Monday, June 16, 2008

ECLIPSE AVIATION ANNOUNCES CREW MONITOR SYSTEM


Albuquerque, NM – June 16, 2008 – Developers of the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet released information today on a revolutionary pilot monitoring device. It is part of a system announced by the company last October.

Eclipse is the only aircraft manufacturer to have received FAA approval for its Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) program. Using the aircraft’s highly-integrated avionics; key aircraft, flight and crew parameters are collected, forwarded to Albuquerque headquarters and analyzed. FOQA is used by most major airlines to conduct trend analysis, find aircraft design issues and detect pilot training deficiencies.

President Vern Raburn commented, “We promised to bring you a world-class flight operation strategy using next-generation integrated avionics and data collection systems. We identified a proprietary method of extending this from the aircraft to the crew. We knew we could collect the ‘vital signs’ of the aircraft so why not monitor the pilots?”

Raburn added modestly, “Actually I came up the idea. There’s an old expression in aviation. If a pilot gets into real trouble, then soon he will be ‘picking buttons off the seat.’ I consulted the aeromedicine experts at the Lovelace Foundation here in Albuquerque. They confirmed there is more to this than a sophomoric joke.”

“Thus Eclipse developed and produced the world’s first biosensor for airman physiological and psychological parameters. Disguised as the center upholstery button on the pilot and copilot’s seat, the sophisticated device is actually a miniature strain gauge, and three-axis accelerometer and attitude sensor… about the size of the end of your thumb. We call it the Vernometer… rhymes with odometer.

“Since deliveries began, we installed these in all two hundred Eclipse 500 aircraft and they have provided very important data for the FOQA program. We decided not to announce the existence of these sensors in accordance with our very strict non-disclosure rules for the protection of proprietary information. We act in the best interest of our customers and investors, and had planned to keep this a trade secret. However, we are unveiling this revolutionary invention as a result of a recent minor incident in Illinois.”
Raburn continued, “We have a central monitoring station that displays the output of all four hundred Vernometers, two per plane. I happened to be looking at the monitor when the red annunciator began flashing for a pilot landing an Eclipse at Midway airport. It signaled simultaneous gluteus maximus and sphincter overloads - something we’ve never seen before. Turns out the pilot mishandled the throttles and had to go-around at full power, and then land power off. It ain’t no big deal; the Space Shuttle takes off wide-open and lands power-off all the time.”

“Our full analysis of the FOQA data revealed that the plane worked to design and certification standards, but the crew overreacted and started pushin’ and pullin’ too hard on them levers… it ain’t a tractor, you know. Anyhow… we’re glad everyone is safe. After landing, as the pilot was leaving the aircraft, he noticed that he’d pinched a button right off the seat. Instead of seeing a piece of thread on the seat cushion, he observed the signal cable trailing from the biosensor button and gave us a call. We decided this would be an auspicious time to announce another example of disruptive technology from Eclipse Aviation.”

Raburn concluded, “We’ve always planned on capitalizing on our unparalleled success in aviation by translating it into other fields. Take the large central monitoring capability we’ve built or the FOQA project. It’s a massive commitment in secure facilities, terabit servers, backup power and hundreds of technicians and operators. I’m pleased to announce that Eclipse has won a sole-source contract to control more than two hundred million refrigerators in the United States. We turn the light on or off in your refrigerator based on a signal from opening or closing the door, transmitted to our central station, and a signal sent back to the lamp. That’s technology transfer at its best. Take it from Vern… it ain’t nuthin’ unless it’s disruptin’.”


In case you have not been a regular reader, Black Tulip is our 'official satirist'. And, as usual, there is a germ of truth in what he says. After all, how can Vern be so certain it's always the pilots' fault, unless he knows something we don't.....
The tulip mania peaked in the Netherlands during the 1630s. The black tulip was the most sought after, until found to be biologically impossible.

258 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 258 of 258
Rich Lucibella said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rich Lucibella said...

Gorak-
In fairness, nobody in this discussion has attempted to change the subject more than you. I'd certainly congratulate you on your deft sidestep of the issues at hand....but it's hardly been deft.

You've made a claim of ENORMOUS import:
That Vern Raburn was lying thru his teeth when he demanded tens (hundreds?) of millions in progress payments while claiming that IS&S was simply going to finish up the Avidyne project. And you claim to have received that information directly from IS&S.

Hmmmm, wonder if Vern is looking for info to use in throwing IS&S under the bus. You certainly seem to hold the smoking gun.

Just as important, this should absolutely dwarf his concerns over FlightCenter's publication of publicly available FAA data or even NinerZulu's owner quote taken from a website not connected to Eclipse.

Don't look now but you've just lost the moral high ground in this particular SLAPP action. Suggest you stick to the avionics drive-bys. ;-)
Gunner

Dave said...

Are you accusing me of revealing inside information? I already said that I obtained the information from literature distributed by Eclipse and by talking to vendors. Are you attacking me because you don't agree with the facts I'm posting?

You accused yourself of potentially revealing inside information:
I don't know if IS&S breached their NDA by talking to me. I just strolled over to their booth at Oshkosh and chatted them up.

What I'm accusing you of doing is the same actions that are part of ongoing litigation. You agree with Eclipse that they've got cause to investigate when it comes to others, but you don't even care if you're revealing confidential Eclipse information in your own posts.

I don't have an axe to grind about the lawsuit. I'm just trying to inject some valid information into the conversation. You and others are the ones who started going on about NDAs and lawsuits in this exchange.

In this exchange I responded to what you said about the Eclipse supplier NDA and Eclipse having cause to investigate. So your comments about Eclipse suppliers is "valid information" but when others on this board do the same thing Eclipse has "cause to investigate" and to think otherwise is "ridiculous"?

When a politician changes the subject, it's because he doesn't want to answer the question. I was talking about the interaction between the thrust control levers and the FADECs. Why are you changing the subject?

You're absolutely right! I encourage everyone to follow the thread to see whether or not it was I who responded to a comment from Gorak on Eclipse's "cause to investigate" and Gorak having potentially receiving NDA violating information or is it Gorak who is trying to change the subject like a politician who doesn't want to answer questions.

Dave said...

You've made a claim of ENORMOUS import:
That Vern Raburn was lying thru his teeth when he demanded tens (hundreds?) of millions in progress payments while claiming that IS&S was simply going to finish up the Avidyne project. And you claim to have received that information directly from IS&S.


Didn't Eclipse actually move up the schedule upon moving to IS&S saying the IS&S software was ready to rumble the day the Avidyne announcement was made?:
One week after revealing a divorce from Avidyne, Eclipse Aviation on Monday announced that Innovative Solutions & Support (IS&S), Chelton Flight Systems, Garmin, Honeywell and PS Engineering will be its new partners for the Eclipse 500's improved avionics system. Dubbed Avio NG (for next generation), the upgraded version of the very light jet's deeply integrated avionics system has been in development "for many months and is scheduled for production and delivery this summer." A hot-bench Avio NG suite is currently being evaluated, and a test Eclipse 500 will fly with the new system in "about 35 days." Eclipse promises a faster timeline for Avio NG functionality; according to Eclipse, it was Avidyne's failure to deliver functionality on time that caused the rift between the two companies.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Better_Brain_Eclipse_500_194601-1.html
And we've got this here published:
Raburn said the supplier replacement would "absolutely" not affect Eclipse's planned delivery schedule.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=1235&Itemid=51

That should scare people that the Avio NG software was thrown together from scratch in a matter of months based on the statements of IS&S themselves. This would seem to expose both IS&S and Eclipse to liability, but Eclipse was the self-described systems integrators who didn't want to outsource systems integration and instead wanted to do it the Vern Way.

Dave said...

I found this mentioning the ETIRC deal:
The only international agreements of note were the deal between FIAT Group and OAO Sollers (formerly Severstal’-Auto) on the creation of two cooperative factories for the production of Fiats and diesel engines and the deal between the government of Ul’yanovsk Region and the Etirc Aviation Company (part of Etirc B. V.) on the construction of a factory in Ul’yanovsk for the building of Eclipse 500 super-light reactive airplanes ($300 million).
http://eng.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2008/24/globalnuy_nasos_spravedlivosti/

gadfly said...

Day after day, we hear over the local radio station the “ads” to become an aircraft technician in twelve weeks (words to that effect . . . listen to the ad yourself and come to your own conclusion) . . . “Eclipse, an equal opportunity employer”!

Buy and fly a multi-million dollar flying machine . . . with my family aboard, built by “12 week wonders”? Now, if that doesn’t scare you, nothing will!

‘Sorry folks! But God gave me a brain, and I intend to use it to the best of my ability.

gadfly

(‘Just to get my “A&P” ticket took 1,600 hours of intensive classroom/shop study and weekly testing, and a battery of tests by the FAA, 43 years ago . . . and that was just to “repair and maintain” the beasts.)

airtaximan said...

don't forget,

Vern was on the board of Avidyne.

airtaximan said...

baron...

mac did say the glass avionics were going to be mainstream in a few years, and did agree the functionality you speak of will be widely available... in the article... anyhow...

you are one funny, funny man, for the Hello Ed, I'm stuck at the airport post...

Anonymous said...

Gunner,

I really don't understand why you have a problem with collecting progress payments after the announcement of AvioNG.

As far as I know, no deliveries were delayed by the switch from Avio to AvioNG. After the announcement, Eclipse kept delivering Avio planes until AvioNG was ready.

So, what was the problem?

G

Anonymous said...

AAARRRRRGHHH!!!!!!


Everyone, for the love of all good things, please do some reading.

Gorak

modus operandi

eclipso said...

"Eclipse kept delivering Avio planes until AvioNG was ready."


Did I miss something? WHEN did either get ready?

gadfly said...

Notice . . . the following is not picking on anyone in particular, but a general overall observation:

As I read the comments here, I wonder how many “readers” have a clue as to the meaning of the many terms that are thrown back and forth. It appears, at times, that the only thing that matters is a world of “virtual reality” . . . a world of computer code, that constructs a semblance of reality, at ever increasing “bit” rates . . . forgetting that the human in the pilot’s seat, and the passengers just a few feet (or “inches”) behind, do not “relate” to bits and bytes, . . . “noise” levels in connecting cables, . . . servo systems, motor encoders . . . optical vs magnetic . . . “Hall Effect” . . . impedance, AD converters . . . the difference between a “closed” and “open” loop system . . . etc., etc. In fact, I doubt than one in ten, who read this “blog” have any understanding about a “Liquid Crystal Display”, and why “green” pixels dominate . . . or the psychological effects of scan rates on the human brain, etc. Or the reaction time in an emergency.

The basic problems remain, the “platform” (i.e.: Airplane) for all this “hi-tech” is not complete, nor will probably ever be complete . . . ‘just the simple mechanical stuff has never been fully addressed . . . including the de-icing, the landing gear system (including the tires and brakes), trim actuators/controls, . . . and the list goes on. ‘Even the basic aeronautical design fails in the area of weight and balance versus stability, etc., . . . depending on the “software” rather than the inherent mechanical design, coupled with the intelligence and skill of the pilot.

A few may swap terms back and forth about the avionics . . . and these same folks may be surprised at how much some of us understand the technology and theory “behind the scenes”, but for most who read the blog, there is a need (I believe) to address the things that will affect the lives of not only the “elect”, the “elite”, but the many common folks who need to know the basics . . . Is this little flying thing a safe method of transportation for me, and my loved ones . . . who simply “trust others” to get us there and back, without incident? And my opinion is that “No, this is not something in which to trust your own life, and the lives of those you love.”

Someone declared the need to notify the media of what’s going on here . . . and we’re doing our best. But as we make our comments, we need to speak in language that is understood by the media . . . and the average man on the street (as it were).

gadfly

(But then, I’m a relic of the past . . . with some opinions based on experience in the subjects under discussion.)

Anonymous said...

anonymous,

A Gorak is: "A person of profound mental inability, ineptitude, and incredible tallness."

I take exception to that. I'm not all that tall.

As for being a troll, if posting facts about how the airplane works is trolling, I guess I should just STFU.

G

Dave said...

As for being a troll, if posting facts about how the airplane works is trolling

Alleged facts

Anonymous said...

baron95 said: "I never thought we'd be discussing a jet that puts the pilot into a position to choose between climbing uncontrolably, exceed airframe airpeed limits or deadstick with no power. Those are basically the three options ou have until you perform this new "reset/reboot" procedure"

My comment: I have no relationship with EAC. But if I understand the NTSB document correctly, the pilot of the Midway incident could have avoided landing dead stick if EAC had done it's job. But because he did not have the relevant info, he moved one throttle to idle (didn't need to), and shut down it's engine. He then left it in idle, resulting in the running engine dropping back to idle too. Did not occur to him that the throttle of the shut down engine controls the running one. He could have flown OEI all day.

So, based on the above, there may be a fourth option:

1) Bring the throttles back a bit to normal T/O position.
2) Shut down one engine. This resets it's throttle fault.
3) Use the now working throttle of the shut down engine to control the other running engine.
4) Fly the A/C with OEI. Not optimal but not life threatening either.
5) Restart the shut down engine when safe to do so (other engine will most probably have to go to idle for up to 30 seconds).
6) Optional (not really necessary): shut second engine to reset it's throttle fault. Previously restarted engine will not need to go to idle and will continue to produce power during this step.

My opinion (again if I understand correctly): there is nothing terribly wrong with the concept of the design involving the cross over signal between the engine throttles and I think it is a very good idea.
The massive failure on part of EAC was their neglect to document the interrelationship, and to provide detailed step-by-step procedure(s) and train pilots for it on the simulator.

So:
1)Keep the crossover signal between the engine throttles.
2)Provide detailed explanation and reset procedures.
3)Include in initial/recurrent simulator training
4)Redesign the throttle quadrant to fix the 30lb per throttle (60lb for both?) force limit. Having to shut down an engine at high altitude (and descend while restarting it) because pilot sneezed while advancing throttles is not acceptable.
5)Someone at EAC needs to be shown the door ASAP. This error is non trivial.
6) EAC: For heaven's sake, recognise that you have bitten way more than you can ever swallow. Approach one of the dinosaurs asap, to conduct an independent review of the EA500 design (all of it not just the avionics) before some customer pays the price. G*d forbid, you may even learn something in the process that my help minimize the likelihood of mistakes from being carried over to the EA400 design - assuming that EAC ever managed to raise 200 million (in your dreams) to develop it. Pick a company that is not in competition. Bombardier comes to mind.

Disclaimer:
Above info is my personal opinion and is no substitute to manufacturer procedure(s).
I am not affiliated with the FAA or NTSB.
I am not a customer or employee of EAC and have never signed any legal document with EAC.
EAC has never given me an NDA, INDA or ENEMA.


PS: It may not be my place to say this, but I feel compelled to do so. There are very important issues at hand. So please D, ATM, G, et al.... May I request that you give that side discussion a rest and focus on what is important. Best to ignore a bit and move on. A lot of people would be reading and looking for info on the topic. Apology and thank you.

Anonymous said...

h.m.e. said,

"May I request that you give that side discussion a rest and focus on what is important. Best to ignore a bit and move on."

An excellent suggestion.

Adios, au revoir, auf wiedersehen.

G

airtaximan said...

HME,

what you suggest is conspicuous, especially considerng eac thinks of its 500 as a centerline thrust jet - so the second engine is a convenience regarding safety, really according to them.

PS. does the emergency procedure required by the NTSB/FAA prescribe the step YOU refer to, or others...

PPS. sometimes the silliest remarks here receive the most attention, and my JOKE about Gorak revealing IS&S breached an NDA seemed to receive a lot of attention. Guys, it was some idiot at a booth representing IS&S that spilled the beans... no biggie. Gorak, do you remember his name?

JOKING!

airtaximan said...

"Iacobucci says he is still finding it difficult to raise capital and that the company “is doing some other things to ameliorate that,” including redirecting some internal funding and reviewing their options for aircraft in the fleet. “We don’t know whether it would involve sale or lease but there are some things available to us,” he said. About 12 aircraft are in flight operations and a number of the remaining DayJet fleet of 28 are still going through mod upgrades or on hot standby. “The flying load now is somewhere between, on a low day, four aircraft, and on a high day it’s nine. And they’re booked up. I mean, they’re full. They’re jammed. Their schedules are very condensed,” Iacobucci says. “They’re being flown the equivalent of 1,100 hours a year, which is not quite where we wanted to be, but it’s not too far off.”

He says the company is examining a range of scenarios “some that are happier than others” and planning for all contingencies. “Our most likely plan takes us through to a larger investment at the end of the year,” he says. The search is “all over the board,” he says. As a technology company, there are technology investors interested. Others are focused on asset financing. “One of the biggest challenges is that there’s not one investor group that fits perfectly because we’re a hybrid between a new-market, high-growth business and a traditional capital-intensive business,” he says.

He says the process has been “time-consuming” as the company is doing the search on its own. Meanwhile, they have reached 1,800 members and are seeing 20-percent growth month on month. DayJet’s web site now incorporates a “Fast Start” way to join up suggested by customers who wanted to try before they buy. “It’s a trial program, but we got pretty good response, more than 350 customers,” Iacobucci says."

Hmmm 55 markets and 5-9 planes in the air.... but they are jammed.

Must be nice.

I wonder how they are going to scale this hthing up? Might require what 50 planes for the whole US...

Oh yeah, then there's Ed's remarks about how the business does not work without scale.

What?

Dave said...

Oh yeah, then there's Ed's remarks about how the business does not work without scale.
What?


"Scaling" sounds like another one of Ed's scams. DayJet is by its own description a regional rather than national or international carrier. It's meant to travel a few hundred miles, which is supposedly DayJet's sweetspot. Ed is just trying to find a new round of investors to rob since he wont spend his own money to get to a point where DayJet will allegedly become profitable.

Ed has done a big scam before and waste many millions of dollars before with his litigation against Novell, IBM, etc when he ran the SCO litigation committee. These scammers sure like to sue!

Minority Report said...

Gorak said -

"AvioNG was basically rewritten from scratch, according to the IS&S folks I've chatted with."

That statement shows how little the IS&S marketing guy knows about DO-178 certified software development.

The key is the definition of "from scratch".

As anyone who has developed and delivered DO-178 certified software will tell you, the task of actually writing the code is a very small part of the overall development and certification effort.

Most of the development time is spent developing the system requirements before you start writing the software - if you are doing it right.

IS&S may or may not have rewritten the code, but there is no chance that they started with a blank slate when it comes to systems requirements.

It would take a minimum of 3 or 4 years with a great development team to develop and certify an integrated flight deck "from scratch".

Minority Report said...

gorak said,

"I think Occam's razor would lead us to a simpler, non-conspiratorial, answer for the inop autothrottles. Avidyne never got them certified for Avio."

BAE was originally responsible for developing the autothrottle.

Autothrottle development became Eclipse's responsibility after they removed BAE from the aircraft in 2003.

So Occam's razor would lead to a simpler, non-conspiratorial, answer for the inop autothrottle. Developing and certifying an autothrottle is quite hard and Eclipse hasn't made it a priority, given everything else they have on their plate.

Minority Report said...

dave ivedore said,

"Bachelor number 3's marketing guy probably enjoyed a really posh round of golf & determined that the task would be trivial, signing the contract at the "19th Hole Gentleman's Club".

You are so far off the mark that it boggles the mind.

If you think anyone negotiates 8 or 9 figure avionics development contracts / purchase agreements that are core to both companies' futures, with a marketing guy on the golf course, you are in some very distant alternate universe.

Give me a break.

These agreements take months of work to close and require personal involvement and signoff from the CEO and the top technical, financial and legal staff at both companies.

Rich Lucibella said...

In refuting the concept that AVIO Part Deux may have been restarted from scratch with IS&S, Minority Report states:
"It would take a minimum of 3 or 4 years with a great development team to develop and certify an integrated flight deck "from scratch".

OK...so it's been a year and a half so far with virtually no increase in functionality. Looks pretty much on track for a "from scratch" program.
Gunner

Minority Report said...

Gorak said,

"I'm trying to say that there are no components that interrupt or process the signals (representing TCL positions) between the throttle quadrant and the FADECs. The primary thrust command input to the FADECs is the TCL angle, as represented by the signal from the quadrant."

You say that the primary thrust command input to the FADECs is the TCL angle.

One would logically infer from that statement that there are secondary thrust command inputs to the FADECs from some part of Avio NG.

Is that what you are implying?

Rich Lucibella said...

As concerns IS&S strengths in negotiating this heavely deal with Eclipse, the Garmin led shake-out that we're starting to see was already well underway in late 2006.

IS&S was not exactly flush with options for new business at the time. Their stock, after throwing off some nice profits to short sells ;-), has fallen from $15 to $7 (ouch), pre-Eclipse to post Eclipse.

Give a drowning man a piece of straw...watch what he does with it.
Gunner

Dave said...

OK...so it's been a year and a half so far with virtually no increase in functionality. Looks pretty much on track for a "from scratch" program.

Eclipse also went all funky how for years they talked about Avio and then it became Avio NG and then it was Avio NG 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc. I think they buried much of it in creating version numbers instead of just giving people what they were original promised.

Minority Report said...

Gunner,

My math shows something closer to 9 months from the time IS&S started the project to Eclipse delivering the first certified Avio NG flight displays.

You can't do that without having the final systems requirements in hand at the start of the program.

Your other point is quite valid. The flight deck isn't finished yet.

Rich Lucibella said...

MR-
Last point well taken.

However, exactly what functionality did IS&S's NG provide that wasn't available in Avidyne's Non-NG product?
Gunner

smartmoves said...

Has anyone done a full Avio reset in-flight yet?

I want meet the person who has/had the mojo to do that....SM

Minority Report said...

Avio NG 1.0 has higher resolution displays

PawnShop said...

***NEWSWIRE***

For Immediate Release:

Eclipse Aviation Announces Provisional Rules For Part 135 Operations

June 20, 2008, Albuquerque, NM - Onetime investor magnet Eclipse Aviation announced today that it has developed temporary rules which will go into effect immediately concerning any commercial operation of their soon-to-be-finished Eclipse 500 jet.

In cooperation with the Transportation Safety Administration and NTSB, all Part 135 flights must have two flight crew members, one of which must be qualified under TSA's Federal Flight Deck Officer program. The armed crew member will be responsible for shooting the Pilot Flying, if the PF operates any of the controls with too much force.

In conjunction with this program, Eclipse will also be developing a FeatherLite Touch training program. All Eclipse 500 pilots - regardless of Part 91 / Part 135 distinction - will be required to complete this training. An Eclipse mouthpiece said of the program, "The curriculum will be intense - like drinking water from a fire hose, but gently."

When asked about how the FFDO will determine whether too much force is being applied by the flying pilot, a TSA flackie replied, "We can't be too careful about the rash of overcontrolling that appears to have been going on. Our approach will be to shoot first and ask questions later." Concerns about possible damage to the aircraft following an inevitable shooting were handled by an NTSB spokesperson: "I suppose it could result in a cracked windshield, but I understand those need to be replaced anyway. No harm, no foul."

Once a Part 135 operator has had all staff qualified under the FeatherLite Touch traing, it will no longer be required to operate with an FFDO. Eclipse Aviation announced that it will be providing details and scheduling of the FeatherLite program next Tuesday.

No NDAs were harmed in the writing of this fake press release,
IANAL

PawnShop said...

You are so far off the mark that it boggles the mind.

Minority Report-

Guilty as charged. And for my penance, I've been taken off the glamorous drive-thru window for a day, reduced to latrine duty & taking out the trash.

If you think anyone negotiates 8 or 9 figure avionics development contracts / purchase agreements that are core to both companies' futures, with a marketing guy on the golf course, you are in some very distant alternate universe.

I've seen 7 figure non-aviation contracts done just that way. A lot of times, it worked out for everybody, because it was a rerun of a previous project (with the same involved parties) in a different location - no technical risk, little financial risk. Sometimes it was a disaster that took years to fully recover from. Amazing how an Al Mann or two can insulate a person from recognition of their own foolishness.

As for "alternate universe", well, that's not off the table by any means...

If the dumpster's rockin', don't come knockin',
IANAL

Shane Price said...

Baron,

Shane - can't your sources provide you with the procedure?

One of the pilots reports that they have followed the revised Eclipse AFM procedure, on the ground, and it checks out.

I don't have the document myself, but I'm pretty sure it is 'floating' around.

Perhaps one of our other bloggers has a copy for you.

I did, being a bit cheeky, ask if they had tried it 'in flight', but I can't really give you the response.

Families (with young children) read the blog...

Smartmoves,

I would submit that anyone who DID try a 'full AvioNG reset' while in flight would not qualify as a reliable source for information.

On the grounds they had just demonstrated insanity.

Shane

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Grak,

Good rebuttal of my post. I have no knowledge as to how Eclipse did the engine control architecture.

So you say that ...the PCL is directly connected to the FADEC. Hardwired analog, or a digital bus (what else snoops on this bus, what protocol? Can anything else transmit on the bus?)

The FADECs communicate with each other over a bus.
This communication precipitated the throttle rollback of the running engine in the Midway case.


There is you throttle fairy right there Gorak. I consider your post confirmation of my configuration guess number #2, with HAL being software in the FADEC.

What you are implying is that the FADEC can decide whether to follow its own PCL input, or has modes where it decides to follow a PCL input which was sent to the other other FADEC, otherwise how did the NTSB come to the conclusion that the engine that was not shut down went to idle because it was being controlled by the offside PCL?

Why the hell would the FADEC's talking on a bus? So that the can decide which throttle to follow?

Does anyone here have experience of performing a freedom of inforation act request? It would be really helpful to to make these CRI's public:

23-121-SC for Electronic Engine Control System or;

ACE-02-19: 14 CFR §§ 23.777(d) and 23.781 Fuel Cutoff Control


Baron95 wrote: My opinion (again if I understand correctly): there is nothing terribly wrong with the concept of the design involving the cross over signal between the engine throttles and I think it is a very good idea.
The massive failure on part of EAC was their neglect to document the interrelationship, and to provide detailed step-by-step procedure(s) and train pilots for it on the simulator.


I understand that this is your opinion, but there is something terribly wrong with this interrelationship - it is a non-compliance with FAR23.1143(a). The fact that there is a lack of information to the operator is for me the smoking gun which indicates that this was never certified (as in the FAA team did not know of this behavior.

The experience of the last 100 years has shown that you are better off with completly independant engines. Design the plane to fly safety on one, and give the pilot instructions how he is to handle the plane on one.

Baron I understand your point that there are probably some cases where you can incrementally increase total safety by reducing that independance - so the certification world offers the ablity to certify a new and novel feature, but you have to demonstrate an equivelent level of safety. I suspect that the Airbus FBW models may have some ELOS in there engine controls, but it is just a hunch, and not relevant to this case.

In trying to raise the overall saftey level of the system, you run a huge risk of acheiving the opposite through adding common mode failures, bugs, crew confusion/human factors etc. I have always found the Airbus "engineers know best" metality somewhat suspect!

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Does the FADEC reboot cause an IFSD and air restart, or does the fuel valve remain in last commanded position during the FADEC reboot?

I can't imagine a certified FADEC controlled engine that does not do a commanded shut down when you reboot the FADEC, but then again, many of the technical issues I have read on the Blog I could not have imagined occuring in a certified jet!

What is the air restart envelope? Does it do a starter assist restart, or does the pilot have to decide that?

From the NTSB report, it sounds like both engines lost thrust control at T/O power, then the Pilot shut down one, with both throttles levers at idle, causing the running engine to roll back to idle (Although it still didn't follow throttle command right? - or did the pilot just leave the Shut down engine throttle at idle, because he didn't realise that it would control the opposite engine).

So if you now restart the shut down engine, do you then have two engines following one throttle lever, or does the restart kick the engine running at idle back to it's throttle, or no thrust control? Once you have the first engine running again and under control of it's throttle lever, do you then have to shut down and restart the idling engine to force it back onto it's throttle lever?

I hope the really differcult type rating is being performed by the NTPS or ETPS. What is the pay premium for a test pilot? What does it cost to insure test pilots?

IIRC, ATM has been referring to the Partial Eclipse pilots as test pilots for about a year.

The Very Incomplete Jet.

airtaximan said...

Dave,

You've completely missed the point here buddy...

"FeatherLite Touch training" is required for part 91 operators, this was the case at Midway.

It really could not happen at Dayjet or the other for revenue operators... they only hire 98lb pilots... in order to have some useful load to leave room for some passengers.

I am hearing through the grapevine, that the 98lb pilots are also asked not to eat or drink much 12 hours before the flight, in order to keep their weight to a minimum...which also makes them very weak.

So the risk of breaking the Throttle, is low for commercial ops, high for PArt 91...

see how this works?

Dave said...

Bad news for DayJet. They were supposed to have this many flights at each airport!:
DayJet typically makes about 25 flights a day
http://jets.ru/news/2008/06/20/dayjet

airtaximan said...

MR,

"My math shows something closer to 9 months from the time IS&S started the project to Eclipse delivering the first certified Avio NG flight displays."

How would you know this? Vern stated they had been working for many months prior to the selection announcement.

And "yes" I do think its possible for IS&S to have been working before the announcement.

And "yes" I do think that they architecture is such that changes can and will be made all the time, to accomodate new requirements.

I think a new requirement is going to come soon, from the FAA and NTSB... and so, its not finished...

Pilots are still doing daily "flight testing" on around 200 jets.

fred said...

dave ...

thanks for "expert.ru" link ...

for some clearer understanding of eventual readers :

it was a small extraction from a more general discussion on what Russia should do (or not do) to be an equal level partner in a east/west development process ...

basically talking what said was:

Russia should not wait for any wonders coming coming from the west and should act more as a potential respectful partner starting by really developing what is thought to be the most crucial in Russia = Infrastructures and legal protection of private assets ...

from the west , a better way of understanding hardship for Russians ( after 70 years of centrally planed production , i think i wrote it before , what is perfectly normal for you and me , is unfortunately still too often Foreign to everyday Joe : during the soviet times , firms and plants were too often a place where "workers" was meeting with colleagues to have a good chat ...) and as well a better way to stop seeing Russia as a new "kind of Far-west"

the interesting part (for readers ) was the statement of How much is supposed to be spent to "Build " the plant ...

this report state $300 Millions ...

the News agency "Interfax" (in the link for the SEZ dev.) stated +$600 Millions ...
and directly for EA500 : $200 Millions ...
$74 Millions for the building itself ( a fortune in this area , the example coming to my mind is the presidential palace of Izhevsk
(udmurtia) an independent republic of the federation oil producing , off-course , where the "elected" (?) president has asked for a palace that would be some replica of "The White House" or something like , the place is really huge and quite magnificent , it costed "only" a bit less than $10 Millions , so 74 ? what for ? )


Etirc stated $150 Millions
(or something like , i don't get bothered to find it back ...)


i don't know about you , but for a profession i have spent some 10 years in Africa for " qualifying and quantifying development project" ...

incidentally , this is still a big chunk of my work in Russia ...

so experience tells me : "if figures changes too oftenly , what can be wrong with the project ?"

as far as we know , where is 3 "Main actors" in the plot : Vern , Ed , Roel ...

(Ed : because if EAC goes under , i may not have the same sweet deal on planes he probably has with EAC ...)

out of the 3 : one made a fortune on "bullying and cheating" , an other one made a fortune in asking a country/region for funding in a project that was already very shaky or almost dead and in any case very shadowy , the third has just been in the right place in the right time , but has an hyper-inflation of Ego to compensate ...

so (it is only speculation and logic conclusion)

the plot with the Russian Plant can be :

the Ulyanovsk Region is asked to put some $$$ in the venture , the firm (making toys in it) has a brand new plant at disposal ... , next step they go to see a financial institution "more in the west" and give the plant as back-up ... (basically speaking they get a loan on something they didn't pay for and that cannot be claimed as being theirs , sounds pretty much in their already capacities/deeds )

sounds a bit weird , but i have personally seen this kind of scheme more oftenly than a priest could dare to baptize ... ;-))

airtaximan said...

MR,

"These agreements take months of work to close and require personal involvement and signoff from the CEO and the top technical, financial and legal staff at both companies."

...and even at that, they pretty much all fall apart.

I would think the golf course might be a more expedient way to develop these relationships with eclipse. Its fairly obvious their "selection" process sucks, and their suppliers due diligence process sucks.

I wonder who mislead who?

PS. I think Avidyne was paid for the development effort...and I think the fact Vern was on their board speaks to the golf course selection process idea, as well.

PPS. how amny years behind was eclispe due to the engine change, comapred to the intial schedule? When do you think they "knew" Avidyne was so far behind, they would have to dump them? Why didn't they tell anyone while they were working for months in the background, on an alternative?

Deposit money?

fred said...

airtaxi..

an other iteration could be :

V knowing the whole is late because of engines , specs , etc... kept on demanding to add specs to Avio , for not having to ask for a delay ...

Avydine was already too much involved in the process ( they would have the most of financial risks) and had no real choice than to try to do...

at some point , the result couldn't fit the dream anymore ...Avidyne was (may be) almost happy to be thrown under the bus ...

and that would explain the crappy state of software now ...

no need to have inside infos , only linking dots together ...!!

airtaximan said...

Eclipse Aviation Annouces New Crew Requirements


According to Vern Raburn, one could choose to fly the E500 singel pilot, or with a pilot and co-pilot, bu the ideal Flight Deck complement for an Eclipse 500, is in fact a team of 3.

A PIC, a Co-pilot and... a dog.

The dog is there to bite the captain if he tries to touch the controls, and the co-pilot is there to feed the dog.

airtaximan said...

fred,

and/or Vern got them to take shares in EAC instead of cash for the development cost, and when they woke up and saw there's no way EAC shares will be worth anything... they walked.

fred said...

airtaxi ...


yes ...

definitely with this story , more or less everything can be resumed by :

others brings the cash...
others take the risks ...
others have responsibility...
others are faulty ...

we keep the pride and the standards of living NOW !

No ?

מאיפה משתין הדג

fred said...

just found out some weird fonts on last post ...

it means nothing really good ...:-))


airtaxi , in your comment on how multi-millions contracts are signed :

i tend to agree with you , if you knew how many billions worth of deals are actually signed at lunch in France , you would be amazed ...!

(yes , i know frenchs are wild animals ...:-)) )

Minority Report said...

dave i,

I have to say I like your sense of humor.

I agree that 7 figure, repeat purchase agreements are routinely done on the golf course or over dinner or in similar circumstances, especially when 7 figures is a relatively small percent of turnover for both organizations.

Airtaximan,

Vern joined Avidyne's board after the avionics selection process and after the contracts were signed.

The original agreement with Avidyne was signed a little more than a year before the avionics selection was made public.

You make a good point that complete involvement of all interested parties before signing an agreement does not guarantee a successful outcome of the relationship.

Long-term success of any critical vendor relationship comes down to sound supplier management practices. Eclipse certainly has some room for improvement in that category.

Dave said...

Eclipse is showing what boondogles government financing causes. The first example with this was NASA/Williams:
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/engine.html?page=3
Then there was Avidyne:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=123&Itemid=347

It seems like at least with Eclipse, whenever taxpayer funding is involved, it results in crap.

Baron95 said...

Freadomjamstarts said ... Baron95 wrote: My opinion (again if I understand correctly): there is nothing terribly wrong with the concept...

FJ, I did not say that. H.M.E. said that - you misquoted.

h.m.e. said... So, based on the above, there may be a fourth option:

Yes, there is a forth option that has been documented as an AD mandated insertion to the flight manual - I'd like to know what that procedure is.

It could be repositioning the throttle levers or a circuilt breaker reset, etc. I wanted to make my own determnation if that is a reasoble procedure for a busy single pilot to perform at a critical phase of flight.

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

M.R.

Thanks.

Which NDA did you breach with this intel?

kidding...

man, I just hope my crappy sense of humor is taken the way it's intended!

Thanks for the insight.

PS. I do not believe a board position at Avidyne is a big deal either way, but also, I can see forming a relationship and signing some contracts before being appointed to the board, as part of the "relationship".
Perhaps Vern sold them on his fund rasing prowess, or his vision for a revolutionary air taxi plane... and they fell in love with him... who knows.

Any clue when he was no longer on their board?

PPS. I think Sam Williams was on the board of EAC, as well. Probably same sort of timing regarding contracts, etc... aAny clue when he was no longer on EAC's board?

Pattern here?

Dave said...

PS. I do not believe a board position at Avidyne is a big deal either way, but also, I can see forming a relationship and signing some contracts before being appointed to the board, as part of the "relationship".
Perhaps Vern sold them on his fund rasing prowess, or his vision for a revolutionary air taxi plane... and they fell in love with him... who knows.
Any clue when he was no longer on their board?
PPS. I think Sam Williams was on the board of EAC, as well. Probably same sort of timing regarding contracts, etc... aAny clue when he was no longer on EAC's board?
Pattern here?


Vern joined the Avidyne board on 3/1999:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-54190073.html
And the Avidyne/Eclipse contract was announced 7/2000:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=48&Itemid=348

I think Williams was on the board since around inception.

Williams leaving the Eclipse board was specifically tied to Williams losing an Eclipse contract on 9/2001:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=192&Itemid=52
Williams lost the engine contract subsequently on 11/2002:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=407&Itemid=52

Also I found a citation where other aircraft manufacturers predicted the FPJ's price years ago:
Cessna Aircraft CEO Gary Hay recently predicted the Eclipse would end up costing twice as much as Vern says it will. Chuck Suma, CEO of New Piper Aircraft, thinks the price tag will top $2 million. "Unless they have some really new technology or manufacturing technique," says Suma, "I don't see how they will hit their price point." Another industry veteran sent Vern a letter saying his math "seems to fly in the face of your No. 1 rule...to always provide the truth."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3817101653623448889&postID=5621053512213700787&page=2

airtaximan said...

dave,

from the rumor mill... the suppliers priced their parts/systems on a curve.

If the curve wne to 1500 units per year, and the price was really, really low at that point on the curve, then to offer the plane for half of what it would normally cost, is not unfair... its also not dishonest... based on 1500 units per year.

Then, offer the plane at the lowest price to drive volume sales...

When that fails, offer the planes as floptions to a buddy from the tech industry starting an air taxi company...

when that fails, raise your prices.

when that fails... close your company.

OOOpppsss... missed a step -

Offer another product, based on huge volume and a low price...

THEN close your company

Minority Report said...

Sam Williams was on the board of Eclipse from the company's inception until October of 2001.

Eclipse issued a press release on October 16, 2001 announcing that Sam Williams had stepped down from the Eclipse board.

Prior to that time, Williams had been under contract with Eclipse to handle the airframe development, certification, and program management activities for the Eclipse 500 out of Walled Lake, MI. The certification of the aircraft was being conducted with the Chicago ACO.

Sam stepped down from the Eclipse board at approximately the same time as Eclipse terminated their program management, certification and development contract a couple of years earlier than Williams would have expected. (This information is mentioned in the Eclipse press release.)

Not many people realize that Williams was terminated by Eclipse twice. Once for program management and once for engine supply.

airtaximan said...

terminated for program management...

then...

terminated for engine supply.

- interesting. I wonder if eclipse knew the engine ws a problem when the took non-refundable deposit money, just before they rterminated them? Especially since they had the wherewithall to notice their program management issues years in advance.

Ya think?

gadfly said...

Yes, taximan . . . that is the driving force behind the many comments about the little bird that refused to be open and honest . . . they fluttered around the sky for an hour, declared "success", then called in the deposits in escrow . . . and "THEN" admitted that the engine(s) were "less" than adequate.

gadfly

(As in realestate . . . location, location, location . . . or should we say, "timing, timing, timing!")

Shane Price said...

New post up.

Have a great weekend, one and all.

I will....

Shane

airtaximan said...

Gad,

as I see it, the problem here is when they knew the engines were not going to make it... my sense is, just like in the case of the Avidyne debacle... way BEFORE they demanded position-holder's money.

If one position holder would come forth and declare foul regarding the deposit requirement based on the Williams engine or the Avidyne Avionics SWITCHEROO I think jail time would be in order.

I can almost smell the schredders at work right about now.

IMO, if it was evident the EJ22 was going to fail, when they did the first flight milestone and called the deposits, this is a BIG no-no. Fraudulent, in fact.

Same with the Avidyne situation... they replaced AVidyne in the same fashion as Williams, just AFTER asking/demanding more deposit money, and NOT disclosing any issue until they got the funds. Then, presto... Avidyne is being replaced, there are delays...etc.

I personally believe there are many folks at EAC who know of many other issues, that are not speaking up... just out of fear.

One cannot be intimately involved with the supply chain, and or co-development programs in engines, or avionics and pass the giggle test for plausible deniability, when you demand payments based on those systems, and then throw the in the garbage just after receiving the non-refundable payments.

Its nonesense. Unless one would believe they are clueless regarding the avionics and engines. In which case, how on earth did they develop a plane and get certified?

... the guys a sheister, IMO.

Dave said...

they fluttered around the sky for an hour, declared "success", then called in the deposits in escrow

Supposedly Eclipse back in February stole deposits of $182K by demanding $900K progress payments and then not refunding despite Eclipse lacking FIKI nor Eclipse having any way of actually reaching the production volumes claimed for 6 month payment.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 258 of 258   Newer› Newest»