercised seems to go down each and every week, let us call those 1100 pseudo-option aircraft ‘floptions’.

So DJ is on the books for 230 firm 'orders' (30 of which have been 'delivered', and the balance of which they were supposed to take delivery of in ’08 and I think ’09. Then there are the 70 'firm options' and of course, the 1100 ‘floptions’.

They (DJ) are seeing ~20% of the needed volume for the planes already there, if it were me I would probably not take the other 200 ‘firm’ orders I had on the books until I was seeing adequate demand, let alone the 'options' and ‘floptions’.

Then we hear, unexpectedly, through the grapevine, that there is another upcoming ‘special’ sale event for non-Avio NfG modified aircraft coming up. The ‘splanation offered was that EASA certification is late, which makes sense on the surface, but only the surface.

Our European bloggers, and those of us familiar with EASA and JAR-Ops know that an N registered plane can be flown in Europe by an individual for at least 6 months.

Now hold on cuz’ here is where we run into rampant speculation on my part, but it is an opinion based on 2 decades in industry and more programs than I care to count.

Eclipse says EASA certification will be done in Q3. Now my calendar skills have always been a little weak but 6 months from next Tuesday (4/29) would be November, almost the end of the year, and certainly AFTER the end of Q3.

So if Eclipse knows as we do, that individual European operators can take the planes right now, and that commercial European operators should be able to add the planes to their JAR-Ops manuals after the EASA certification that Eclipse ‘says’ will occur in September, it begs the question why ANY European Eclipse customer, individual or commercial, would not be ‘able’ to take their plane as Eclipse s’plained?

Hmmmmmmm.

Maybe it is NOT the Europeans after all, perhaps it is the DJ planes. After all, if you are not flying the ones you have enough to approach breakeven, why take delivery of more?

But then, if it is not the DJ planes, perhaps EASA certification will not be happening by Q3 ’08, maybe a LOT later. One recently published report at jets.ru suggested Q3 of ’09 - I originally attributed this to a typo or mistranslation.

Hmmmmmmm.

On the surface and from the limited data available in the public domain, it is not easy to say which is the answer to the question as to how a significant number of planes is reportedly suddenly available.

I smell something fishy, and no, it is not me.

Personally, I bet it is very likely that BOTH situations are true, and that Eclipse needs to move individuals who were planning on much later aircraft forward in order to keep cash coming in - key words being ECLIPSE, NEEDS, and CASH.

ASPCNDA DISCLAIMER – No NDA’s were harmed in the making of this opinion. Scenes appearing to place NDA’s in jeopardy were simulated.

ASPCNDA = American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Non Disclosure Agreements.

airtaximan said...

CW,

add to that, the probability that eclipse really had only around 500-700 real orders from customers other than Ed and Pieper...

So, how many real orders are left? How many people said: "sorry, no 60% deposit because the plane is really NOT being delivered any time soon" and "how many people said: "sorry, I am not accepting this plane in the condition it is in" ???

I'd say, eclipse has run out of deposit-marks.

Think about it - if there were only 700 real individual orders, and SOME were European individuals... how many already placed the 60% wager/unsecurred investment?

By my count, they called 400 for delivery in 2006... plus how many? A midnight special here, and call here and there since 2006... perhaps, the well IS dry? Perhaps there are just no individuals left..

Couple that with your "speculation" on Dayjet, and chalk another few hundred to Pogo-no-go... and Pieper and rest of the European delivery delays...

Whats left?

BricklinNG said...

Here's a short and sweet (short and sour, actually) on Dayjet, which reportedly has 260 employees.

1. With FICA, heath insurance etc. those employees probably cost around $1000 each per week for a total of $260,000 per week payroll.

2. Flying around 100 hours per week at maybe $1200/hour (generous estimate, but let's use it) brings in $120,000 per week.

How much more needs to be added to this analysis?

Shane said...

Coldwet,

You are one BOLD blogger, making me laugh like this:-

ASPCNDA = American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Non Disclosure Agreements.

But, I forgive you.

The reason I laugh is that NDA's (and INDA's) are used by The Great Raburn as a stick to 'beat' his long suffering staff with.

He fails, as I have always said he would, to understand the critical difference between LEADERSHIP and LOYALTY.

Provide people with a leader they can believe in, and they will follow. They will, and I can vouch for this personally, keep their mouths shut.

Browbeat your staff, cow them into 'false' submission and only one result can follow.

eclipsecriticng@gmail.com

Shane

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Shane,

I want to be clear that I do believe INDA's should be honored and respected.

I myself have been damaged in the past by employees of mine who did not respect their NDA's, and I have also been slandered and libeled in the past by a former employer, not just to those I worked with but also to the local paper.

I bring this up only to clarify that I understand Vern's concern here. The problem is that Vern's own behavior towards his employees, contractors and vendors appears to be the impetus if in fact there have been any violations of NDA's/INDA's.

As you say, the issue of loyalty. Loyalty is given, it is earned, and what we may be seeing is that it cannot be demanded, mandated or contracted.

Furthermore, a cursory review of the Aspen fiasco appears to indicate that Vern may not understand what an NDA/INDA does and does not actually cover. Worse yet, a review of nmcourts.com suggests that Eclipse has several problems potentially underway in Federal Court re: employment issues.

What does it all mean? Hard to say but it seems to me that he is more than willing to waste significant sums on litigation and then refuses to learn anything from it.

I am glad you enjoyed the ASPCNDA - I am partial to 'floptions' myself.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Occurs to me I have not passed on deserved Kudo's to Ringtail and Mrs. Ringtail for standing up and giving Vern hell.

Well done and good luck.

baron95 said...

Re EASA Certification...

Shane Price said...
Baron,

I think Jan answered your question to me.

Without certification, the E500 is useless here.


Actually, quite the contrary, Shane. Jan's point is that it is common practice for a US registrered plane with a US CoA by the FAA to be flown indefinetely by European owners in Europe. (see below)

jan.brill@pilotundflugzeug.de said...
baron,

apologies but I have to correct your assumption here. N-reg is not a problem in europe if done correctly (10-20% of EU GA-airplanes are N-reg, legally, via established true and tried trust companies providing this service for decades).


Thanks for the correction Jan. I thought it would be more problematic to fly them beyond the 6-months grace period, but, since you indicated that there are companies in Europe already providing this service for lots of planes, it does not appear to be a heavy burden.

Jan said
- No G400 = no BRNAV = no IFR in central europe
- No RVSM = no flight > FL 295 = no range to speak


Jan the EA500 is RSVM certified already.

Re G400, you are absolutely correct. The issue is not lack of EASA certification, it is the (current) lack of minimum avionics equipment to fly IFR in Europe. It should be a low risk effort for Eclipse to add the G400s to the pannel, but knowing Eclipse they'll find a way to screw that up too.

But, as you probably know, ALL the older planes flying IFR in Europe (from Hawkers to King Airs to Citations to 421s) are doing so with an aftermarket B-RNAV/A-RNAV avionics upgrade. That route could be open to EA500 European owners via a 337-equivalent field upgrade or STC (by ETIRC maybe) in case Eclipse delays it too much (I am assuming that ETIRC would presure Eclipse to remove the restriction on field pannel upgrades from the TC, which is ridiculous to begin with).

So, really, while lack of EASA certification can hinder sales and delivery to European buyers somewhat, it is by no means a show stopper. Getting the G400 certified by the FAA is actually more important to European buyers than the EASA certification.

MetalGuy said...

IMHO, there will always be some information leakage in any company, especially while a company is under stress due to schedule, performance, financial issues, etc...

The problem with Eclipse is that this is not a transitory state – this state is the status quo.

Keep this state up for 10 years and some things ARE going to leak out. This is just human nature. Punish and threaten your employees, the good ones call BS and leave. It also is a major deterrent to attracting new talent.

What do you think the top talent at Cessna thinks about this whole thing? Wanna go work for Vern now? Thought not.

This cycle then causes the initial problems become even worse. I suspect that is why things seem to have slowed way way down from a certification perspective. Any bets how long it will take to get the “off-the-shelf” G400 certified?

It’s just one of many ways to kill a company.

(By the way, the correct response to information leakage is simply to sit down and have a serious, but private talk with the employee involved. It really is that simple. And it keeps your company off of the front page for, um, less than positive reasons.)

-

Is the source law suit that leads to the subpoena actually sealed? If so, why? What does it take to un-seal it so everyone can actually see what’s going on?

airsafetyman said...

"That route could be open to EA500 European owners via a 337-equivalent field upgrade or STC (by ETIRC maybe) in case Eclipse delays it too much (I am assuming that ETIRC would presure Eclipse to remove the restriction on field pannel upgrades from the TC, which is ridiculous to begin with)."

If a US registered aircraft is modified it has to be done by an AD note compliance, an FAA-approved manufacturer's service bulletin, a Form 337 that the FAA has signed off on, or a Supplemental Type Certificate. I'm sure there are responsible FAA- approved avionics shops in Europe that could come up with either a 337 or an STC than could win FAA approval. Would you trust your neck to something ETRIC came up with? I wouldn't. On the issue of modifying the Type Certificate, that is the sole responsibility of the FAA. A small point with manufacturers who have a good working relationship with the FAA. That may exclude Eclipse at this point.

MetalGuy said...

So here’s a poser for you:

Mr. (using the term lightly) Rayburn in his letter to the employee’s states:

”Mr. Skupa made claims (presented as facts) with respect to DayJet that were inaccurate and false..”

”Unfortunately Mr. Skupa did not apparently care about hurting not only you but also our partner, DayJet.”

”The price of ignoring and violating INDAs is very high and permanent, as Mr. Skupa is now discovering.”

Has anyone caught onto a major disconnect here? Anyone? Pay attention Mr. Skupa’s lawyer..

If Mr. Skupa’s claims were FALSE, how could he have violated his INDA by releasing confidential information?

Eclipse Board of Directors – are you listening to this non-sense?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Metalguy,

I have wondered the same thing. Near as I can tell the actual complaint is one about a suit between Eclipse and a vendor. The only 'new' vendor lawsuit on nmcourts.com appears to be with a company called Composite Systems Inc., and that name does not ring a bell nor does it appear on the web pages available at the internet archive wayback machine.

I find it interesting that Vern and crew think I have anything to do with NDA's related to a company I don't know anything about - but this IS Eclipse, so expect disruption, oops I mean disruptive.

What's funny is I have ZERO insight into what the issue was, what this vendor supposedly made, or what supposedly happened, and yet I end up the subject of a subpeona along with a couple dozen other bloggers from both the Critic and the Faithful camps.

To quote Johnny Cochran's 'Chewbacca Defense', "It does not make sense."

Being that I am a betting man, my put is that Eclipse sees this as an opportunity to try and create a chilling effect on criticism, and this is the only transparency we have seen from Vern since he promised it many years ago. That is why they will lose to our motion to quash, and will be very embarrased.

ASPCNDA DISCLAIMER – No NDA’s were harmed in the making of this opinion. Scenes appearing to place NDA’s in jeopardy were simulated.

gadfly said...

Coldfish

http://www.compositemfg.com/aerpspace.htm

At your service!

gadfly

(There are no secrets to those who wish to look in the right places! . . . this came directly from Google. Simply type in "Composite Systems, Inc.", "search" . . . first hit . . .then on their "home page", select "aerospace" . . . read applications,etc. Things begin to "connect". Voila! . . . all from within my cave, deep in the bowels of the Sandia Mountains. Adios, amigos!)

chickasaw said...

Cold wet,

Is there a way to read the Breach of Contract complaint? I know about the presentation given by Composite. I also have my opinions about the process as presented. I have been processing automated systems for 25 years in 7 countries.

John said...


DayJet Utilization Graphs uploaded as Flickr images

Gunner said...

DayJet and Ed Iacobucci. Been pondering that one a bit.

In past, I've tended to support Ed as being aside and apart from the scam that has become Eclipse. I have to stick with that position, even today.

Ed deserves a great deal of credit. He envisioned a business model that will, some day, come to exist. He put his money where his mouth was. He moved forward despite the cost and utility cards he was dealt from the bottom of Vern's deck.

Most important, he has not resorted to the public attacks, the investment hype and the media misrepresentation that sets the Vernster apart. He's shown humility and a sense of humor thruout.

I don't think DayJet will survive in its present model. I'm certain it will not reach the growth that was hoped a year ago. Regardless, Ed gets a pass (from me) for playing the game straight up. If he fails, it's only because the promised technology simply wasn't there to support the dream.

Many of us believed in that technology in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006. We've since learned that it was mostly sleight of hand. This hardly makes us complicit in the scam.

Iacobucci listened to Vern and then made the mistake of believing only what fit his dream of the future. I've done it, too. Most of us have, I'm sure.

Best wishes that Ed and DayJet pull a successful business plan out of the hand they've been dealt. Good luck, Ed!

Gunner

flyger said...

I solved the apparent contradiction in the lawsuit. That is, how can the lawsuit be breach of employment contract, but yet everything on this blog is overt lies.

Well, if everything Vern says is an overt lie, and the employee leaks that to the blog, then it is both a breach and a lie at the same time.

Seems to fit the situation perfectly!

MetalGuy said...

ColdWet said: The only 'new' vendor lawsuit on nmcourts.com appears to be with a company called Composite Systems Inc.

I assume case D-202-CV-200802624 is the one for the Google subpoena. It shows as currently sealed. If there is a way of getting that opened, the public might be able to see what the public has been charged with.

Niner Zulu said...

One of my good friends and a well-known attorney, emailed me yesterday and told me to "stay out of trouble" until he returns on May 15th from a trip to Europe, where he is teaching law.

I told him "Ha Ha"...he was too late - that Eclipse meant to find out the true identity of Niner Zulu (insert dramatic sound effects here...) after which they would hunt me and my family down like wild dogs, cut off our heads and mount them on poles (using small poles for my children, of course) outside of the entry to the Eclipse factory as a warning to all those who would oppose the almighty (and soon to be ex-) CEO of Eclipse.

My guess is I am not going to be in need of my friends' legal services. Either Vern occupies himself with the business of building aircraft and running a business, or he occupies himself filing lawsuit after lawsuit against bloggers, vendors and ex-employees. Lawsuits are not the kind of thing you hand off to underlings - Eclipse's many lawsuits are likely occupying way too much of Vern's time, so much so that Eclipse's future is probably in jeopardy.

One person can only do so much. Time for Vern to choose what his legacy will be.

Gunner said...

9Z-
Vern's legacy is already pretty much set. Just look at the what has become of the famed AvioNfG; or look at the listings on Controller; or look at the press he's receiving over the latest round of The Blame Game.

MetalGuy-
I'm not an attorney, but clearly one of the dilemma's that will occupy the Judge's time regarding the subpoena is that fact that it casts an extraordinarily wide net; yet it emanates from a NM Complaint that even the Defendants of the subpoena haven't seen as yet.

I think, in time, we'll all be viewing what is in that NM complaint. And I think it'll make as much sense as the Skupa suit.

YMMV-
Gunner

airtaximan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
airtaximan said...

Dayjet...

Seems like we would already know by now if this could work.

Seems like the umbers show, it does not work.

Seems like its not really related to the plane. Unless for some reason, they need to have half their planes in the garage all the time.

Seems like, this could have been tried with another plane?

The important elements, are "personalized" itineraries and personalized air travel for very short hops... and afofrdability, arguably enabled by a "small jet" that could carry a passenger or two or three on their schedule(s)...

The interesting part is the (s) in schedule(s).

If you do not have enough demand, seems like the "window" to fly folks in the same plane needs to be pretty wide open to drive any sort of load facotr/profitability.

Imagine passenger A needs to be somewhere at 9AM, and two others show up to fly to the same place at noon and at 2PM. Seems like this is how it could work. Except its extremely inconvenient for everyone to adjust, to be on the same plane. Increase the chances of making money by imposing a stop - which diminishes convenience further.

Close the window, and the price goes way up, so affordability is compromised.

Personalization is out the window, so to speak... so is affordability.

At the destination, you need a car, and you need to still drive to the "meeting".

Anyhow, for folks whose time is of such value that they cannot afford the time to drive, it would appear they cannot really afford the time and cost to Dayjet, either.

Alternatively, why not rent a baron at 1/4 the cost.. perhaps an SR22... the argument is these prop planes and small and they have props. Have you seen the eclipse? Its really small. OK, it has 2 pratts, but more people are flying Cirrus, Kingair and Baron today than Eclipse taxi's by far.

Someone help me see how this could work.

Also, wasn't this pretty obvious to begin with? Couldn't it have been tested with another plane? I just can't imagine anyone thought the VLJ (except for the massive marketing hype) would revolutionize air travel a la Dayjet. Ed eventually said it was his computer program that ws "revolutionary" not the plane - OK, why not test it with proven equipment?

Then again (this is why I really like this blog)... then again, there ARE quite a lot of folks doing Dayjet - just perhaps not nearly as many as they thought. It appears as if there needs to be many more "ports" opened up for it to get any traction, compared to the original plan. So the 5 Dayport to dayport plan is a failure... and the efficiency might be lower, and the loads might be lower given more and more destinations required to make it work... and justify buying more planes. Open more ports, decrease efficiency... buy more planes... do I have this correct?

scratch...scratch...

BricklinNG said...

ATM

Maybe you are correct that the numbers are just too small to generate enough potential customers within a narrow enough time window to create an acceptable value proposition.

So perhaps if the idea and the computer system should be tried at all it should be nationwide with many participating charter/management operations where the airplanes are not specifically owned for the Dayjet operation, but rather are owned by companies looking to spread their ownership costs over some charter hours. Maybe one could even rope in the owners, saying, "try participating in this novel system and when we fly with 1 passenger you will get a nominal amount but when we fill your Citation with 6 passengers you will get $1000 per hour, net. You know the numbers. The idea would be to avoid huge fixed costs of ownership and to have built in cost relief for poorly loaded flights. If it worked and business volume built to a reasonable level then everyone would be happy and there would still be a mechanism for the odd flight with only one passenger. If it did not work, well at least there would not have been 30 or 50 airplanes purchased with consequent losses by investors.

John said...


Satsair and Dayjet operations

Graph comparing Dayjet fleet hours and Satsair "equivalent" hours.

I divided Satsair fleet hours by 0.57 to correspond to difference in cruising speed (160 v. 280 between the craft used by the two fleets). Hence the hours should be good proxy for total miles flown.

I suspect that Dayjet passenger loading may be slightly higher than the Satsair. I have no idea if empty leg hours are different.

John said...

The Dayjet assumption was that passenger demand would exceed fleet capacity. This implies that a fast jet able to service more passengers in a shorter time would have competitive advantage.

Virtually all Dayjet flights are served by a jet leaving the home ports. Most of these jets only make one 3-4 leg trip per day. This is 4 leg routing is Home>Pickup>Dropoff>Home. Why would someone bid >$4 on an exact pickup time, when the fleet is underutilized.

Dayjet has no reason not to appear at the preferred time, since there is no other work for the jet that day. The rational passenger just as well bid should bid the minimum pricing, since there is no scheduling conflict.

Satsair is offering flights at about $600/hour. This is 'equivalent' cost to about $1000/hour in the faster jet. There will be well-heeled lobbyists willing to pay more than >$1000/hour for the prestige of flying in the jet. I suspect most utility passengers on short hauls prefer a committed pickup time, and the smaller dollar outlay. The total time scheduled on the short trips will be less with an exact pickup time, and the speed advantage of the jet is lost in taxi time, intermodal shifts and the like.

Dayjet appears to have found a regular passenger set wanting to fly from southern Florida to Hilton Head on Fridays or holidays and returning Mondays. This likely means that Dayjets actual passenger base is very wealthy vacationers, rather than the "road warrior" target.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I wonder if investors, employees and customers would have an actionable cause if it were to come out that Eclipse leadership has knowingly misrepresented the situation, privately and or publicly?

How many times have they said certification was imminent only to see it slide?

How about saying the planes were not at AOPA because they were 'busy' in flight test when the planes were reportedly grounded?

At what point does marketing spin become fabrication?

At what point does the desire to find the silver lining in any cloud become a lie?

At what point does the lie of ommision become obfuscation?

Why has Eclipse seen so much turnover in the executive team in just 6 or 7 years?

Why has Eclipse seen so many 'failures' on the part of vendors it once claimed to be indsutry leading world class partners - companies which continue to have succesful relationships with most of the OEM's in aerospace?

Why have the broader aviation media not been allowed to fly and report on the Eclipse 500?

Why does Eclipse seek to unmask a group of bloggers, some of whom have been extraordinarily supportive of Eclipse - when the real challenges it faces are related to design, manufacturing, certification and delivery?

These questions exist not because of things reported, suggested or discussed on this or any other blog. They are at their root the result of decisions and actions taken or not taken, by Eclipse itself.

We have said it before and I will say it again - this blog would cease to be relevant or even exist if Eclipse actually did what it says it wanted to do, and in some cases has milseadingly claimed it has done.

Finish the design, get the planes fully functioning and certified, and deliver them - success will silence we critics faster than any legal maneuvering or Potato Gang intimidation.

As we have repeatedly said, we want to see the industry (aerospace) and the undertaking (flying) we all enjoy and are committed to protected from any damage from charlattans, hooligans, thugs and liars.

Many of us have also stated repeatedly that we want to see Eclipse succeed, even if it means Vern takes some truly undeserved sense of vindication or validation from it. We want to see the families of those who have sacrificed so much rewarded, not threatened by a bombastic and unstable CEO. We want to see customers receive the planes some have been waiting almost a decade for.

It will not be this or any blog that prevents that from happening, it will be the continued misapplication/misappropriation of limited resources of time, energy and money by Vern Quixote jousting windmills for his beloved Dulcinea.

airtaximan said...

John,

estimated reveue hours per plane in the fleet

estimated revenue per plane (average) using the price/mile average for Dayjet and the price/hr for Satsair

would be good to see.

BTW, I would make a disclaimer that these numbers are based solely on your interpolation of publicly available information - otherwise, you may find yourself on the hitlist - this stuff is pretty dammaging.

airtaximan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jan.brill@pilotundflugzeug.de said...

Jan the EA500 is RSVM certified already.

Unfortunately things are not that simple in Europe. The crew needs to be certified as well. Usually this is part of the Type-Rating and the national CAAs are ok with that (not yet within EASA's jurisdiction).
The training-syllabus for the EA500 I have access to, does not contain specific information on RVSM-Ops, so the requirement is not met.
However, my training-information might be outdated, so please correct me if this has been included by now.


So, really, while lack of EASA certification can hinder sales and delivery to European buyers somewhat, it is by no means a show stopper. Getting the G400 certified by the FAA is actually more important to European buyers than the EASA certification.

Yes, exactly my point. Private owners may fly N-reg if the G400 is approved by the FAA and a few other requirements are met, such as Mode-S enhanced surveillance. Eclipse has so far not confirmed they do enhanced-surveillance, as required by AIC IFR 7 (23 Jan. 2003) for airplanes >250 kts and/or >5.700 kg.


Let me clarify my point about who can and who can not fly N-reg in Europe. Without EASA-certification the commercial market remains closed to Eclipse, since you can not put an N-reg airplane on a JAR-OPS operating-certificate.

Private owners however my fly indefinitely with their airplane in a trust-company if the above mentioned requirements are met.


To close on a practical note: I'm not aware of 1 (one) firmly scheduled delivery to any customer located within the german speaking countries in Europe (DE, AT, CH).

regards,
Jan Brill

jan.brill@pilotundflugzeug.de said...

Let me add to my above statement "so the requirement is not met."

This is not my conclusion, this the the reply of two CAAs (Germany and Austria) when asked about the legal status of an EA500 flying within ECAC-RVSM-airspace (US-register & FAA-licensed crew).

Now this sounds worse than it is: Any properly certified FTO (Flight Training Organization) could easily offer an RVSM add-on for FAA- and JAR-licensed Eclipse-Pilots.
This has been done before and would probably take two days of classroom-training (so Sim, no flight required). I'm sure if there were any EA500s to be seen around here, this would be offered within months. As of now however it is not.

It is the case with many such requirements in Europe: If you ask around long enough you'll certainly find someone to say "no".
I'm sure if a US-pilot with maybe an FAA-RVSM-certified Cheyenne 400 on his vacation in Europe submits a flightplan for FL300 no one would care and no one would ask for his mandated training (it is silly after all, and they know it).
However, if you're based here, you'll get closer attention ...


Regards,
Jan Brill

airtaximan said...

Satsair is single pilot...I think. Lease 3 passenger seats... with limited range... but that sounds awfully familiar.

Anyhow, Bricklinng seems like an insightful guy for a failed startup car manufacurer!

;)

I wonder how the charter companies would react to the proposition of offering per-seat pricing in ever day equipment... driving load factor and increasing utilization.

Seems like this would be a no-brainer, but for the problem of finding enough passengers.

Then again, it would make for a nice test, at someone elses expense on the equipment side.

... unless there's a connection between Dayjet and Eclipse we do not fully comprehend.

Nimbus was a stock deal to drive eclipse sales... I wonder if Ed and VErn are so closely tied, that its a "friendly" order for planes amongst mutual beneficiarie, who just forgot to disclose mutual ownership interest.

Just speculating, here... no knowledge...I'd even say just stream of concienousness typing out loud.

BUT, it would explain a lot. Ed says its his computers that enables the taxi model... and the plane is secondary. So?

If BricklinNG can come up with a plan, ya think Edcoulda reduced the risk by a few hundred million dollars, and fallen to the same conclusion?

Perhaps it depends more on what they "owe to their investors".

Just perhaps....

Turboprop_pilot said...

ATM:

There has to be more- I received a prospectus from Linear Air a few years ago and they described their plan for air taxi using Eclipse, with business & route proving with Caravans. The Caravans seem to have worked well in a conventional charter business, the Eclipses ???

Isn't DayJet really just Nimbus NG (NfG)?

With Ed's Russian ant farmers and the existence of Satsair, wouldn't a real company have started with a Cirrus equivalent?

As an aside, don't there seem to be a lot of Russians hanging around the two companies?

Turboprop_pilot

airtaximan said...

TP,


I have not cracked the code on the russian connection, BUT, I sincerely believe Pieper is a very important link to the whole thing.

I think:

Eclipse and Dayjet management (Vern and Ed) go way back... cirix was bought by microsoft - was Vern involved? I am not sure.

Pieper ran a company doing voice recognition in europe for a while. I am pretty sure so initial investors in Dayjet were associates of Pieper... but I cannot really remember who told me this, or where I heard it. If someone digs, I am convinced Ed and Pierer will be connected, and then there's the Eclipse/Pieper connection.

I love the idea that Pieper's european company was accused of bilking millions from investors, as was Ed's company, Citrix.

Someone here keeps bringing up SCO or something... whats the connection there? I have no cliue.

dig into
Lernout & Hauspie, a Flemish company in speech technology

airtaximan said...

from Wikipedia:

"For some time Lernout & Hauspie was dogged by rumours of financial impropriety, and in early 1999 the Wall Street Journal, column ran allegations in its Heard on the Street by Goldman Sachs analyst Robert Smithson that earnings had been overstated. Further investigation by Wall Street Journal staffer Jesse Eisinger led to the revelation on 8 August 2000 of a major financial scandal involving fictitious transactions in Korea and improper accounting methodologies elsewhere. In April 2001 founders Jo Lernout and Pol Hauspie, as well as former CEO Gaston Bastiaens, were arrested in what is considered one of the largest corporate scandals in history prior to Enron. Lernout & Hauspie finally went bankrupt on 25 October 2001 after having struggled for a year."


to be fair:

"November 2000 he became Chairman of the Board of Lernout & Hauspie, a Flemish company in speech technology. Pieper was instrumental to discover a financial scandal at the company which had occurred in the period 1996-1999. In cooperation with the Belgian authorities, Pieper assisted to secure all information that ultimately led to the formal accusation of the founders Jo Lernout and Pol Hauspie. Pieper left as Chairman of the board after the shareholders deciced to appoint a new CEO."

was he involved?

airtaximan said...

lastly, I think Microsoft was a major investor in Lernout & Hauspie. So... it would appear that Ed, Vern and Pieper go WAY back... and have been involved in significant shennanigans together.

While its nice to think Pieper brought the situation to a head at LH, I think he was a board member for quite some time while the investors were being lied to...

- perhaps there's an easier way to make a small cheap jet plane? and fly it for passenger service?

Maybe not.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So, since Vern fired the first shot I figured it is only fair to return the favor.

I spent some time today going back over my ‘secret’ sources re: brake and tire issues, actuator issues, CAS messages, landing gear failures, trim runaways, autopilot failures, flight control rigging issues, and all the problems with poor quality assembly.

Imagine my surprise to see there are even more indications of recurrent issues with brakes, tires, trim failures, autopilot issues, and the like.

Does not paint a pretty picture.

And which NDA did I violate to come up with this? How is it that I know so much about these repetitive failures? Outright lies? Hurtful fabrications?

Do I have some sneaky inside source?

Yes, I do. It is called the FAA Service Difficulty Reporting database.

Check out (http://av-info.faa.gov/isdr/SDRQueryResults.asp?vB=IE&cD=32) if you want to spend some time reading the reports that DayJet has filled out.

Be sure and pack a lunch though, there are 83 of them, since last July. Yes, 83 - in 10 months.

Issues with the door lock warning, issues with blown tires on landing, issues with brakes, issues with runaway or excessive trim, poor flight control rigging, cabin pressurization issues and more.

If these issues are popping up with such regularity, and on some aircraft with less than 20 hours on them, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that rushing incomplete tin out the door actually has bad repercussions.

I can only imagine how these failures reflect on DJ with their customers. “Welcome aboard Mr. Big, we’ll be taking off now – oh, why are we returning to the terminal? We uh, have uh, a message on the PFD, well we HAD a message on the PFD, before it started smoking anyway.”

How much more attention do you want Vern? Once you start involving Federal Agencies there will never be a shortage of PUBLIC information available. Like the FAA incident reports.

I think I feel like more reading.

baron95 said...

jan.brill@pilotundflugzeug.de said...
The training-syllabus for the EA500 I have access to, does not contain specific information on RVSM-Ops, so the requirement is not met.


I don't have access to the training sylabus, but RSVM is at the top of every FAA or designated examiner for the type rating. Either way, if the Eclipse factory training were not sufficient, an European crew could just take a RSVM training course in Europe, as all the existing fleet crews had to do.

Black Tulip said...The safety record turned out badly with a quarter of the fleet lost to accidents. But this is more complicated than it seems.

No it was not. Lear tried to apply for single pilot operation, but was denied because of extremely high pilot workload. The airplane had very high V-speeds, because Lear made a decision to go for speed above all else. The plane's aerodynamics were a handfull, and are a handful even for well trained crews and even after all the "fixes".

Fact is that Lear could have gone for a C500 type plane - straighter wings, lower V-speeds, more modest runway requirements, more margin when flying high, and sacrifice some speed for it. He could have designed a lower workload cockpit. He just chose not too, or didn't have the ability to do it.

The GII and later the C500/501/502 series were introduced with stellar safety records. The fact that the Lear 23 had such an atrocious safety record, negates ALL other virtues. No plane that kills such a high percentage of its pilots and passengers can be "good" or "successful".

If EA500s were crashing at a rate of 1 a month, that would eclipse (no pun intended) all the other conversations in this blog.

A successful new plane needs (in this order):
1 - Lots of money
2 - More money.
3 - Some more money.
4 - An excellent safety record.
5 - Sound airframe/aerodynamics.
6 - A great engine.
7 - Great avionics, low workload cockpit.
8 - Good after sales support.

Eclipse is OK though 6, outclassed in 7, TBD on 8.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

In case anyone is curious about the number of SDR reports for the Mustang, TBM700 or PC-XII during the same time, here is the answer, 1, 1, and 15.

There ya have it Vern, direct comparison to Cessna, Socata and Pilatus. Your preemie jet has reported incidents at a rate nearly 5 times higher than the 3 planes it is most commonly compared to, COMBINED.

Dave Ivedorne said...

ATM-

I keep talking *around* a SCO connection, yet that's what brought me here in the first place. I avoid speaking to it directly because:
1 - It's too complex to describe briefly and make it understandable,
2 - With one very peripheral exception, it really doesn't bear on Eclipse's situation, and
3 - While there are those who have followed the adventures of SCO who see no end of Microsoft-guided conspiracy WRT SCO, I'm of the belief that Microsoft participated in what it viewed as an opportunity. I'm of no opinion as to whether hidden hands from the Pacific Northwest caused the "opportunity" to come into their view.

I said it couldn't be done, but I'm still stupid enough to take a little simplification-license in an attempt to summarize: SCO was a nearly bankrupt company that tried to revive itself selling "licenses to avoid litigation". Conveniently, the licenses were related to Linux, which might be described as Microsoft's #1 long-term enemy. The rhetoric coming out of the CEO's mouth was designed to inflame and to drive a massive pumping of the stock value. It worked - briefly - when Microsoft bought a license, and a fairly sizeable one. Ed was chair of the litigation committe on SCO's Board of Directors. Ed's problem then - as now - was that he didn't find enough customers.

The trial for one of the lawsuits starts this Tuesday.

Moving on to #s 2 & 3, there sure are an awful lot of ex-Microsofties at DayJet & Eclipse. Deep examination of the financial relationships surrounding SCO & their litigation also turned up a lot of ex-Microsofties. I'm of the opinion that it is a simple matter of familiarity & proximity among a lot of very wealthy individuals. Mine is not the universal opinion.

I did notice a very curious coincidence between Ed's relationship with DayJet in pre-startup mode and SCO in Public Rhetoric mode:
In July 2003, SCO's CEO said, "we had the three teams - one was a set of high-end mathematicians, rocket scientist, modeling type guys. Another team was based on standard programmer types. A third team were really spiffy on agent technology and how all of this technology was built in the first place."

On DayJet, Ed's schtick sounded reeeallll familiar:
"This is hundreds of cities, thousands of salesmen, and hundreds of vehicles, and we have to resolve it not with hours and days of computer time but almost instantly." The fledgling business hired "a couple of complexity science guys" to develop its transportation model",
and separately:
"Instead of a supercomputer, Iacobucci has two Russian mathematicians, Eugene Taits and Alex Khmelnitsky, stashed in a windowless room down the hall working on an algorithm they believe will solve the problem. At DayJet, everyone calls them the rocket scientists."

I'm dubious about exactly who paid for them, and how. I'm of the opinion that the folks at SCO were calling them their "rocket scientists" as well.

Other than that last one (which is admittedly very peripheral & tenuous) I see almost no linkage between SCO & Eclipse/DayJet. There is a hell of a lot of linkage between Microsoft and Eclipse/DayJet though, and those of us who have been following the Utah scene simply *love* bashing Microsoft.

;-)

Would you like a frosty treat?
IANAL

airtaximan said...

baron,

"Fact is that Lear could have gone for a C500 type plane - straighter wings, lower V-speeds, more modest runway requirements, more margin when flying high, and sacrifice some speed for it. He could have designed a lower workload cockpit. He just chose not too, or didn't have the ability to do it."

you know, you make a lot of damn sense... Kudos.

I have always said if it was designed as a taxim plane, thr e-500 would be a different plane...

Every company makes decisions regarding elements of value...

Eclipse f___ked up royally....

airtaximan said...

CW,

remind me to never piss you off...

brilliant

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

ATM,

Unless you are planning to subpoena me for things I am unrelated to, to disparage the real innovators and successes and threaten the industry I love, you have nothing to worry about me 'wasting my life' with you in the crosshairs.

Niner Zulu said...

For those of you who are afraid to post on this blog out of fear of being added to the Eclipse hit list, here's how to do it and remain anonymous:

Assuming you have a laptop computer (and WIFI), you can go to your local coffee shop or any "hotspot" that has a free WIFI connection. Get on their network, set up a new Blogger name if you need to, and post away with no fear.

The above tip was provided by a friend in the software business. He also made the comment that Vern's recent rash of legal actions are likely to gain him nothing, other than perhaps some very bad publicity.

gadfly said...

“. . . other than perhaps some very bad publicity.”

Perhaps! Perhaps?

The barn door is wide open . . . the horses, the cow, the pigs, the chickens . . . all long gone, or on their way out.

“Auntie Em’ . . . ‘hate you, ‘hate Kansas, taking the dog!” . . . signed, Dorothy.

gadfly

(“Auntie Em” is rumored to have already packed and on a train for Chicago. But the farm hands continue on.)

MetalGuy said...

Thanks CW, just to highlight to those that did not bring a lunch,

AND, for all of the media now watching this blog, just a sampling of why this blog exists:

“FAA Service Difficulty Reporting for Eclipse Aviation Eclipse 500 aircraft”

Sampling of the types of issues that have been reported:

- FAILED ENGINE COMPONENTS
- FAILED FLAP ACTUATORS
- SMOKE POURING INTO COCKPIT
- FAILED PRIMARY FLIGHT INSTRUMENT
- FAILED AIR DATA COMPUTER
- STUCK TRIM ACTUATOR
- LANDING GEAR ACTUATOR FAIL
- BRAKE FAILURES
- TIRE FAILURES
- FIRE EXTINGUISHER LEAKAGES
- OUTFLOW VALVE FAILURE
- UNCOMMANDED TRIM IN FLIGHT
- CHAFED HARNESS
- AHRS FAILURE
- EXCESSIVE AILERON BELL CRANK FRICTION
- GPS/DME FAILURE
- GROUND STEERING FAILURE
- PITCH TRIM FAILURES WITH EMERGENCY CONDITION
- RUNWAY TRIM

Quite a few have many reports of the same types of failures.

Source: (http://av-info.faa.gov/isdr/SDRQueryResults.asp?vB=IE&cD=32)


Perhaps this blog should not exist after all and we should all sit quietly on the side lines.

easybakeplane said...

ATM & Baron,

Don't let me slow down the lively discussion, but I'd like to add a couple of additional talking points to the Lear vs EAC thread:

1. Didn't Bill Lear use his own money to design and certify the first Learjet? (thereby causing him to use an existing (fighter) wing design with it's inherent flaws)

2. Weren't many of the early accidents caused by factors other than 'aerodynamics'? (EAC isn't out of the woods on this issue either I would say considering the systems issues being discussed)

3. Is a Corvette considered a failure and an Oldsmobile considered a success because one has more fatal accidents than the other; or do you expect one to have more fatalities due to its design point and customer base?

Dave Ivedorne said...

Easybake, B95 -

1 - I don't know if Lear financed design & cert himself, but take mild issue at the description of the wing as being inherently flawed. All design is a balancing of various factors, so what you call flawed might be more accurately characterized as compromised - all wings are compromises. No big deal, but I'm just sayin'...

The wing can only barely be called swept - though technically it is. For sake of comparison, this wing could also barely be called swept - but it didn't make it any easier to fly.

At any rate, there is pretty much no aircraft (except maybe an F-5)that a pilot would be moving up or down from, into the 23, that had basically the same flight characteristics.

2 - Stan would be the ultimate authority on this, and I'm an idiot to even try in the company of folks who actually know, but I think the early accidents would fall into two categories: pilots being in over their head, and aerodynamics.

Wasn't there a coupling issue that was resolved with fulltime use of a yaw damper?

And then there was the Mmo limitation that an unwary pilot could easily exceed at high altitudes if the throttles weren't scrupulously attended to. Maybe a bit of a coffin corner going on there, but I'm just spewing things I think I read or heard someplace dimly in the distant past.

As for single-pilot, I'll propose that if the Citation had been designed in 1963 its systems would have had to have been just as complex as the 23, rendering it just as (un)suitable for SPO. Extend that a bit, and it's possible that a new G550 is more suited to SPO than the first Citation was.

3 - What is this *Oldsmobile* of which you speak?

Would you like the combo?
IANAL

gadfly said...

Dave

Once in awhile we get back into the "technical" issues . . . and that is good. Considering the so-called "swept wing" of the Lear, keep in mind that the "E500" has a "forward" sweep, as pointed out by Stan well over a year ago. Although the wing "seems" to be straight, the average overall wing profile has a definite forward "sweep". It that good? . . . is that bad? . . . it all depends on the compromises that are being made in the overall design of high speed control, as opposed to low speed control, coupled with "rigidity" verses "flexibility" . . . and top speed (which doesn't seem to be of much concern, with this particular little bird). I leave it to others to make the decision.

gadfly

(For a reference, look at the early "Hansa" jet. And that's just about as "neutral" as I can be.)

Gunner said...

The revelations provided by CWMoR's research is something that everyone needs to pay attention to....especially the media types. His and Metalguy's last posts bear reread.

Ask yourself a couple questions:
On a fleet this young, are these issues of normal "teething problems" or a sign of SERIOUS Design/Manufacture/QA flaws that the GA community should know about?

Would you be comfortable taking delivery of one of these aircraft?
Gunner

Shane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shane said...

As you all know, things are pretty busy around here, since Vern lit the touchpaper...

One of the interesting side effects is the amount of DayJet mail I'm getting, most of it actually very positive about the company and it's founder.

It would seem that DayJet continues to expand, adding staff at 5 new airports, over and above those which were part of the original plan.

Now, I'm not a US resident, and have never even visited the South (shame on me....) but I hear from a reliable source that the following cities have been added to the 'staffed' list recently.

1. Naples, FL
2. Opa Locka, FL
3. Montgomery, AL
4. Macon, GA
5. Savanna, GA.


It may be that this business can progress quite smoothly, growing with less E500's than originally anticipate, and still make money.

Good news for Ed, not so good for Vern.

Shane

airsafetyman said...

The advantages of a swept wing over a straight wing of a given thickness is the elongated taper of a chord-wise section of the swept wing over the straight wing. The disadvantages would be the "dutch roll" tendency of the swept wing, so a yaw damper is a must. Lear managed to have a thin straight wing, as did the F-104. One disadvantage is that there is no place to put the fuel so you have to add tip tanks to get any kind of range and open yourself up to lateral imbalance issues if one tip tank doesn't feed and marked control "feel" changes as the fuel is burned out of the tips. The Falcon 20 was a contempory of the Lear. With its swept wings and no tip tanks it has enjoyed an excellent safety record.

airtaximan said...

Shane,

Don't get too excited, it looks like they had to open up those ports to make any kind of utilization happen.

Look at the per plane utilization...

Dave said...

A non-exhaustive list of sources to obtain public information on Eclipse freely and easily:

Google News:
http://news.google.com/

PACER (the only non-free resource, but it provides access to federal court documents):
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/

New Mexico Courts (the state courts as opposed to the federal courts on PACER):
http://www.nmcourts.com/caselookup/app

Bernalillo County Court (the county court where Eclipse is located):
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/casemanagement/

Bernalillo County Assessor Records Search (property records):
http://www.bernco.gov/property/default.asp?qpaction=search_form&type=situs

Bernalillo County Recorder Records Serach (other records):
http://eagleweb.bernco.gov:8080/recorder/eagleweb/docsearch.jsp

FAA (many separate databases that can be researched):
http://www.faa.gov/

New Mexico State Investment Council (provided financing to Eclipse, so releases public reports related to Ecliipse):
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/

There are numerous sources of public information regarding Eclipse and its performance. Eclipse has actually gotten comparatively mild blogger treatment compared to SCO (whom DayJet’s Iacobucci was intimately involved with as head of the board’s litigation committee). Rather than trying to SLAPP Eclipse bloggers, Eclipse should be praying that it doesn’t get each filing or government record pertaining to them ripped to shreds and widely covered on mulitiple blogs. SLAPP lawsuits only result in embarrassment (and frequently and financial cost too) for the one doing the SLAPPing…ask Barbra Streisand.

It wouldn’t hurt if people became familiar with SCO’s SLAPP actions trying to intimidate bloggers on different websites and message boards:
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660211011,00.html
http://www.eff.org/cases/merkey-v-yahoo-scox-groklaw-et-al
If you dig into the respective cases of SCO and Eclipse, you’ll see both CEOs say similar things and act similarly. Darl McBride of SCO is a headline-grabber making big claims but who was a poor manager resulting in the company going down the drain while burning millions of dollars and Vern Raburn seems very similar in grabbing loads of media attention making big claims while burning through the cash and appearing to be a poor manager. Both SCO’s and Eclipse’s problems are as old as time itself – poor management. The internet is merely the latest target that poor managers use to attempt to displace blame for their poor performance.

Eclipse may well have been a successful company by now and it still can be in the future, but I doubt that success will come with Vern at the helm. I believe the record speaks for itself – the combination of governmental public records and public statements made to the media by Eclipse.

Jim Howard said...

With respect to service Service Difficulty Reports, if I'm doing it right it appears that the score is as follows:

Eclipse 500: 81

Cessna 510: 1

I may be mistaken about this or perhaps Eclipse operators are more safety minded than Cessna operators and therefore file more SDRs.

Dave said...

I may be mistaken about this or perhaps Eclipse operators are more safety minded than Cessna operators and therefore file more SDRs.

It looks like almost every single one of Dayjet's aircraft has been reported as having some problem or another. It also looks like some of these incidents have probably been quite embarassing for Dayjet.

John said...

Dayjet 139 -- parting out?

N139DJ S/N 54 has 4 service difficulty records.

On 2/5/08, "Uncommanded trim in flight, on ground" is noted The rudder trim actuator is replaced.
FlightAware shows that Dayjet 139 had made a five leg trip KBCT > KSRQ > KTLH > KBCT > KGNV on 2/5/08 starting at 6:32 am and ending 6:17 pm. 139 returned to service on 2/12 flying to Macon.

On 2/26/08, "AILERONS STIFF, A/P HAS DIFFICULTY RESPONDING TO FD COMMANDS" is noted, and new bellcranks are installed.
Flightaware shows the last flight as 2/22/08, a three leg trip KGNV > KSAV > KAPF > KGNV. 139 returned to service on 2/27/08 flying to Ormond Beach and back to KGNV.

The very last flight listed for N139DJ is 3/13/08 when it made a four leg trip, KGNV >Tallahassee > Panama City > KGNV, starting 2:19 pm and ending 9:11 pm

Flightaware has no records past that date, but on 4/9/08 Dayjet 156 experienced a failure in its Air Data Computer [ADC], and the service record for the 156 problem states: INSTALLED SERVICEABLE ADC, WHICH WAS REMOVED FROM N139DJ NR 1 POSITION, AND INSTALLED IN NR 1 POSITION IAW AMM 34-10-15.

Looks like S/N 54 may be waiting for the AvioNG, or its may have become a parts loaner to keep the rest of the fleet aloft.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Jim,

I doubt it is a matter of operators of Mustang's, TBM's or PC-XII's not reporting problems - they basically have no problems to report.

The issue, especially if you read the reports themselves, appears to be extraordinarily unrealible components, potentially glitchy software, and poor assembly quality.

Several of the aircraft show recurrent issues with the main cabin door, the landing gear, the autopilot, the trim system, and primary flight controls binding up.

Those point to systems rushed into production before they were ready, and of shoddy, incomplete assembly in my opinion.

These problems appear to have risen to such an extent that Eclipse has had to respond with service engineering instructions for issues not adequately addressed in the basic maintenance documentation (read the descriptions and look for TR, TSR, etc.).

That begins to explain the large number of service Engineering job postings I have noted previously - the fleet is not showing itself to be problem free. DJ is the largest operator and has filed the equivalent of almost 3 Service Difficulty for each and every airplane it owns, in 10 months.

By comparison, there are actually more Mustangs in the field than there are Eclipse's currently owned by DJ. The Eclipse shows 83 SDR's, the Mustang shows 1, for the same period of operation.

Vern always wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as Cessna or Pilatus or Socata, but like so many things it is just not working out the way he expected.

That is a damning comparison.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Niner Zulu said...

Here are a few of the Service Difficulty Reports at the
FAA's website:

MOMENTARY APPLICATION OF RIGHT RUDDER TRIM RESULTED IN TRIM RUNNING AWAY FULL RIGHT. UNABLE TO GET ANY FURTHER TRIM MOVEMENT. REMOVED AND INSTALLED NEW RUDDER TRIM ACTUATOR...

AC EXPERIENCED A PITCH TRIM MALFUNCTION ON TAKEOFF ACCOMPANIED BY A WARNING MESSAGE. AN EMERGENCY WAS DECLARED AND THE AC WAS RETURNED TO BASE.

UNCOMMANDED TRIM IN FLIGHT, ON GROUND. ELEVATOR TRIM GOING UP AND DOWN AND SPLIT.

DURING CRUISE FLIGHT PASSENGER DOOR WARNING LIGHT CAS MESSAGE POSTED.

DOOR CAS MESSAGE ON AT 17,200 FEET ALTITUDE....

AFTER LIFT OFF, ON GEAR RETRACTION, GOT FOLLOWING INDICATIONS: FULL STALL WARNING, AIRSPEED MISCOMPARE, STICK PUSHER FAIL, CAPT'S AIRSPEED APPEARED NORMAL, F/O'S AIRSPEED WAS INDICATING 10-15 KTS SLOWER AND MATCHED NR 3 AIRSPEED. STALL WARNING CONTINUED TO TOUCHDOWN. AS PER PILOT THE 1ST OFFICERS DIGITAL READOUT WAS IN "RED" AND VARIED BETWEEN 120-115 KTS, AND STALL TAPE INDICATED UP TO 120 KTS, ALSO IN RED.

DISC NR 2-RT MAIN TIRE FAILED ON LANDING

MX LOG PG. NR 0829 DISC NR 3 STICK BINDS TOP CENTER 3 DEGREES TO EITHER SIDE OF CENTER WHEN INITIATING ROLL. NOTED IN FLIGHT, BOTH LT AND RT STICKS. WO 1098, NRI 1. REMOVED AND REPLACED RT AILERON BELLCRANK AND JOINT ASSEMBLY

NR 1 RT MAIN GEAR TIRE BLEW AT 60 KTS ON ROLLOUT ON LANDING, NO GRAB, NORMAL TOUCHDOWN.

PASSING THROUGH 18,000 FT, DOOR CAS MESSAGE CAME ON

EVIDENCE OF FIRE SUPPRESSION AGENT LEAKING INTO RIGHT ENGINE

NORMAL TAKEOFF GNV, ELECTRIC PITCH TRIM INOP ON CLIMB-OUT ( NO CAS MESSAGE).

LT BRAKE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR ON LANDING. RAPID PUMPING RESULTED IN SLIGHT BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS. DID NOT TO FULL PEDAL UNTIL ON RAMP

LANDING GEAR FAIL AMBER CAS MESSAGE ILLUMINATED ON TAXI IN. FLASHED NUMEROUS TIMES AND CUTOUT NUMEROUS TIMES.

Turboprop_pilot said...

Given:
1. Very high visibility of FAA's questionable performance regarding safety audits in front of Congress
2. Questionable certification of Eclipse
3. Protest by FAA employees about Eclipse certification
4. Excessive Service Difficulty Reports filed on EA500

Would it surprise anyone if a couple of Kansas Members of Congress asked the FAA and Vern some probing questions?

Turboprop_pilot

John said...


Service Difficulty reports as Google Spreadsheet


I extracted the core text of the SDR's into a spreadsheet for all to browse.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I wonder if it is sinking in yet back in the 505?

What was the line in Topgun, about ego's writing checks the body can't cash?

Here is a hint, when you realize you are in a hole, stop digging.

Would anyone pay attention to Al Sharpton if someone took his bullhorn away?

For God's sake, it is time for some adult supervision on Clark Carr Loop - somebody please take that man's bullhorn away. The danger is not from some bloggers, it comes from the corner office.

Call off the distracting fishing expedition and shut us up by finishing the damn job before it is too late.

airsafetyman said...

"INSTALLED SERVICEABLE ADC, WHICH WAS REMOVED FROM N139DJ NR 1 POSITION, AND INSTALLED IN NR 1 POSITION IAW AMM 34-10-15.

Looks like S/N 54 may be waiting for the AvioNG, or its may have become a parts loaner to keep the rest of the fleet aloft."

Cannibalization of parts is a sign of a maintenance program or a supply chain that is in serious trouble. You not only double the man hours required to remove and replace the defective unit on the aircraft with the discrepancy, you often have to go through another extensive check-out of the cannibalized airplane when a servicable part becomes available.

chickasaw said...

CWMR,

Egotism is the anesthesia that dulls the pain of ignorance.

Dave said...

To 10 Eclipse service failures (based on John's spreadsheet using FAA data):
MALFUNCTIONED 22
DEFECTIVE 9
OUT OF ADJUST 9
FAILED 7
BINDING 5
DAMAGED 5
LEAKING 5
WEAK 4
UNKNOWN 2
OUT OF RIG 2

To Eclipse service failure by source of failure:
ACTUATOR 8
TIRE 5
BELLCRANK 5
MASTER CYLINDER 4
BRAKE 4
ADC 3
PROBE 3
OUTFLOW VALVE 3
FIRE BOTTLE 3
DISPLAY 3
WINDOW FRAME 2
WARNING MESSAGE 2
UNKNOWN 2
TRIM SYSTEM 2
SENSOR 2
PROXIMITY SWITCH 2
LANDING GEAR 2
INDICATOR 2
INDICATION SYS 2

To all Eclipse service failures by serial number:
57 7
56 6
81 5
58 5
36 5
78 4
22 4
74 4
72 4
55 4
54 4
33 3
34 3
62 3
6 3
79 2
7 2
20 2
77 2
71 2
35 2
18 1
21 1
73 1
37 1
61 1
23 1
59 1
I found it interesting that the batch of aircraft from S/N 54-59 had 27 out of the 83 service failures so far. Also the higher S/Ns actually had more service failures.

eclipso said...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/28/223282/eclipse-files-civil-subpoena-to-identify-critics.html



Eclipse has said it is seeking to prevent the anonymous posting of "lies and rumours", and notes that the action is a subpoena, not a lawsuit. The company is also "interested in determining" if employees are disclosing confidential information to the site, potentially breaking invention and non-disclosure agreements.


So...I guess if I'm "interested", I can fish for ANYTHING despite privacy laws....hmmmm

airtaximan said...

.. it would be intersting to note the flight time of the fleet, and see if the other planes are low time.... compared to these... anyhow...

for all to know...

I am not and never was an employee, former employee or person under any agreement with EAC, let alone an NDA. NEVER.

I think its not a bad idea to delare yourself as such.... if you feel so inclined. I just wante to make sure everyone knows... my insight is based on industry experience, paying attention and my own interpretation of the media, facts, rumors and observation.

Simple, really.

Perhaps I am doing Vern a service by stating this (caveat emptor?) - anyone with half a brain should know better - in my opinion...

John said...

ATM writes: "I think its not a bad idea to delare yourself"

Okay, just to be clear, I am not involved with Eclipse Aviation, Dayjet, or any of its competitors. I am just an amateur blog reader interested in the the company because of my inate intellectual curiosity.

airtaximan said...

eclipse and controller...

back up to 63, from 60 just last week...


think the PR is working, VErn?

Indicative, not definative, I know... but a few more planes/positions on the "sell" side... since your latest PR move...

nice one


-how is Sandana's jetalliance coming? he was the poster child for a/c 1, right?
-where's Mike Press?
-Pogo going to unsuspecting individual owners to buy your planes yet? institutional financing too hard to come by, so they planning to follow your lead and schmooze individuals based on the promise of lofty returns from managing their planes... I suspect this is their next move. Last move actually.

Steven H said...

> Eclipse has said it is seeking to
> prevent the anonymous posting of
> "lies and rumours", and notes that
> the action is a subpoena, not a
> lawsuit.

Perhaps the lawyers here could explain how a private party can issue a hostile subpoena to a Citizen except under the authority of a civil court via a lawsuit?

sPh

I sent a resume to Eclipse Aircraft when they were located in Detroit. I got a postcard back and never heard from them again. I despise The SCO Group Inc. That's the limit of my connection ;-)

Bonanza Pilot said...

What really bothers me is that he has a sealed action that none of us can read. He then uses that sealed action to try to get some peoples names. Thus if you are among the named you have to defend your right to privacy without even knowing what you are being accused of. Doesn't make sense. I am not sure if it is a confidentiality issue or just an attempt to shut up the critics.

That said, I have never had - and never will have any kind of relationship with Eclipse. I just thought it was going to be a really cool airplane, and started reading this blog to figure out what was taking so long. I have learned a lot about making jets from the many excellent posters and have stayed around to learn more about certification and the aviation business. I have learned more here then in any of the aviation websites or magazines I read - thank the many knowledgeable people for helping to educate us.

Niner Zulu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FreedomsJamtarts said...

I have never worked for Eclipse or had anything to do with them. I am here because I am proud of our aviation industry, and ashamed of this blot on it.

It is now somewhat unlikely I will work for eclipse in the future :)

Shane said...

Gentlemen,

And ladies...

Just be a little careful with these 'declarations'.

First, remember who we are dealing with. Vern is not paranoid, he truly believes we are out to get him. No matter what you declare, he will still want your details, should the court agree with him.

Second, the fact that a few have made declarations gives valuable intelligence to Vern's lawyers. You are still 'active' and can be shown to be so. Likewise, those who never posted here, or have dropped out, are exposed even futher.

At this time and even though the 'dream team' are happy that Vern is heading for a fall in court, it might be better to avoid these types of comments.

Just a thought, and not by any means an instruction. I'm not the one around here trying to restrict your First Amendment rights...

Oh, and I love the work on the SDR's. Several media types that I'm now in contact with (thanks Vern) are also amazed at these stats.

Shane

Shadow said...

A note about the SDRs for Eclipse vs the Mustang. Commercial (pt 121, 135) operators are required to file SDRs for problems; private (pt 91) operators can voluntarily file them, but there is no requirement to do so (in fact, it is quite rare for pt 91 operators to file SDRs). How many Mustangs vs Eclipse 500s are in commercial ops in the US? This could account for some of the number difference between Eclipse 500 and Mustang SDRs. However, it doesn't lessen the seriousness of some of the Eclipse SDRs.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Shadow,

Part 91 turbine operators are actually pretty good about filing SDR's - but that is also why I included the TBM and the PC-XII since both fleets are large and in mixed use.

I don't have time right now but it would easy to look at any of the Citation series, or Lear's, Chaleenger's, etc.

None of that will lessen the obvious issues of inherent reliability and assembly quality that the DayJet SDR's indicate.

Dave said...

First, remember who we are dealing with. Vern is not paranoid, he truly believes we are out to get him.

I wouldn't presume that. Frankly, I believe it's an intimidation tactic...SLAPP.

At this time and even though the 'dream team' are happy that Vern is heading for a fall in court, it might be better to avoid these types of comments.

I think it should be focused on that the subpoena is connected to a *SECRET* lawsuit. The list of people don't know what they're supposedly guilty of and Eclipse have given contradictory stories saying on one hand that these are lies spread by outsiders who are just making things up and it's basically a defamation lawsuit while on the other hand saying facts about Eclipse by Eclipse are posted here and this blog's accuracy is the reason for the lawsuit. Eclipse can't have it both ways saying out one side of their mouth that the blog is wrong while out the other side of their mouth they say NDAs are violated. Having the *SECRET* lawsuit lets Eclipse get away with these contradictions and obfuscations as long as Eclipse isn't called to the carpet to reveal the contents of the lawsuit and to be clear whether or not this blog is an accurate source of information pertaining to Eclipse.

baron95 said...

Jim Howard said...
With respect to service Service Difficulty Reports, if I'm doing it right it appears that the score is as follows:

Eclipse 500: 81
Cessna 510: 1


SDRs is one datapoint, but you need to look behind the numbers. For one the EA500 fleet is about 4 times larger than the C510 fleed.

For another, a disproportionate fraction of the EA500 fleet is being used in part 135 operations, and part 135 ops tend to log/track problems and generate SDRs at a much higher rate than part 91.

I'd be interested if someone could determine what portion of the 81 SDRs were from Day Jet planes - I'd expect an overwhelming majority came from there, but I could be wrong.

flyger said...

baron95 said...

For one the EA500 fleet is about 4 times larger than the C510 fleed.

Not quite. 151 EA500s and 66 C510s in the FAA registry, so a ratio of 2.3 to 1 at this moment. That would make the SDR ratio 36 to 1 when weighted for fleet size.

But realize that the EA500 is crippled with no FIKI so the average privately owned Mustang is getting more hours and is more useful to the owner than the average privately owned Eclipse. This is also true for the 135 operations. DayJet would be having even worse results if they had to fight icing.

For another, a disproportionate fraction of the EA500 fleet is being used in part 135 operations, and part 135 ops tend to log/track problems and generate SDRs at a much higher rate than part 91.

No sane person would think this would account for a 36 to 1 ratio in SDRs. You also have to look at the severity of the SDRs, the one Mustang one was one engine that spooled down due to perhaps some icing issue. The Eclipse ones have caused declarations of emergencies. The frightening ones are the trim runaways which can be very dangerous.

I'd be interested if someone could determine what portion of the 81 SDRs were from Day Jet planes - I'd expect an overwhelming majority came from there, but I could be wrong.

Let's say they are mostly from DayJet planes. Didn't Eclipse say they had designed the airplane *explicitly* for that high usage? Could this be, oh my, another example of where they over promised, the industry said they were full of it, and it turns out the industry is right again?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

B95,

ALL of the SDR's are form DJ, but turbine 91 operators DO fill out SDR's.

The fleet of EA-500's at DJ is actually SMALLER than the total number of Mustang's in the field. It is also SMALLER than the total number of TBM's or PC-XII's.

The other damning factor is the age, or lack thereof, on the failed/malfunctioned parts.

For comparison, there are about 440 Beech 1900's, and they are almost exclusively in commercial service. How many SDR's during the same timeframe? 285. Sounds like a lot unless you look at the fact there are almost 15 times as many 1900's, and only 3.5 times as many SDR's. The Eclipse has an SDR/plane ratio of nearly 3 to 1, the 1900 is less than 0.7 to 1.

Consider the Kingair C90, more than 3100 in service and easily many times as many on 135 tickets as there are Eclipses, only 12 SDR's during the same timeframe.

Or the SR-22 which is in Air Taxi use just like the Eclipse - 12 SDR's in the same timeframe.

More than 300 TBM 700's, also many in commercial service or on 135 tickets, 1 SDR in the same timeframe.

More than 700 PC-XII's, well over 1 million flight hours total fleet time, 15 SDR's in the same time frame.

No amount of words will reduce the glaring inconsistency.

400 plus 1900D Airliner King Airs in brutal day in-day out commercial service with less than 25% the SDR rate of the Eclipse. And they fly in ice (been there), visible moisture (done that), and they do not take weekends off. An incalculable difference in flight hours and yet 4 times fewer reports.

Reliability is a significant issue for any aircraft but it is extremely important for commercial operators.

Dave said...

Reliability is a significant issue for any aircraft but it is extremely important for commercial operators.

I'm wondering how much of this has to do with Eclipse changing the plans from the lighter Williams engine and original design to the heavier Pratt and the redesign combined with the continual rejiggering of Avio and other such systems. The brake and tire problems could easily be attributed to this and with many of the other problems to Eclipse being a fragile jet. The brakes and tires are supposed to be high utilization with brake pads and tires lasting 700 landings, but the claims of robustness just doesn't match the actual field results. However, given the extent of the problems, I don't think the heavier redesign explains everything.

This document specifically addresses the Eclipse 500's maintenance in a high utlization environment:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/files/pdf/Eclipse%20500%20Reliability%20and%20Maintainability%20White%20Paper.pdf
This document is obviously publicly available and Eclipse made a big deal about releasing the document to the public to generate PR.

Eclipse has a 300 hr/24 month period before first inspection. It looks like these inspections need to be done much sooner given how many hours the jets had before reporting all these problems.

Reading the appendix to the Eclipse maintanence document is informative on the stated lifetimes of Eclipse components.

This is the related press release talking about how Eclipse was designed for high ulitization:
Eclipse 500 Raises the Bar in Design for Reliability and Maintainability
Today Eclipse also released a white paper, “Reliability and Maintainability Design of the Eclipse 500 Jet for High Utilization Applications,” that discloses for the first time how the Eclipse 500 delivers higher levels of reliability and maintainability than traditional business jets. The Eclipse 500 was designed from the outset to meet the high-reliability demands of air taxi operations that may exceed 2,000 flight hours per year. To address these requirements, Eclipse applied state-of-the-art Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance principles.

“High-utilization operators, especially air taxi companies, demand an extremely high level of dispatch reliability to meet their operational requirements,” said Raburn. “Most business jets were never intended for this use, but meeting these requirements was a critical element of our design criteria from the beginning. The Eclipse 500's resulting unprecedented level of reliability and maintainability will benefit all customers, whether they fly 2,000 hours per year or 200.”
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=634&Itemid=348

These jets can't fly 200 hours without potentially serious problems based on FAA data.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

I call shenanigans on this statement:

"Today Eclipse also released a white paper, “Reliability and Maintainability Design of the Eclipse 500 Jet for High Utilization Applications,” that discloses for the first time how the Eclipse 500 delivers higher levels of reliability and maintainability than traditional business jets. The Eclipse 500 was designed from the outset to meet the high-reliability demands of air taxi operations that may exceed 2,000 flight hours per year. To address these requirements, Eclipse applied state-of-the-art Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) maintenance principles."

The proof is simply not in the pudding.

Sounds like when someone said MSG-3 Eclipse was thinking about the stuff that makes chinese food taste good.

MSG-3 would have resulted in redesig of many of these systems that are failing/malfunctioning with less than 20 or 30 hours on them.

Furthermore, Eclipse should be hip deep into root cause analysis on these quality escapes and 'infant mortality' problems or warranty exposure is going to kill them dead faster than ill-advised subpoena's and wasteful lawsuits.

baron95 said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
For comparison, there are about 440 Beech 1900's, and they are almost exclusively in commercial service. How many SDR's during the same timeframe? 285. Sounds like a lot unless you look at the fact there are almost 15 times as many 1900's, and only 3.5 times as many SDR's. The Eclipse has an SDR/plane ratio of nearly 3 to 1, the 1900 is less than 0.7 to 1.

Consider the Kingair C90, more than 3100 in service and easily many times as many on 135 tickets as there are Eclipses, only 12 SDR's during the same timeframe.


So, from the C90 vs BE1900 numbers you reported, we should conclude that the BE1900 has an atrocious reliability problem since its SDR ratio is orders of magnitude higher than the C90, righ? See my point? Be careful how you use numbers.

Obviously the answer is that the BE1900 is a tough bird designed for line service. It just so happens that virtually all are in part 135 ops therefore the high number of SDRs compared to the more noumerous C90 fleet.

Further, to take you numbers, if the mature, airline-tough BE1900 fleet have a 0.7 to 1 SDR ratio and the EA500, a brand new GA design, in its first year of introduction has a 3 to 1 ratio, I'd say that is a commendable reccord.

Flyger said... You also have to look at the severity of the SDRs,

Correct. And, in fact, there is some scary s%#$ in the EA500 SDRs. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable in a plane after some of that stuff - like zillions of CAS and stall warnings right after take-off. That is not to say that the C510 power rollback to idle is not scary either.

CW said... ALL of the SDR's are form DJ,

Thanks for the info. I thought it would be a high percentage. It is a rare part 91 owner/shop that actually takes the trouble to fill out SDRs compared to the mandated Part 135. Also, Part 135 pilots have an "audience" to talk out the SDRs. Which is all good. It is good to have the problems documented.

Just be careful how you use the numbers.

Q - WHEN has there been a part 135 operation using a few dozen brand new fan-jets in their first year after introduction?

A - NEVER

This is another first for Eclipse. And we should expect lots of probs. I just don't like the types of problems being reported i nthe flight controls and avionics - that is indeed scary.

Dave said...

Furthermore, Eclipse should be hip deep into root cause analysis on these quality escapes and 'infant mortality' problems or warranty exposure is going to kill them dead faster than ill-advised subpoena's and wasteful lawsuits.

The paper was released in 2004, but it has to do with what is going on now. Eclipse's promises just aren't matching up to the reality of their product, so they go looking for wookies to blame.

flyger said...

baron95 said...

And, in fact, there is some scary s%#$ in the EA500 SDRs. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable in a plane after some of that stuff - like zillions of CAS and stall warnings right after take-off. That is not to say that the C510 power rollback to idle is not scary either.

Trim runaway is *significantly* more scary than an engine going to idle. Also, note that the Mustang SDR is from a foreign operator who may have had poor fuel quality or maybe didn't have Prist in it that caused fuel line icing. There are lots of ways the operator could have induced this problem. On the scale of issues, this is relatively minor and is something that is explicitly trained for.

This is another first for Eclipse. And we should expect lots of probs. I just don't like the types of problems being reported i nthe flight controls and avionics - that is indeed scary.

Yes, Eclipse will have to learn what the dinosaurs already know about field reliability. Unfortunately, the owners will be the test group.

I would expect you will see the maintenance program go to 100 hour inspections and be very similar to other light jets despite all the boasting Eclipse did about the service interval.

How ironic are the WCSYC buttons now? Maybe I should make some that say WTYS!

Dave said...

I would expect you will see the maintenance program go to 100 hour inspections and be very similar to other light jets despite all the boasting Eclipse did about the service interval.

The statistics derived from the FAA data compiled by John bear that out. The average number of hours until the *first service report* is just over 90 hours for all problems. This shows the average based on the the type of unit and showing the overall average. This excludes subsequent reports filed for the same s/n:
LANDING GEAR 387
FIRE BOTTLE 180
DOOR 180
BELLCRANK 156
ACTUATOR 128
WARNING MESSAGE 93
CABLE 89
BEAM 72
CARTRIDGE 70
ADC 70
CONNECTOR 70
TIRE 67
PROBE 57
INDICATOR 56
SENSOR 32
DISPLAY 28
PROXIMITY SWITCH 19
MASTER CYLINDER 18
BRAKE 9
INDICATION SYS 9
Grand Total 90.66666667

This shows the same information but sorted by type of problem:
RESTRICTED 9
SPLIT 9
WEAK 18
DEFECTIVE 31
FAULTY 32
FAILED 67
LOOSE 70
OBSTRUCTED 72
DAMAGED 72
OUT OF RIG 89
FALSE ACTIVATION 93
OUT OF ADJUST 99.5
FALSE INDICATION 105
MALFUNCTIONED 116.125
LEAKING 143.3333333
BINDING 156
Grand Total 90.66666667

John said...

European airtaxi "Air Cannes" has its Eclipse on its overseas delivery flight today.

This is S/N 139 tail N36FD


Delivery flight Track

Shadow said...

That airplane didn't go above FL270, so no RVSM approval yet.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Silly Shadow,

Everyone knows that Vern says the plane is group RVSM certified, must have been the best winds and fuel efficiency at FL270.

;^)

Can you imagine a ferry pilot not being RVSM qualified?

Or maybe it was icing.

Or visible moisture.

Or erroneous air data readings.

Or erroneous CAS messages.

Or Cabin Door warnings.

Or Pressurization issues.

Or bad trim.

Or, or or or or or.

gadfly said...

Silly Cold Fish

Since when does the "Great One" need to give a reason for anything they do? . . . Especially, to us, the "great unwashed"!

But while on the subject, I was thinking that by modifying the little bird, with "folded wings" (etc.), the cost of delivering it to the European theater of operations might be cheaper (and "faster"), sending it by FEX or UPS or DHL.

'Just a thought!

gadfly

(And it would go over at above 36,000 feet . . . or something like that. But what do I know!)

gadfly said...

With "May Day" shortly upon us, and the new relationship between "east" and "west", questions, questions, questions . . . and so few answers!

As of late, the "US" has been beat up "pretty bad" from inside and outside . . . and now the "Russians"!

gadfly

(To be continued, I'm sure . . . and I do not like what I suspect.)

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

john ..

don't get over-excited by the "delivery" you are stating ...

it seems it is for a "demo" on the occasion of a 2 days air-show (wonder is : grounded or flying ?technically speaking , they are NOT allowed to have passengers as it is NOT a private use ! but i can be wrong on this... )!

the company is actually using Diamond (Da 12 T & Da 40)
and state the offer with EA500 as such :

Jet de 5/6 places (3 ou 4 passagers)
["jet for 5/6 Pax ; 3/4 passengers" ! which means 2 pilots !]

* Très performant et silencieux
[high performance and silent ]

* Technologie avant-gardiste à tous les niveaux
(cellule, motorisation, avionique, systèmes...)
["disruptive technologies at all levels , frame , motors , avionics , systems" oouucch , a good exemple of NOT reading the blog ! is that an old advertising or peoples still under vern's spell ?]

* Prix très compétitif et coût d'exploitation le plus bas du marché
[ "competitive price & using costs the lowest of market" sorry , if they cannot use theirs (lack of permitted commercial use by DGAC and EASA), whatever the price it is already much too high !]

* Très haut niveau de fiabilité et excellent potentiel
["very high level of reliability and excellent potential" well , i did not know the said reliability had different meaning depending at the way you look at it ??as for potential = who knows ?]

* Premier appareil de sa catégorie à avoir obtenu sa certification complète aux USA.
[ "first ever plane of its category to get FULLY certified
in USA " i don't know about you , but suddenly i am a bit confused by FULLY and FIRST ....;-) ]

as for the competitive pricing :

Now they advert a kind of Give-price offer , it is a flight Nice / Hyeres ( 150Kms or 93 miles) for a "discount" price of 949 € (1480$) 3 pax ...

Commercial Airline (Air-france , not at all known for "competitive pricing ! ) 645 € for 3 pax ...
(funnilly enough for the same price , you can spend a whole week-end in Roma (Italy) using the same Airline)

with a "discount price" of 10,20 US$/Mile (with a Diamond , i still wonder what is going to be the cost with EA500 if they are EVER allowed to fly commercial within E.U., which is currently NOT the case = only a demo flight !) , i doubt very much too many are going to rush ...

to be compared with the 66 (sixty six) € it would cost using the train ...

or my car ( not exactly a middle sized one ) would take 6/8 € of diesel for this trip , off-course i still need to own a car first and to pay for insurance and for the highway toll (it is highway allmost all the road ) , but not this much ...

then there is the time argument :
on a nice /hyeres , apart from seeing the coast from the air , the time gained is irreverent !

with a car , since it is highway almost all along (real busy ONLY in summer) , slightly over ONE hour , respecting the speed-limits !!

on a bigger scale : a marseille/paris is supposed to be "less than 3 hours " ...

but the problem is : train take 3 hours to get there as well !!

and the starting price for the train is 22 € / pax = 66 € !

so don't get too excited ...
i think such service is going to remain something "special" as a whatever gift (marriage , baptize , retirement , etc) but to develop a wide commercial use for such service is a bit pointless !!

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fred said...

just for the fun of it ...


"Air-cannes" is supposed to get 10 Ea500 ...

it is a firm created in June 2006 ...

with a "capital " of 81.000 € (125.874 US$)

Question : a newly made firm has a capital of less than a tenth of only ONE plane the said firm want to acquire ...

and they want to have ten ?

i don't know about anywhere ...
but in France , if you go to see a banker with such data ...
(french banker mentality is quite simple to understand = they give credit only to the ones who don't need it !!! ;-)) )

they will get a big smile on the face , and at the end of meeting (short) instead of "see you soon" it would be " not even in your wild dreams ...!"

;-))

David Wihl said...

flyger said:

Also, note that the Mustang SDR is from a foreign operator who may have had poor fuel quality or maybe didn't have Prist in it that caused fuel line icing.

Note that the Mustang
(nor the Phenom 100) do not require Prist.

flyger said...

David Wihl said...

Note that the Mustang (nor the Phenom 100) do not require Prist.

True enough, but they wouldn't be the first airplane which started out not requiring it, then the AFM was amended to require it.

In any case, there are plenty of relatively mild issues that can cause the problem stated in the SDR, potentially operator induced. Trim runaways are not like that.

fred said...

sorry , i have made a mistake ...

the distance "straight-line" in between Nice and hyeres is only 112 Kms , 60.5 Miles (150 Kms is the train /road distance )

so the "give-away" price offer as stated by "Air-Cannes" is

1480 US$ / 112 = 13.21 $ per Km or 24.46$ per mile !

ouchh , it hurts !!!

so anyone to think DayJet bizz is not really taking off with a price of around 4/per mile /per pax (if i remember well )

there is any chances for air-taxi at double the price ???
in a spot where private air-transport will probably NEVER get as much coverage than in USA ?
where alternative ways are in the plenty ??

i would say : " an other smokescreen !!"

John said...

Interesting flight by S/N 152

It flew to the Denver area on 4/16, apparently its maiden voyage. It took off today (4/30) with an Indianapolis destination. About 20 minutes into the flight it abrubtly changed heading towards Albuquerque.

gadfly said...

'Funny thing! Watching N113EA make the final few minutes coming down to KABQ on FlightAware, an ad for Citation Mustang says, "Makes its own adrenaline. Just add air."

And I wonder just how much "adrenaline" is being produced in the flight crew of the little jet, having started out for Indianapolis, and suddenly changing its destination to the land of "Green Chili".

'Hopefully, there will be no news reports concerning this little bird . . . just another of many such incidents of the normal "teething" of the little bird . . . some silly complaint of a new customer . . . probably nothing of substance.

gadfly

(No matter what you do, some customers would complain if you hung 'em with a "brand new rope".)

baron95 said...

Since the Blog seems to be dead, with only one-sided comments, here is a little bit of news affecting a different type of Jet-A burning planes.

We are talking, of course, of the bankruptcy filing of Thielert Aircraft Engine, amid criminal allegations of fraud and the like. Just to show how tough it is to be a start up in the aviation business. thielert seemed to have a lot going for it, contracts with Northrop, Lokheed, etc t osupply UAV engines, contracts with Cessna and Diamond, acquisition of Supperior.

Well it is all up in the air right now. Incidently, diamond seems to have correctly predicted trouble, and started its own Diesel aviation engine crash program, and is reportedly about to announce the engine next month.

I hope Diesel pistons and real VLJs (those at less than 6klbs MTOW) don't die. But it is a touch business to crack.

Regards,

Dave said...

Old posts related to Brian Skupa (search "skupa"):
http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com/2007/04/eclipse-delivers-3-more-date-apr-20.html?showComment=1177187520000#c8443259417667400285
http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com/2007/03/whac-problem-remember-stupid-arcade.html?showComment=1174400760000#c6374303368462119804

It sounds like Skupa as part of his job received all manner of questions about the status of Eclipse operations and that he was known for being straightforward. Eclipse had better have a very good reason for firing him now. I guess that's why Eclipse is attacking both friend and foe on the Eclipse blogs...to cease written documention of Eclipse's conduct. That way there wont be any more documentation available to everyone in the world that would show an Eclipse employee's conduct that would undermine an Eclipse lawsuit.

I just re-read the alleged Vern letter and I see Vern is saying being open with those outside Eclipse hurts Eclipse:
"Eclipse, unlike many other companies tries to communicate openly and often with you on the assumption that the information shared with you will be kept confidential. Failure to do so not only hurts all of us at Eclipse, but also our business partners (suppliers and customers) and their employees. Unfortunately Mr. Skupa did not apparently care about hurting not only you but also our partner, DayJet."
So Vern in his alleged letter about Skupa is saying that Eclipse has things to hide that if they got out would be detrimental! No wonder Eclipse would fire someone who is "straightforward" - Eclipse only wants you to hear the good stuff while they attempt to sweep the bad stuff under the carpet.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

B95,

How can you call 400+ posts in 2 weeks, international media attention and high placement in search engine results 'dead'?

As for one-sided, it is not called the Eclipse Shiny Happy People Holding Hands Blog NG.

Accurately comparing the Eclipse to other aircraft, or comparing Eclipse itself to other OEM's may not be pretty but it is hardly one sided my friend.

As we have always said, Eclipse could shut us up by just fulfilling all of its' promises.

Ecliption said...
This comment has been removed by the author.