Thursday, June 12, 2008

Have they no shame?

Remember when Vern said the last company he was concerned about was DayJet?

Seems, like in so many other ways, he was wrong. The following issued from the 'bait and switch' department at EAC yesterday. I've checked it out, changed a few details to protect the source and put it up for your information. However, if you are a potential purchaser of an FPJ, remember that we have now lost count of the number of times Vern has pulled similar stunts.

Mike Press and his fellow speculators must be especially happy to be in competition for orders, yet again, with Vern. Finally, the owners club have to be delighted that all of this years DayJet production is looking for a new home.

Next years has to be another 'special offer' in waiting. What value a position now?

Shane

From: Eclipse Aviation Sales
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008
To: Snow White
Subject: Special Customer Offer from Eclipse Aviation

Dear Snow White,

Eclipse Aviation has a special customer offer based on a unique set of circumstances. You may know that DayJet has slowed its 2008 growth rate. Consequently, the company will not take delivery of additional Eclipse aircraft this year. Starting today, Wednesday June 11, 2008, Eclipse Aviation is offering existing customers the opportunity to move to one of the 16 DayJet aircraft positions to be delivered between October and December of 2008. They will not be configured as DayJet aircraft.

As you also know, Eclipse Aviation recently announced an increase in the price of the Fisher Price Jet. Customers who have not paid their 60 percent milestone deposit are affected by this increase. However, customers who successfully move up to a 2008 aircraft through this special offer will not be subject to the price increase.

You are eligible to secure one of the 16 delivery positions if you are scheduled to receive your aircraft in 2009 or beyond. This offer is open only to customers who have not been invoiced or paid for their 60 percent milestone deposit. Please note that all customers scheduled for a delivery in 2008 have been invoiced. The customers that took advantage of our December 2007 price offer are not eligible to participate.

If you are interested in this limited-time offer, the process is simple. Eclipse Aviation will assign the 16 positions, which start in October 2008, on a “first-deposited, first-served” basis. Because milestone deposits paid to date have been at least $700,000, we require that any customer interested in this offer fund an additional $650,000 toward one of these positions. The remaining balance can then be paid at aircraft delivery. If more than 16 customers fund the required deposit, Eclipse Aviation will promptly return the $650,000 deposit in full to those customers who did not fund in time and they will retain their current position. Partial deposits will not be allocated toward any delivery position.

To participate in this special offer, please follow the steps below:

1. Wire $650,000 to Eclipse Aviation
Bank: Last Chance Saloon
ABA No.: 3456789
SWIFT Code (if wiring from outside the U.S.): MUG
Credit A/C No.: Gotcha, again!, Eclipse Aviation Corp., Aircraft Sales

o Checks will not be accepted, especially from Russia.

2. Fax this form to (505) 123-4567 with your election to participate in this offer. An email will also serve as notification. You must include the following information:

o Account number _____________________________________

o Name on account funding ______________________________

o Bank routing number __________________________________

o Federal or SWIFT wire number __________________________

o Phone number to reach you _____________________________

3. You may call our sales number at (877) Bend Over or (505) Hard Luck for any clarification or status on your wire.
[ ] I, ________________________________ (name) elect to participate in this offer to move into an earlier delivery position.


Warmest regards,

Michael McConnell
Vice President
Marketing & Sales
Eclipse Aviation

268 comments:

1 – 200 of 268   Newer›   Newest»
fred said...

deciphering :

the only one thing we found in the cash box , last time we had a look at it :

a dead rat !

dead because the box has been closed for so long , the poor animal died of starvation ...

SEND THE CASH IN ... NOW !

meanwhile everything goes smoothly as planed , we plan to open a mega-factory and the "sky will be darkened by a new jet with disrup... bla bla bla "

sounds familiar ?

John said...

The AeroNews Network TV clip taken at the May 29 flyin had factory floor tape.

In it a fuselage N201EA was clearly visible, this would correspond to S/N 201 in the Eclipse company registration scheme.

S/N 201 was a DayJet position, assigned N167DJ when first registered in April 2008. The transition from a DJ tail to a "company" tail indicates the mid-summer positions may be allocated to Europe, or be as yet unsold. Dayjet is not remarketing the unused positions itself it appears, which raises the question of what deposit was made on its order.

S/N 120 or N27052 is flying to Europe today. It made a diversion back to Albany on its first attempt on June 9. S/N 120 had entered the Albany service center on March 29. S/N 155 also made the crossing on 6/7.

Dave said...

Dayjet is not remarketing the unused positions itself it appears, which raises the question of what deposit was made on its order.

Per the message it sounds like Eclipse is claiming that $700K per plane has already been paid by DayJet. Then again, I wouldn't be inclined to believe something just because Eclipse says it.

fred said...

by the way , shane ...

if someone propose a check from russia or a russian check :

just run away !

such thing does not even exist ! ;-)

AvidPilot said...

A better title might be "Have Eclipse Buyers No Common Sense?"

You'd think position holders would get a little tired of constantly getting screwed.

If Eclipse had any business ethics at all, those available positions would go to the people who put up their 6-month deposits more than 6-months ago!

airtaximan said...

OH, too bad for me... I placed a deposit on a brand spanking new E500 at $2.1M.

hahahhahahhahahah!

baron95 said...

Hey Shane.... Let me ask you a question.

If you were runing Eclipse or any other build to order company with a backlog and suddenly you had a 16 EA500 or 16 widgets order cancellation from a customer, what would you do?

Why is it offering to existing position holders a bad idea? Why is that shameless?

Why is it offering the 2008-delivery price in exchange for 60% deposit that every other 2008-delivery customer has already placed a bad idea? Why is that shameful?

Anyone that takes advantage of this offer will be treated the same as all the other 2008-priced delivery. 60% deposit in, pre-price-increase pricing.

I find it very curious that you think that is shameless.

What exactly would you do as the CEO of Eclipse with this order cancellation?

Let the 16 jets sit in the ramp indefinetely?

Offer them to new customer on the open market ahead of your deposit holders?

Offer them at the new price?

What solution is better then the one Eclipse is offering?

Again - there is no need to spin everything into a shameless conspiracy.

Some things are just business as usual.

Others like the 30lbs TOGA detent and tires are a real issue.

Dave said...

If you were runing Eclipse or any other build to order company with a backlog and suddenly you had a 16 EA500 or 16 widgets order cancellation from a customer, what would you do?

But according to Eclipse, DayJet didn't cancel their order and so Eclipse isn't revising their order book.

What exactly would you do as the CEO of Eclipse with this order cancellation?

Admit there was an order cancellation for starters, which Eclipse hasn't done.

Offer them to new customer on the open market ahead of your deposit holders?
Offer them at the new price?
What solution is better then the one Eclipse is offering?


The better question is why Eclipse is offering them at all if this wasn't a cancellation and if Eclipse has already received $11.2 million for them. Did DayJet forfeit the $11.2M to Eclipse and so is this sale a repo sale? If Eclipse isn't offering them as part of a repo sale, what's the deal then? With any sales, does that mean it goes to Eclipse or to DayJet?

What solution is better then the one Eclipse is offering?
Again - there is no need to spin everything into a shameless conspiracy.
Some things are just business as usual.


If this is business as usual, name me another Eclipse customer that got this same treatment. Unless there is some sort of deal (conspiracy), I don't see why Eclipse is getting involved in this non-cancelled ordered where it would be up to DayJet to offload their positions like how every other other position holder has to.

AvidPilot said...

Baron95 -
For one thing, it's shameless because there are a lot of position holders who were forced to cough up their 60% /6-month deposit many months ago who still haven't received their aircraft.

Eclipse is using this oppportunity to line their own pockets, rather than take care of their first and best customers.

airtaximan said...

the honest solution...

everyone moves up the list by 16 positions. If these planes are the 16 on the ground being mothballed or sold off, and Dayjet somehow didn''t want to/couldn't sell them (contractual) then the next 16 folks in line get them.

This is the fair way... IMHO
No shennanigans

Shadow said...

Oh, how I love to watch a cash arsonist at work.

airtaximan said...

"Why is it offering the 2008-delivery price in exchange for 60% deposit that every other 2008-delivery customer has already placed a bad idea? Why is that shameful?"

Becasue you rasied the price of the e500 to everyone, and now, a week later, you are lowering it again? C'mon.

If this is going to happen for the Dayjet planes not being taken, your talking hundreds, man.

The whole thing is shameful. Its a joke really.

How to destroy your brand, AND your order book, AND your residual value all in one shot.

Together with further destroying your credibility.

AvidPilot said...

All this being said...do any of us really care if Eclipse rips off their customers again?

The buyers of Eclipse's are big boys. This is their problem. If they don't have the cajones to stand up for themselves, then they deserve exactly what they get.

Turboprop_pilot said...

Back to the software controlled Eclipse:

Push the throttles too hard, engines cannot be subsequently controlled except to emergency shut off.

Everything the FPJ is controlled by software. Many of the functions will encounter an unexpected input and produce an erroneous output. Some of these will kill you.

And these are ex MICROSOFT employees! Who have produced such bad code it is a laughing stock.

If you look at software errors from major companies- the fatal crash of an Airbus on go around- the loss of everything on crossing the International Date Line in the flight of 6 F22s (who all would have crashed in IFR conditions)- the blanking of all screens in an Airbus when an upset caused a bank angle greater than expected, you know that the Eclipse clowns have many more stupid coding decisions lurking within their Avio system.

The electronic circuit breakers will soon display some HAL like independence (an educated opinion, Vern, from a guy who has developed many embedded systems in mission critical products- produced without any inside information).

Every product I have shipped has had bugs that had to be fixed because it is impossible to test all possibilities in the lab.

The throttle position feedback probably used an incremental encoder with limited range- once the range was exceeded, it had no way of resetting itself, so defaulted to the last setting. An index at mid travel could be used to reset, a longer range encoder could be used, an absolute encoder could be used. I wonder if you pull back too hard on the throttles, they will fail at flight idle?

Turboprop_pilot

Black Tulip said...

And if you act before midnight you'll receive the culinary delight of the ages - The Veg-A-Matic. It slices,it dices and it chops! It is tastefully appointed in delicious Eclipse earthtone colors.

But that's not all, the first sixteen to call will receive a set of Ginzu knives - absolutely free of charge. They are guaranteed to stay sharp for life. Don't put off this important decision.

Act now. Our operators are standing by.

Dave said...

Act now. Our operators are standing by.

Vern Raburn - Bass-O-Matic salesman

gadfly said...

Here’s how you do it. Put extra weight on the problem (hire more people and spend more money, promise more things, etc.,) . . . you get the picture . . . and here’s today’s example of the results:

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=8481795

gadfly

(It’s the folks “downstream” that will end up picking up the pieces.)

Black Tulip said...

Gadfly,

You've reminded me of the two stone theory of mergers and acquisitions. If one stone will not float, tie another stone to it. See if two stones will float.

In the subject case, if you can't finish aircraft at one plant in the United States, build another plant in Russia. See if two plants will help.

eclipso said...

Shane,
If Bt wrote it , I would under stand, but tell me that this is satire at it's best...If not, this is going to get hilarious before summer even gets started....

baron95 said...

Dave said... But according to Eclipse, DayJet didn't cancel their order and so Eclipse isn't revising their order book.


Actually I used the "cancelation" terminology. I believe both DayJet and Eclipse called it a deferral. So, if there is any inconsistency, it was just on my part. And it is not relevant to the discussion. They have 16 aircarft that suddently became available for delivery.

Shane seems to think the solution of offering that to Eclipse on the same terms as all the other2008 deliveries is shameless. I want to know what he would do instead.

As to the order book, Eclipse considers that internal information, I haven't seen any statement from Eclipse lately on the order book and, AFAIK, they have never said how they define order. If Eclipse chooses to count LOIs, non-deposit-backed orders in their orde"rs total it is their business.

If it were my company, an order would only be counted if it were backed up by a signed purchase contract and a non-trivial (5%+) non-refundable deposit. But then again, I have never successfully started a new company to design certify and deliver 200 fan jets right off the bat. Neither have any of you - unless Bill Lear's ghost is here.

So if they do have an order "book" or not, I have no idea if they updated it or not. Incidentally industry practice, including from Boeing is to keep deferrals in the order book. Boeing chooses to make their order book public on their website. Cessna, Gulfstream, Eclipse, etc choose to keep it private and only ocasionally make comments as to orders for a given plane exceeding xxx numbers. I have yet to see any of these companies make a press release re order cancellations or the fact that the outstanding orders is now lower. So all is par for the course. Make a big deal of good news, downplay bad news.

baron95 said...

AvidPilot said...
Baron95 -
For one thing, it's shameless because there are a lot of position holders who were forced to cough up their 60% /6-month deposit many months ago who still haven't received their aircraft.

Eclipse is using this oppportunity to line their own pockets, rather than take care of their first and best customers.


Thank you AvidPilot. With that I can agree. And the fact that Eclipse sold positions rather than serial numbers further makes it "unfair" to some customers.

However, as the CEO of the company you need to manage the customers AND the business.

On one hand you can have 16 customers take delivery about 20-30 days earlier (assuming Eclipse is still delivering 16 planes every 20-30 days) and no financial benefit to the company.

On the other hand, you can move up 16 new customers into 2008 delivery and bring in some $10M into the company immediately.

I'm OK with any comments along those lines. I can see diffeent CEOs arriving at different decisions. But I think the solution that Eclipse arrived at is probably an OK solution.

Certianly not shameless. But I take your position as very valid. There was an opportunity lost to move 16 customer deliveries up by 3-4 weeks.

Shane Price said...

Eclipso,

Sadly, I report the truth.

As in, sadly for the truth.

Well, you know what I mean. Baron95 chooses to miss the key point. Vern will do ANYTHING to squeeze the customers, suppliers and staff in an effort to stay afloat another month.

When do poor business ethics become criminal actions?

For some, it has to appear that Vern has crossed that line...

Hopefully, and here we agree, it will be stopped before a Darwin Award event happens. Before there is another Midway Incident, or another twin tyre failure, or a another loss of key avionics in flight.

This aircraft is a sham, just like the company that attempts to build it. Those who choose to fly in it do so at abnormally high risk.

Please, FAA, step in.

Shane

baron95 said...

Turboprop_pilot said...
Back to the software controlled Eclipse:

Push the throttles too hard, engines cannot be subsequently controlled except to emergency shut off.

Everything the FPJ is controlled by software.


Everything from cofeepots to cars to planes are increasingly controlled by SW. Avionics/mission-critical SW engineering is not a trivial task. It is the single worst aspect of the Eclipse program. I think the goals were laudable (autothrotles, systems integration, consolidated CAS, etc), but the challenges underestimated by a big margin.

Lets count ourselves lucky that this problem was found with an incident instead of an acceident or worse a fatal accident. Unfortunately there will be more.

I'd love to participate in a critical design review of the Eclipse Architecture/Avio/SW. I am hoping they have trully knowledgeable and totally independent people doing it - someone that is totally not "married" to the design. It will be surprised how much can be anticipated if you do it right.

Dave said...

Actually I used the "cancelation" terminology. I believe both DayJet and Eclipse called it a deferral. So, if there is any inconsistency, it was just on my part. And it is not relevant to the discussion. They have 16 aircarft that suddently became available for delivery.

No, it is relevant. The inconsitency is with Eclipse saying that the DayJet orders were deferred, yet now Eclipse is there selling them off. If these are being sold off either for DayJet or because they were repoed by Eclipse, that means they were *NOT* deferred.

As to the order book, Eclipse considers that internal information, I haven't seen any statement from Eclipse lately on the order book and, AFAIK, they have never said how they define order. If Eclipse chooses to count LOIs, non-deposit-backed orders in their orde"rs total it is their business.

Then I guess Vern is going to have can Vern for violating the NDA since he's publicly talked about this "internal information." Also per the Eclipse mail, these 16 orders from Eclipse were not only deposit-backed, but they already had their 60% deposit in.

So if they do have an order "book" or not, I have no idea if they updated it or not. Incidentally industry practice, including from Boeing is to keep deferrals in the order book.

Now you're talking about quantum physics. I guess we'll have to call it Vern's Order Book instead of Schroedinger's Cat. Currently the order is simultaneously in two states - for sale and deferred. Like Schroedinger's Cat, once you look inside it collapses, so Vern's Order Book will collapse once someone looks inside.

Dave said...

On the other hand, you can move up 16 new customers into 2008 delivery and bring in some $10M into the company immediately.

How are you arriving that Eclipse is getting anything more than a seller's commission from this? It would be DayJet who would be the seller of the position since they've already put up their 60% deposit on them unless they were repossessed by Eclipse for some reason...under either scenario the orders aren't deferred. If DayJet has defaulted on Eclipse resulting in Eclipse getting positions back that would pretty serious regarding DayJet alternatively if Eclipse is just serving as the sales agent for DayJet, Eclipse isn't bringing in as much to their coffers as you claim they are.

baron95 said...

Shane said ... Baron95 chooses to miss the key point. Vern will do ANYTHING to squeeze the customers, suppliers and staff in an effort to stay afloat another month.


I don't miss that point at all. I have been on reccord here stating that for a start up pre-profitability company the CEO's first, second, third, forth and fifth priority should be to secure continuing funding for the company.

Vern's priority is EXACTLY as it should be - keep funding coming in and Eclipse afloat. If it takes agreeing to a production facility in Russia to get $100M from ETIRC - do it. If it takes defering future revenues for $30M in immediate cash from customers - do it. If it takes passing on the oportunity to anticipate delivery for 16 customers to bring $10M from future customers - do it.

What is the alternative Shane? Run out of money like Adam? Ask the 10 A500 customers who got their planes if they are happy that Adam run out of money and left them orphaned with an incomplete and unsuported plane. Ask them if they'd had prefered that Adam's CEO had taked $100M from ETIRC aor generated $30M from position holders to keep the company going another year or two.

You can't criticize an action without explaining why another alternative is not better.

It is like saying WAR is bad/undesirable/evil. But what was the alternative in 1939/40 Shane? Let Hitler take over the British Isles wihtout a fight?

What is the alternative to doing everything to get money in the door at Eclipse? Shutting down last year? Shutting down now?

This is not a high school debate you know. It is a pre-profitability business in a tough business climate. The choices are HARD, HARDER and HARDEST.

baron95 said...

Sorry for all the spelling errors - rushing to post - no time to correct. Wanted to make one firm attempt to make the point.

Will do better when I have more time.

Orville said...

Whew! Now I know why I never got involved in debate back in school. You guys are some of the brightest, well-informed and business-savvy people I've ever 'met'. If I were to go into business, I would want you guys on my side and consult with you in earnest. Vern would be wise to do the same.

baron95 said...

Dave said ... How are you arriving that Eclipse is getting anything more than a seller's commission from this?

Good question Dave - and the obvious answer is that we don't known the net revenue will get out of this. But here are my assumptions:

32 customers will wire $650K each immediately for a total new money coming in of $20.8M into Eclipse's bank account for immediate use.

30 days later, Eclipse announces the 16 lucky ones and ruturn the money to the other 16 customers, retaining use of $10.4M.

DayJet orders (my assumption) were NOT subject to 60% payment and even if I was wrong it would have been 60% of a much lower price (like 60% of $750K or so). And even then, since this is a deferral and/or failure to take delivery by paying the ballance, DayJet has NO CLAIMS of any deposits back.

Therefore, I concluded that Eclipse nets $10.4M plus use of some additional $10M or so for some 30 days. I may be wrong on my assumptions, but I see no evidence to the contrary. And no, I have no inside info on it.

All in all, a clever way to turn a negative (DayJet deferrals) into a positive ($10.4M+ immediate cash injection into the company), with only a modest downside (missed opportunity to move up 16 2008 customer deliveries by 3-4 weeks).

I can see many honorable CEOs, perhaps myself included if I knew the facts, making the same decisions.

I'd still want to hear from Shane why this deserves a "Have they no shame?" title and what would have been a better CEO decision.

The best way to criticize a decision is to say what would have been a better one.

So far, only AvidPilot has advanced one.

Dave said...

Whew! Now I know why I never got involved in debate back in school. You guys are some of the brightest, well-informed and business-savvy people I've ever 'met'.

I'm also a former college CEDA debater ;)

airtaximan said...

http://findarticles.com/p/
articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2003
_July_10/ai_105079099

US Airways cancels Bombardier aircraft order


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
id/17418499/

UPS cancels order for 10 Airbus A380 freighters

http://seekingalpha.com/article/45834-kuwait-airways-cancels-3b-of-boeing-airbus-plane-orders

Kuwait Airways Cancels $3B of Boeing, Airbus Plane Orders


Shall I continue?

Also, Mr. Baron... your description of the exhiuberance at Eclipse, (which LEADS them to over state their capability and continuously make huge predicting errors for things they probably SHOULD be able to understand better after missing the barn by a wide, wide, WIDE margin) as the same ingredinet that led to the likes of Yahoo, Google and AOL.

MAn, you should look back at my reply, and check your facts, as well as your ideas when it comes to comparing eclipse and their "missed it by that much" track record... with ANY of your examples.

None of the companies you described as "its a good thing they didn't set out to build a simple web site or simple search tool (I'm paraphrasing and apologize if I get this wrong, but this was the jist).. BUDDY, that's exactly what Yahoo and Google did.

Using them as an example, VErn would have been much better off just trying to build a silly little jet plane... without all the revolution, masive claims and "missed it by that much results"..... WAY BETTER OFF.

Search "google history", "yahoo history" etc... and you'll find nothing like what you describe as being necessary to be a successful entrepreneur/start up... etc.

In my opinion, the examples you site were fairly modest guys, trying to develop evolutionary technology... once they saw customer adoption (in some cases to their own surprise -these were hobbies or webistes developed for their own purpose and use in their dorms) they financed and grew their businesses.

I just don't see Vern/eclipse as being the "Way" to a successful company, nder any circumstances. IMHO

;)

gadfly said...

Dark Blossom

‘Just when you think you’ve seen it all . . . and no-one could be “this stupid”, “someone” comes to the rescue, and sets the goal ever . . . lower!

We haven’t touched on the real issues of the little jet . . . “playing” (as it were) to the general public . . . the folks that keep checking in . . . hitting the “refresh” button now and then, ‘hoping to see something “exciting” or “entertaining”, etc.

But one of these days, someone is going to be hurt “big time”, and all the entertainment in the world will not compensate for the sorrow and grief of the “event”.

“Two blowouts” on a single landing . . . and all the other incidents . . . a few for a new design is understandable, but this farce goes on and on and on and on, ad nausium.

The “cowards” that “pretend” to be investigative reporters, etc., sit in the shadows, waiting until someone (else) with “guts” finally says it like it is.

Whatever happens to “Eclipse” no longer matters, except for the many employees and their families . . . folks that for the most part do not (yet) understand the system. They’re due to get an education for which they did not bargain.

The “customers” . . . rich folks that can afford a “hobby” (or “think” they can) may be in for a shock, soon. (The “truly” rich, do not “dabble” with silly little toys, like the little flying thing that flutters out of ABQ on occasion.)

So, where do we go from here?

We have “warned” those that fly . . . that may not understand the basic aerodynamic engineering, that may not understand the avionics, etc., etc., . . . and yet, hope to take their families, their “loved ones”, on long trips, etc., etc.

Some of us who have spent a lifetime (give or take) in manufacturing of aircraft accessories, etc., . . . have expressed our concerns . . . and some of us are certified by the “FAA” as being qualified in the profession . . . A&P . . . and “pilots”, etc.

We find ourselves in a strange territory, of which we are not familiar . . . where it seems that the “FAA” has been “bought off” . . . an incomplete “thing” is allowed to “fly”, etc., . . . and we, who learned our professions in the age of the “dinosaurs”, do not fully comprehend how all this stuff can come about among intelligent folks that wish to fly.

Recently, I was interviewed by a “gutsy” female reporter . . . some of you have read her report . . . she didn’t get it all correct, but most of it was “dead on”. That’s the kind of stuff that’s needed. I like folks that are willing to say it like it is, and are willing to “take the heat”. It reminds me of times long ago . . . aboard a submarine.

gadfly

(I hated Truman . . . but he did make a great statement, “If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen!”)

baron95 said...

BTW, I'm willing to bet that Eclipse current owners and deposit-locked position holders want Vern to do ANYTHING legal he can to keep funds coming in and Eclipse going forward.

The last thing they want is for Eclipse to run out of money and shutdown, unless a buyers is lined up and in the wings.

airtaximan said...

bron,

"The best way to criticize a decision is to say what would have been a better one.

So far, only AvidPilot has advanced one."

I proposed moving the next 16 position-holders up.

airtaximan said...

"It is like saying WAR is bad/undesirable/evil. But what was the alternative in 1939/40 Shane? Let Hitler take over the British Isles wihtout a fight?"

Baron, who started the war? If we all saw war as evil, which it is, perhaps it would not have happend..

AND..

If we all agree that what VErn is doing is wrong, perhaps that wouldn't have happend, either?

The point? Gadfly keeps saying the plane is dangerous, we all know it was certified under "Strange" circumstances, and we all know its not finished. We all know there's a 12 year string of broken promises... AND, the company misses their stated goals, and milestones by a huge margin... they keep demanding deposit money, based on "stories" about an order book that was trumped up, leading to enough demand as to lower the cost of the plane. None was true -the price was based on a plan to deliver 500-700 planes a year, yet there nowhere near that kind of demand.

So, perhaps we can all agree, this is a situation we would all like to avoid... just like the one in your example.

Peoples lives are at stake... just like the example you provided.

Some would take it THAT seriously.

airtaximan said...

"What is the alternative to doing everything to get money in the door at Eclipse? Shutting down last year? Shutting down now?"

1- finish the damn plane
2- stop telling tall tales about demand
3- get "real" and see if there's honest investement dollars chasing the business as it really is

If there isn't close the business. That is what is going to happen anyway - based on what is going on, the inability to deal with the harsh reality (e500 is DOA) is going to kill the company anyway.

Perhaps sht down, and try again? Losing money on every plane IS NOT sustainable.

Orville said...

Reminds me of the economics 101 joke, "we'll make it up in volume". ;)

airtaximan said...

Dave, Baron -
how come Dayjet gets their money back? Did I read that correctly?

If you had a position, put down your 60%, and couldn't make the final payment(s), would you get your money back?

Did Aviace get THEIR money back? Did Vern offer to sell their positions for them?

Any clue?

baron95 said...

AT said ... I proposed moving the next 16 position-holders up.

Apologiesif I missed your comment AT. But please expand on it....

What if by doing that and foregoing some $10M+ money infusion Eclipse ends up running out of operating capital and has to shut down in a disordelly way without a buyer (like Adam)?

How is that better?

I know most of us here think "Always do the most honarable thing" is a moto to live buy. But sometimes the decisions are really a ballancing act.

It is possible that Vern is still passionate about his legacy and about making Eclipse a success and about doing right by owners and he is doing the necessary evil things. Take moeny from ETIRC, run customer specials, take advantage of new found positions, etc to improve his chances of achieving noble goals. I am not saying it is so, but I am saying it is possible.

It is possbile that this decision is, in fact, in the best interest of owners and position holders. Just possible.

airtaximan said...

understanding Vern's order book 101

we have 2600 order back by non refundable deposits

Dayjet has 230 (of these)orders plus 70 options

Dayjet admits they (raeally) have 1430 orders and options

See how easy that was.

Now, one would ask: "what would the harm have been if Vern was truthful, and told everyone Dayjet had 1430 of the 2600 orders and options?"

No harm...
He never lost any sleep over it...
Problems at Dayjet were the last thing on his mind...

One would ask, then why was he dishonest about it?

There MUST be a reason.

baron95 said...

AT Said... UPS cancels order for 10 Airbus A380 freighters


Hello AT. I cought you with your hand in the cookie jar!!!! Naughty, naughty.

Be carefull with selective quoting.

UPS and Fedex cancelled 10 A380Fs each because the project was delayed and Airbus was about to put the A380F on the shelf.

At the same time they cancelled those 20 planes, FedEx placed an order for 15 B777-200Fs and UPS placed an order for dozens of 767-200Fs.

The entire airliner business is booming. Airbus, Boeing and Embraer are have been receiving record orders in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 YTD.

And this during a period that oil went up by 575% from $20/bbl to $235/bbl.

Passenger miles flown are breeaking every record as well.

GA biz jet orders are also breaking every record.

Naughty, Naughty, Naughty. Put the cookines back in the jar.

gadfly said...

Taximan

Regardless of “who is responsible for WWII”, etc., etc., there were certain things that “Uncle Adolf” had in his favor. It is easy to get carried away with the “exciting new technology” that became available at that time in history . . . the “trains ran on time”, etc. But behind the curtain, there were “bad things” that did not justify what was published in “the press”.

Now, what is happening in ABQ is not on the same scale, to be sure, yet the principle holds true . . . say something with “boldness” in the press, and the people in the press are reluctant to argue the point . . . and before you know it, many bad things begin (continue) to happen.

‘Enough for the day . . . not that I am reluctant to go into it further, but that this is enough for folks to consider . . . for today.

gadfly

(And besides, I need to close up shop and go home.)

baron95 said...

AT said ... 1- finish the damn plane

And we all know that planes are only completed once you have spent their MTOW is $100bills a few times over and we have generated FAA/EASA paperwork equivalent to their MTOW a few times over.

So where is the money to finish the plane in a pre-profitability company going to come from?

The tooth fairy?

Sorry AT, not picking on you. Just that you are advancing the answers.

baron95 said...

airtaximan said...
Dave, Baron -
how come Dayjet gets their money back? Did I read that correctly?


No. My assumption is that they don't get their money back. Not that I think they had any significant money tied in to those positions anyway.

I'm sorry if I made a typo in my postings that indicated otherwise.

airtaximan said...

baron... by your logic, he would not obtain the deposits from the incoming position-holders down the line? Why not?

Move everyone up 16 positions, and demand 16 more deposits from the guys at the tail end.

This is fair, in my opinion.

Also, $10 million does very little for EAC, and you know that. What does it buy them another 2 weeks?

Its not a solution.

PS. I don't buy your "Vern's legacy" argument. He shortchanged the position holders, his customers, the Collier Trophy, his investors, the FAA, the suppliers, etc... he over sold and under-delivered... the e500 is DOA - it was supposed to be a revolutionary inexpensive easy to fly jet to change the way people travel - based on affordability - there is nowhere near the market for that plane that he needs and promised. This IS his legacy.

airtaximan said...

baron,

its obviously too late for the e500, now.

12 years and $2.x billion...

C'mon

another $10M won't cover 1 months losses on the delivered planes, alone.

DOA

airtaximan said...

baron, not picking on you, either...

Im sure there's a lot of folks hwho agree with you, and BTW, my typing is always worse than yours is now!!!

flyjets said...

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_46_47.pdf

baron95 said...

airtaximan said...
baron... by your logic, he would not obtain the deposits from the incoming position-holders down the line? Why not?


Because the down the line customers are subject to the price increase, and frankly there are enough E500s available in the secondary market that almost no-one would put in 60% to buy one at $2.15 mil.

My prediction, no genious needed, is that new E500 orders are COMPLETELY DRIED OUT until such time as:
1 - The EA500 is substantially complete (including FMS, FIKI, etc). AND
2 - The Eclipse long term prospects are better known. AND
3 - The existing secondary market backlog gets worked out.

That is IT. Near term going forward, Eclipse's revenues will consist almost exclusively of the 40% balance of customers already locked in at 60%, Jet Complete and other miscelaneous fees, a small number of E400 orders (conversions and new ones).

There will be no new E500 sales for a long while.

gadfly said...

To no-one in particular, but anyone in general:

‘Here's what you may choose to do:

Use "Microsoft Word" or "Word Perfect" or whatever . . . write out what you wish to say . . . the "spell checker" and other "grammatical" programs come into play . . . giving suggested "corrections" to spelling and grammar . . . all useful, for sure . . . and give a person an opportunity to "re-think" the thoughts expressed . . . and make the "author" appear a "genius" in the use of the "Queen's English".

Or continue to appear as someone who has a low opinion of their own thoughts. It's difficult to take seriously the criticism of the quality of the "little jet", when the quality of the words of the "critic" are on the same level.

'You didn't ask, but how a person speaks, either supports or under-mines the "argument".

gadfly

(The discussion happens to center around the viability of an aircraft . . . and the precision with which it is fabricated. We do well to fabricate our speech to match our logic.)

(Yes, I know I’m in trouble . . . but I see it as I see it . . . and wonder how the many “guests” on this blog also “see it”. Remember, I desire as much as you do, to be “heard” in our opinions . . . so don’t take me on as your enemy. OK? As in my business of design and manufacturing, if a job is worth doing, it’s worth doing right . . . or not at all. And let’s face it . . . this entire discussion is about such things.)

airtaximan said...

precisely,


let them in the $1.5M club.

Be fair.

** I guess I have to start using spell check.

baron95 said...

Or, we can hire you Gad as an editor ;)

Come to think of it, it is amazing how bad this blog SW is. Most discussion forums have automatic quote tools and built in spell checkers and thread trackers.

This thing is so basic and incomplete.

MetalGuy said...

The two choices that I see would be:

1) Slide the existing, very very patient customers, who have already paid their %60 deposits (like frickin years ago) up in line and let them take the 16 slots. Then ask for the deposits from the tail end.

2) Screw the very very patient customers who have already paid their %60 deposits and let 16 “new” people slide in line in front of them and get their 60% deposits.

Given how far Eclipse is behind in fulfilling orders, and how long the depositors have been patiently waiting for their very non-complete FPJ’s, you would think that a little customer loyalty would be in order right about now. Then again, perhaps not.

I’m a little surprised they didn’t magically open up 100 production slots and move all of the non-paid up people at the end of the list to the front of the list, just to get their deposits too. Bait and switch you say?

(It reminds me of the pictures of the snake eating itself from behind to keep from getting hungry. It’s just not healthy and at some point, you will run out of snake.)

gadfly said...

flyjets

Thank you for the referenced ".pdf" document. Since most of my life, following the inventions of my own father, happen to include the cable controls and connections to all flight control surfaces, and to the engines . . . you have provided full confirmation of something I had suspected from the beginning of the "problems" of the little jet.

gadfly

airtaximan said...

baron,

regarding the cookie jar issue... (funny man!)

The point was you said the manufacturers keep the orders on the books... I just provided evidence that the cancelled orders are taken off the books. BTW, they admit they are cancelled.

Everyone, except eclipse, of course.

No cookie jar here, I even provided the links for all to see.
There are many examples of cancelled orders, and no one really keeps them on the books, except eclipse.

airtaximan said...

everyone should read flyjets NTSB link...

"The Safety Board notes that the dual-channel failure of both throttle levers occurred after the airplane had accumulated only 238 hours and 192 cycles5 since new. The throttle levers are part of the throttle quadrant assembly. The Board is concerned about the reliability of an assembly that fails in such a short time. Moreover, when the failed throttle quadrant assembly was replaced, pushing the throttle levers on the replacement unit against the maximum power stops caused a R ENG CONTROL FAIL message to appear on the CAS display. The immediate failure of the replacement part suggests that there may be a design or quality problem in the Eclipse 500’s throttle quadrant assembly.
The Safety Board is continuing to investigate the cause of the failure. Until the cause of the failure is resolved, it is imperative that failed units be identified immediately because they could result in a loss of throttle control of the engines that could lead to a loss of engine power. Therefore, the Safety Board recommends that the FAA require an immediate inspection of all Eclipse 500 airplane throttle quadrants to ensure that pushing the throttle levers against the maximum power stops will not result in an engine control failure, and the FAA should furtherrequire that any units that fail the inspection be replaced and that the replacement parts be similarly inspected.
The Safety Board further notes that the Eclipse 500’s airplane flight manual (AFM) and QRH provide an emergency procedure for a single engine control failure but not for a dual engine control failure such as occurred in this incident. Had it not been for the resourcefulness of the pilots, the visual meteorological conditions that prevailed at the time, and the airplane’s proximity to the airport, the successful completion of this flight would have been unlikely.

Bottom line: the NTSB therefore, recommends to the Federal Aviation Administration:
"Require an immediate inspection of all Eclipse 500 airplane throttle quadrants to ensure that pushing the throttle levers against the maximum power stops will not result in an engine control failure, and further require that any units that fail the inspection be replaced and that the replacement parts be similarly inspected. (A-08-46) Urgent
Require Eclipse to immediately develop an emergency procedure for a dual engine control failure on the Eclipse 500 airplane and incorporate the procedure into the airplane flight manual and quick reference handbook via an airworthiness directive. (A-08-47) Urgent"

gadfly said...

baron95

Let's say, you have a very dear friend, whom you like very much . . . but he has extremely bad breath. You wish not to offend him/her, but you cannot figure a way to remedy the situation . . . without losing your friend . . . so the problem continues . . . sometimes for year or more.

Sometimes, someone comes into the scene, and makes a comment to correct the problem. . . and the "friend" gets the message. And sometimes not!

I'm betting that nothing happens . . . and we'll just continue to make the best of it.

What say you?

gadfly

(Now, can this "seventy-year-old" go home? . . . with or without permission, I'm calling it "a day". 'Retirement! . . . a figment of someone's imagination.)

AvidPilot said...

Baron95,

Can't fault your reasoning for Eclipse choosing to bring in the extra money while only delaying the current position holders by a few weeks.

If this was an isolated incident and there was at least some transparency to what is going on at Eclipse, I could see giving them a "pass".

But this is just a repeat of Eclipse's policy of "getting the money at any cost" and "to hell with our best customers" behavior which to date has been unethical and even downright fraudulent.

As much as I don't like to criticize companies that are trying to develop a new aircraft, I have to say this organization stinks from the top down. It is an embarassment to the aviation world. The FAA truly does need to step in, and the position holders need to step up to the plate and demand that the company change or face the same type of unending lawsuits that Vern is so fond of using against everyone else.

Oh, and by the way, before I forget....

“This notice shall confirm my affirmation that I be represented by Norman Malinski, Esq. in all proceedings under that legal action currently referenced in the Superior Court of California as

ECLIPSE AVIATION CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; ET AL, Defendants
Case No.: 108CV110380”

smartmoves said...

B95 said - I'd love to participate in a critical design review of the Eclipse Architecture/Avio/SW. I am hoping they have trully knowledgeable and totally independent people doing it - someone that is totally not "married" to the design. It will be surprised how much can be anticipated if you do it right.

Well said Baron! - I'd like to join you on that review...how long did we wait to get reliable SW from MS?...SM

Dave said...

I will explain why I don't think Eclipse is going to be making much money out of this deal. This will also explain why I was focusing so much on the order not being deferred.

Looking at the message very carefully there are clues that this is an Eclipse brokerage deal where they get a measily $5K per sale rather than some large amount.

This is the first clue:
Eclipse Aviation is offering existing customers the opportunity to move to one of the 16 DayJet aircraft positions to be delivered between October and December of 2008.

The second clue is this:
Because milestone deposits paid to date have been at least $700,000, we require that any customer interested in this offer fund an additional $650,000 toward one of these positions.

Between these two clues we know the 60% deposit was already due and we know the amount paid for the deposit ($700K). This makes sense because DayJet got a really good deal and by diving $700K by 60% we arrive at $1.17M, which is an appropriate figure.

DayJet is selling - not deferring - positions and if the sale is successful, they would reap the profit between what they'd have to pay on delivery versus someone taking them up on this deal.

Eclipse is probably making more than $5K per sale because Eclipse is doing more than their traditional brokerage service, but it isn't a whole lot of money. However, Eclipse doesn't look good because it apparently isn't moving people forward due to the falsely claimed deferral. If Eclipse said this was merely a brokerage deal instead of acting like this is an Eclipse internal thing there wouldn't be this discussion as to why Eclipse isn't bumping up its customers as a result of the alleged deferral.

In the alternative, let's say I'm wrong and this isn't a brokerage deal and instead Eclipse is liquidating DayJets repos. This would mean that DayJet is in even worse situation than we thought. Whether this sale is by depo or as a brokerage, DayJet isn't deferring its orders but is either liquidating them or Eclipse is liquidating them as repos.

gadfly said...

One last comment:

Go back to "flyjets" reference and read http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_46_47.pdf again, carefully. This is possibly the most revealing report (from the NTSB) ever written on the "little jet". And if you ever "take a trip" in the little jet, you have absolutely no excuse for anything that may happen.

This isn't about "flyjets", nor is it about the "gadfly", nor Michelin radial tires, etc. . . . this comes straight from the horse's mouth, the "NTSB", in clear language . . . understandable by anyone logging in on this blog-site. This should scare the socks off anyone, who ever considers taking a ride in this . . . "incomplete flying machine".

gadfly

(And this news is only a week old.)

Dave said...

Here's the profile of the person who nearly died in the Eclipse. Perhaps he'll consider that he'd rather not sacrifice his life to Vern's ego:
Kiernan could fly on one of the major airlines but finds the expense and hassle aren’t worth sacrificing time with his young family.
http://www.sandiegometro.com/2006/nov/aviation.php

skyrebel said...

interesting read.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080612lsa.html

Dave Ivedorne said...

It's Official

Emergency AD Issued

Note: "Upon shutdown of one engine, the opposite engine thrust reduced to idle and was unresponsive to subsequent throttle lever movement."

The pilot was not able to land with one engine at full thrust - it was essentially a dead stick landing.

Cleared to land if you can get here,
IANAL

easybakeplane said...

[Red] Baron said:

"I don't miss that point at all. I have been on reccord here stating that for a start up pre-profitability company the CEO's first, second, third, forth and fifth priority should be to secure continuing funding for the company."

------------
You remind me of the Engineering Director who made the following statement during a discussion on whether to go ahead with an expensive engineering redesign: " Maybe it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits than to pay for the redesign."

What should happen if some unsuspecting person buys a FPJ and gets injured due to one of the reasons that we talk about every day on this blog? Should Vern be let off the hook because his only concern should be to keep the company afloat a month longer? Maybe he 'didn't know'...

Dave Ivedorne said...

"airtaximan said...
Dave, Baron -
how come Dayjet gets their money back? Did I read that correctly?


No. My assumption is that they don't get their money back. Not that I think they had any significant money tied in to those positions anyway."

b95 and all-

My assumption is that Dayjet had a non-trivial amount of non-refundable money tied up in the "deferred" orders. The "shameful" offer may well have been Ed's idea, but was certainly something that Ed & Vern worked out in an attempt to make lemonade out of a lemon of a situation. By selling the airframes at a higher price than Dayjet would have paid for them, Dayjet's deposits are covered with extra left over for Vern. Dayjet doesn't have to default on the positions "if" they pick up the later slots that are now vacated.

A big "if".

I don't think it's as shameful as my general sentiment would like me to, but it is a shame that Vern didn't use the opportunity to accelerate deliveries for the existing position holders.

But that's not even what's bothering me. How many FPJs had Dayjet already taken delivery of, 28 or 29? The "deferred" aircraft for this year totaled 16. Add them together, and you come up with 44 or 45. How many times (this year) has Dayjet said that they planned to have 100 flying by year's end? Hasn't Eclipse represented the same thing?

Apparently Ed & Vern are allowed to talk in imaginary numbers. When the talk turns to fraud, and stuff like this surfaces, I'm inclined to agree with the talk.

IAN,AHNB,TPOW

easybakeplane said...

Emergency AD, EA-500

Discussion:
It has come to our attention that normally intelligent people continue to purchase and fly the EA-500.

Unsafe condition:
Refer to Appendix A thru ZZ

Compliance:

1. Remove production C of A and apply 'Experimental' sticker to outside of fuselage, near to the main entry door.

2. Contact 'controller.com' or demand refund from Vern.

3. Take the money and run!

MetalGuy said...

From the NTSB Report: “Moreover, when the failed throttle quadrant assembly was replaced, pushing the throttle levers on the replacement unit against the maximum power stops caused a R ENG CONTROL FAIL message to appear on the CAS display. The immediate failure of the replacement part suggests that there may be a design or quality problem in the Eclipse 500’s throttle quadrant assembly.

Um, this is obviously a design issue where the mechanical assembly is allowed to travel farther than the valid range as determined by the software.

I know there is a big argument from the Kens of the world that the probability of a dual failure like this is on the order of 1xE-9999999999. However, back in the real world:

Assuming that there are mechanical stops on both sides of the travel range, there should be an AD not to push the throttles all of the way forward, and don’t pull them all of the way back either.

At least until it is determined if this can potentially happen on both sides of the travel range. Having both engines go to fixed idle on approach is not good, and there is no time to Ctrl-Alt-Del HAL.

MetalGuy said...

By-the-by, this is how engineers spell

C-O-M-M-O-N
M-O-D-E
F-A-I-L-U-R-E

Dave said...

If the FPJ is dangerous with twin engines, what does that say about the single engine frankenplane?

AngryYoungPilot said...

The conditions spelled out in the Emergency AD are serious... VERY serious.

As in, "why are we wasting time talking about DayJet positions when there's FAA-recognized evidence of a significant, potentially fatal design flaw with the Eclipse 500?" serious.

The pilot who was able to safely land N612KB, with only idle thrust from one engine, deserves Collier consideration the next time around.

On a related note, this is probably the most valid endorsement yet for the ridiculous "twist-knob" throttle on the ConJet mockup.

Dave said...

As in, "why are we wasting time talking about DayJet positions when there's FAA-recognized evidence of a significant, potentially fatal design flaw with the Eclipse 500?" serious.

Actually I think this explains the DayJet offering. In less than a week after the serious incident Eclipse tries to hook people on before anyone finds out about how dangerous the FPJ is. Anyone who takes the offer would find out they were a sucker in agreeing to take the flying deathtrap when if they had stayed where they were in line, they would have been entitled to a refund due to the price increase and escaped from Eclipse and had plenty. Those that are being offered this would have had plenty of opportunity to find out about the serious problems with the FPJ, so best to trap them before they find anything out.

Dave Ivedorne said...

The Eclipse version:

"an Eclipse 500 pilot applied full throttle using enough force against the forward stops to result in exceeding the design throttle position signal maximum range ... Eclipse 500 operators should avoid applying excessive force to the throttle levers against the
forward throttle stops.",

which is Vern-speak for, "This wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for those damned pilots abusing the aircraft"

The NTSB version:

"However, on every test when the throttle levers were pushed against the maximum power stops using a normal application of force [Normal application of force means a force that a pilot might normally use in flight], the CAS display would show L ENG CONTROL FAIL and R ENG CONTROL FAIL messages ... Moreover, when the failed throttle quadrant assembly was replaced, pushing the throttle levers on the replacement unit against the maximum power stops caused a R ENG CONTROL FAIL message to appear on the CAS display. The immediate failure of the replacement part suggests that there may be a design or quality problem in the Eclipse 500’s throttle quadrant assembly",

which is The-FARs-Are-Written-In-Blood-speak for, "This is likely to happen again".

Which one do you trust more?
IANAL

Dan Swanson said...

As an AP and IA that has written a lot of software, I thought that the FAA would teach Vern a little about the reality of aviation quality.
Instead I now realize that the old guard is actually very self policed with the quality of it's products and the FAA certification procedure is really a final check.
I is amazing what a piece of Scheisse this E-clips thing is.
Vern has pulled the wool over a lot of eyes, but the history book will have it's way with Vern.

smartmoves said...

Did I miss something? Why haven't they grounded the fleet? If the same thing happened in an A320 you can bet they would ground the whole fleet until it was proven fixed. What gives?

gadfly said...

smartmoves

Your question is "key" to the entire discussion.

gadfly

(Keep asking . . . and demand an answer.)

fred said...

oooh guys ....! is this ONLY starting to be hilarious ?

(no baron , i am not picking on you ... but: )

"It is like saying WAR is bad/undesirable/evil. But what was the alternative in 1939/40 Shane? Let Hitler take over the British Isles wihtout a fight?"

one other solution : when Chamberlain came back from munich and was proud to show a sheet of paper with Hitler's signature on it saying "i will be a good boy ", someone in the crowd should have been asking " How can we trust him ? "

then war could have been removed from history books

(probably or war would have been much shorter ... what i mean = what made the war = Hitler's willingness to get a fight AND the blindness of other european leaders when Nazi's was Re-arming against the Versailles Treaty ...
blindness ??? does it sound familiar to some ??? Blindness ?)
-------------------------
So it is perfectly fine is a firm's C.E.O. is doing whatever it takes to remain in business ?

i don't know ... i thought the line between Honesty and Frauds was very thin and called "Ethics" ???

after all a drug-addict stealing the credit-card of an old woman at an ATM ... is doing whatever it takes to remain "in business" , no ?
------------------------
YES , i agree very much with the idea of pulling the deliveries up 16 slot to dispose of the said "available" planes ...

multiples reasons for this , but the one most obvious =

because it is fair , after making advertisement on " we don't make promise anymore , we make plane(s) "
i thought it could be some "good marketing" to make a show to deliver NOW what was supposed to be ....later !

and , more importantly :

Eclipse DEADLY NEED to attract new customers to stay alive ...

so if i would be "interested" in one of the bird ...

and considering i am just an average person with just an average brain ...

a VERY interesting situation would occur with this choice

1° pay more than 2 Millions $ and wait for some (long) times with a possibility never to get what i paid for ...

2° Pay LESS than 2 Millions to buy a second-hand plane and get it as soon as possible ... in some cases right now , in this case , second-hand would be : just a very few hours ...!

3° IF i want to pay EVEN LESS , my best choice is to wait ( a bit and anyway much less than position holders) that His highness is doing something completely NUTS ... and release to the market a bunch of planes for a lesser price than the 2 first options above ... because the firm is STARVED of cash ...! the best of the story , while arriving late , i get in front of others "customers" and i may ask to pay a little extra-money to be allowed to do "offensive gestures" when overtaking them ...

so the lesson is :

NEVER BEEN IN SUCH A HURRY TO WAIT !

hilarious , i tell you ...

but that is making the whole project D.O.A ...
as in Finished , Fini , Finito , Kaputt !!

-------------------------

i don't see the 16 as being sold by EAC on behalf of DJ...

considering all the marketing stunt previously made ...

what are the probabilities of such :

16 planes to be sold , DJ do not need those , and DIDN'T put a cent down on them ...

WHY ? = because if you were a sensible CEO trying to develop a "airtaxi on demand" system , would you accept that one of your furnisher would USE YOU as claiming something (1400 Orders) that would make you look like someone having the biggest balls since ... (insert the name of your personal hero) or like a complete lunatic ...

without compensation ??

compensation = we DON'T pay deposits , you can tout any phantasmagorial numbers you want to show a FAT order book ...!

i can even hear the answer : " No problem , we'll make it on volume !"

fred said...

i forgot :

few years ago , in Paris there was a Finance scandal ...

some clothes retailers went to theirs banks asking for loans and advances on "bill payments" ...

as a guarantee , they all gave the Final ownership to "some deposit" that they were supposed to have made to buy the clothes at the very beginning of of their trade (for which trade , they were asking for advances...)

everything was fine for a while ...

strangely enough as soon as the first advance was supposed to be paid-back , the same retailer was asking for a new "advance on trade" giving a new "deposit ownership" to the bank ...

but the trick got corrupted by itself : the banks providing such advances was charging interests for the service ....

some greedy retailers saw the solution = make it bigger and bigger ...

until one day , a bank officer (probably a bit less blind than the other , or not getting an envelop )
was very curious of very small shop asking for "advance on trade" made from such a huge business as the "supposed trade " was getting bigger than the market ...

end of the story : everybody went to jail , including the "blind" bank officers ...

does it sound familiar ?

Shane Price said...

Baron95,

1. I never said (although I probably should have) that EAC were 'shameless'. I posed the question 'Have they no shame?' I think the answer is clear and written in the history of these blogs. EAC has....

NONE

2. Informed sources tell me that EAC are close to declaring a $400 MILLION loss for the last accounting year. At the same time, the largest single customer (DayJet) withdraws (careful choice of word) from the market for new aircraft. There is no sign of new orders....

NONE

3. The FPJ exhibits a 'common mode failure' at Midway which they attempt to cover up by gagging the staff. When they are noticed with their 'hands in the cookie jar' what is their response? Try and rush people who already have money at risk in the company to double their exposure. No, don't try and address a key safety issue. Go out and raise money from the only source you can in the short term. Has Vern any business ethics? I think he has....

NONE

I hope that the FAA now responds to a proven, repeatable failure of this design in the appropriate manner. As CEO, Vern must know that the consequences are likely to be terminal for his position, and possibly that of the company as a whole. It's time for the Board of EAC to do the job its shareholders are entitled to expect.

Please understand that when I posted the headline to this thread, I was aware of the throttle failure and the losses in the company but chose instead to try and inform people of the poor business practices at EAC, before customers were blustered into sending more cash. I'm not, after all, the FAA (or the NTSB) I'm just an Irish businessman who is astounded that Vern Raburn is allowed to continue as CEO of a business with close to 2,000 employees and a catalogue of failed promises, missed deadlines and poor quality product.

So, my friend, that is the alternative you seek from me. Without this 'ego' as it's CEO there is some (very small) chance for staff, customers, suppliers and shareholders. As long as Vern continues the chance of success is....

NONE

Shane

Shane Price said...

Emergency FAA AD, issued yesterday evening, and hitting all the websites, even Captain Zoom's

Please note that the FAA reserve the right to "take future rulemaking action."

All I can can say is, about time....

Shane


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

AD 2008-13-51


Discussion

Following a windshear encounter on final approach, the pilot applied full throttle using enough force against the forward stops to exceed the design throttle position signal maximum range. The associated fault mode held the engine thrust settings at the last known throttle position, which was maximum.

Following the balked landing, the pilot elected to shutdown one engine. Upon shutdown of one engine, the opposite engine thrust reduced to idle and was unresponsive to subsequent throttle lever movement. The pilot was able to land the aircraft with no injury or substantial damage, although both main tires were blown during the event.

Exceeding the throttle position signal maximum range could cause loss of left and right engine control, which could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent loss of control.

FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, we have identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. For this reason, the FAA has determined that AD action should be taken to reduce the likelihood of the throttle position signal exceeding its maximum range, which could cause loss of left and right engine control. The FAA has also determined that AD action should be taken to provide an airplane flight manual (AFM) procedure for responding to dual engine control failures. This condition could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent loss of control.

AD Requirements

This AD requires the following:
Insertion into the emergency and normal procedures sections of the AFM temporary revisions No. 005 and 006 to AFM part number (P/N) 06-122204, temporary revisions No. 007 and 008 to AFM P/N 06-121654, and temporary revisions No. 013 and 014 to AFM P/N 06-100106, as applicable; and
Pilot evaluation of the throttles with repair or replacement as necessary.

This is considered interim action. The FAA may take future rulemaking action.

Presentation of the Actual AD

This rule is issued under 49 U.S.C. Section 44701 (formerly section 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958), pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, and is effective immediately upon receipt of this action.

2008-13-51 Eclipse Aviation Corporation: Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-043-AD.

Effective Date

(a) This emergency AD becomes effective upon receipt.

Affected ADs

(b) None.

Applicability

(c) This AD affects Model EA500 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD is the result of the throttle position exceeding its maximum range. We are issuing this AD to reduce the likelihood of the throttle position signal exceeding its maximum range, which could cause loss of left and right engine control. We are also issuing this AD to provide an airplane flight manual procedure for responding to dual engine control failures. This condition could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent loss of control.

fred said...

tss ...tss... FAA ...?

they don't even know How to read ...

they couldn't find the meaning :

"BECAUSE OF PILOTS ..."

unless the Duke of NM would be lying by omission ??

NAW.... off course !!! ;-))

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Baron95 wrote:


You can't criticize an action without explaining why another alternative is not better.

It is like saying WAR is bad/undesirable/evil. But what was the alternative in 1939/40 Shane? Let Hitler take over the British Isles wihtout a fight?

What is the alternative to doing everything to get money in the door at Eclipse? Shutting down last year? Shutting down now?

This is not a high school debate you know. It is a pre-profitability business in a tough business climate. The choices are HARD, HARDER and HARDEST.



Exellent post Baron.

I also agree that the current concrete technical and financial issues are huge and interesting, and they there is no need to get into intrique or conspiracy.

I do think there is a good bit of dirt to be dug into the NM sponsership, but that is someone elses job.

The face value is bad enough.

How would any of us like to feel as a pilot when the EFIS lights up like a christmas tree after T/O just as you are throttling back to climb power, the stall warning goes off, you firewall the engines and go into full power only mode just as you enter IMC. Since your back up instruments are still on the shelf at aircraft spruce, you have to try and keep upright while the plane is accelerating - you get the leans, shut down an engine, bring it around on whatever instruments work for a landing with one engine at full power, and just chop that engine to cutoff as the first tire bursts.

Judging by the SDA's (my source of this information - no ENEMA needed), the probability of this bad at the office, is not out at 10^-7+ where is should be, but rather a near certainty.

It would seem to be a strong confirmation of Dr Maisfields basic aerodynamic design that no one has died yet. The reports are that this plane is quite easy to fly.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

I wrote that last post before I read of the the Emergency AD or NTSB recommendation.

I am waiting for the Verntastic press release where he boasts of his distruptive technology, for being the first VIJ (Very Incomplete Jet) to earn a coverted FAA Emergency AD!

Don't forget that the EASA CRI also identified concerns with the Eclipse engine control months ago. Can't see EASA changing their mond anytime soon.

Gunner, please arrange for a disclaimer from the NTSB, as they have obviously leaked insider information, and will be a defendant in Eclipse-Vs-EveryoneNG.

airsafetyman said...

"Upon shutdown of one engine, the opposite engine thrust reduced to idle and was unresponsive to subsequent throttle lever movement."

So much for engine redundancy design. Why isn't the fleet grounded?

Dave Ivedorne said...

From AWST's June 9th article about the Frankenjet (fair use snippet):

The engine is the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW615F from the Mustang, derated to 1,200 lb. thrust for single-engine reliability, but the airframe-mounted full-authority digital engine control (Fadec) from the PW610F-powered Eclipse 500 is retained. Pratt Canada will modify the fuel metering unit (FMU) so the engine "looks like a PW610F", says Raburn. "That avoids a new Fadec." Eclipse uses a stepper motor FMU, he says, which provides a "fail-fixed" capability ensuring that thrust does not spool back to idle if there's a Fadec failure.

Er,

Um,

Never mind.

[head explodes]

IANAL

FreedomsJamtarts said...

ASM,

I wonder what the mechanism was to drive one FADEC out of last commanded power setting (Full thrust) when the emergency shut down was activated on the other engine.

I would not be surprised if some information has been lost in translation, as there should be no common modes in the control system of a twin (engine syncronisation is always an issue as it provides potential common mode failures.)

Dave said...

Let's not forget about what EASA said:
http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Certification/Consultation/Eclipse%20500%20%20Special%20condition.pdf

The FPJ and the Frankenjet are Unsafe At Any Speed.

airtaximan said...

I guess the pilot is concerned with the "GAPS" in Vern's version of what happen in the incident at Midway...


From CharterX this:
"The pilot said the only reason he decided to interview was because of "safety issues" and "gaps in Eclipse's CPC" needed to be addressed."

Gaps in the CPC... this guy is very diplomatic.

Great work Karen.

airtaximan said...

Dave:

"DayJet isn't deferring its orders but is either liquidating them or Eclipse is liquidating them as repos."

You are a smart guy, Dave.

Looking at the whole story, Dayjet had 1430 orders/options/floptions... how many "deferrals" do you think there will be?

(OK, so maybe this is a special case, because Eclipse/Dayjet "could" agree to defer delivery of these planes for which $700,000 was received already... can they defer the remaining 1400 or so?

This is one BIG joke.

airtaximan said...

ASman

"Why isn't the fleet grounded?"

I believe it will be grounded by the FAA based on the NTSB recommendation.

H.M.E said...

Reading the NTSB recommendations and the FAA AD, I am a bit puzzled.
I fail to see how these recommendations have been resolved at all.


NTSB safety recommendation (A-08-46) says:
Require an immediate inspection of all Eclipse 500 airplane throttle quadrants to ensure that pushing the throttle levers against the maximum power stops will not result in an engine control failure, and further require that any units that fail the inspection be replaced and that the replacement parts be similarly inspected. (A-08-46) Urgent


The FAA emergency AD says:
3. Move both throttle levers slowly from idle to maximum position.
4. Look for the following throttle anomalies:
_ a. Restricted, erratic or binding movement.
_ b. Unusual noises, such as grinding or scraping.
5. Return the throttles to idle.


My comment: The issue is not about the throttle grinding, scrapping or binding. The problem resulted from pushing the levers forward with some force under a stressful condition.
I would have expected the FAA AD to include an instruction to push the throttle lever against the maximum power stops with some force and check for the CAS messages.
My conclusion: This AD fails to implement the NTSB recommendation (A-08-46).


NTSB safety recommendation (A-08-47) says:
Require Eclipse to immediately develop an emergency procedure for a dual engine control failure on the Eclipse 500 airplane and incorporate the procedure into the airplane flight manual and quick reference handbook via an airworthiness directive.


The FAA emergency AD says:
...We are also issuing this AD to provide an airplane flight manual procedure for responding to dual engine control failures. This condition could result in the inability to maintain desired airspeed and/or altitude with consequent loss of control.
Action: (1) Insert into the emergency and normal procedures sections of the airplane flight manual...


My comment: Where is this required emergency procedure that is now incorporated of the AFM? Can planes continue to fly without this procedure in place?
My conclusion: This AD fails to implement the NTSB recommendation (A-08-47).


I don't know what to say. I may be wrong in this, but IMO, Kim Smith may want to have another careful read of the NTSB document.

Question: What is the role of the NTSB once the recommendations are issued?

airtaximan said...

anyone know the significance of the number 76?

all time high on controller

FreedomsJamtarts said...

From what I have read over the years, the NTSB and FAA are not exactly on speaking terms.

The FAA have acted (emergency AD)to address the NTSB's safety concern. Whether this is adequate of not is a matter of opinion at this time.

If there is an accident for this cause before a terminating action is implemented, I could imagine someone seeking a judges opinion as to whether this measure was adequate.

To be fair to the FAA, the measures applied by the emergency AD would seems to me to be consistent with previous actions. The FAA does not take the step of issueing an emergency AD lightly.

The only thing that surprised me in that AD was that they did not specify a force to be applied in the functional check. I would guess they discussed it, but measuring a force requires a calibrated tool, which drives you to a maintenance activity.

I guess they considered the immediate uncalibrated check from a pilot to be sufficiently robust at addressing the unsafe condition without the risks involved with ferry flights to maintenance etc.

DOn't forget that the FAA is not only tasked with safety, the also have a task to promote aviation. The conflict inherent in these tasks sometimes leads to obvious compromise.

airtaximan said...

Shane,

Thanks for serving the meat and potatoes...

$400M loss... for 2007... Hmm, that like $4M per plane if its Jan-Dec 2007.

If its into this year, it could be as little as $3m per plane.

"Houston...we have a problem"

PS. I believe you are correct that the Dayjet plane sales were a last dictch emergency effort to get money, instead of deal with the safety emergency... and NO Baron, I do not agree this was the right thing to do.

airsafetyman said...

"..as there should be no common modes in the control system of a twin."

Exactly. H.M.E.s comments above are also on the money.

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

"DOn't forget that the FAA is not only tasked with safety, the also have a task to promote aviation"

sorry, I see no conflict here.

But, I know what you meam.

Troglodyte said...

The NTSB report states that:

“Testing on the incident airplane showed that it is possible to regain control of the engine throttles and maintain power by cycling the electrical power to the FADECs, yet there is currently no procedure showing pilots how to do this in flight.”

Is it possible to cycle power to one or both FADECs in flight on the Eclipse? I have no access to manuals for the aircraft, but I presume that this would have to be done either by resetting the electronic CBs via AVIO or, perhaps, depending on how the FADECS are wired, by completely shutting down all electrical power via the Master Switch (though wouldn’t the FADECs have backup power)? If there is no way to recycle in flight this may mean major redesign of the system is required.

--Trog

BricklinNG said...

Special Offer for Dayjet positions

The clarity of the special offer email is poor, but I believe that the "deal" was directed only to those 250 or so customers who have already paid their 60% deposit. It offers any of them the chance to jump up the queue by paying another $650K now. So say you were at the end of the line, number 500, expecting to get your jet in January 2009. The deal offered is to jump ahead to September and get a rejected Dayjet position by putting down another $650K today.

If EAC were a normal company with an order backlog of 300 units, and if one of the orders canceled, then the company would simply fill the next order in sequence. Every order would ratchet forward one place in line.

EAC's response to the Dayjet cancellations makes one wonder yet again about its cash position. Filling the 300 outstanding orders will result in an inflow of a certain amount of cash. Offering distant customers a chance to jump forward by making a progress payment now yields some immediate cash, but does not change the total to be received--it only changes the timing to MORE NOW, LESS LATER but the time involved is a matter of merely a few months.

This observer then wonders if the scheme which results in CASH NOW is done from urgency or desperation to prevent an otherwise inevitable zero cash position in the near future. If nobody took the deal then presumably everyone would ratchet forward. The customers at the very end of the line, however, should be motivated to take the deal because there is more likelihood of getting an airplane in September than there is next February. It is no fun being an unsecured creditor of EAC, so take anything that lessens the duration.

Now all these advance payments: the 60% deposits, the "moving into Dayjet payments" the guaranteed price of $1,250,000 payments, the E400 deposit payments are just that ADVANCE PAYMENTS. I'll bet that the money is all spent long since, so when we get towards the end of the order file and no more advance payments are coming in then EAC will be faced with making a couple of hundred airplanes against tiny delivery payments. Where will EAC get the cash to produce the last hundred airplanes from the current order file?

John said...

June 5th Weather Archive for KMDW airport

The ill-fated flight arrived sometime between 12:54 and early 13:xx CDT on June 5th.

Weather shows overcast, with ssw wind speed at 21 and gusts to 30mph.

airtaximan said...

Dave, thanks for posting this comparison together with Vern blaming the pilot...

""However, on every test when the throttle levers were pushed against the maximum power stops using a normal application of force [Normal application of force means a force that a pilot might normally use in flight], the CAS display would show L ENG CONTROL FAIL and R ENG CONTROL FAIL messages ... Moreover, when the failed throttle quadrant assembly was replaced, pushing the throttle levers on the replacement unit against the maximum power stops caused a R ENG CONTROL FAIL message to appear on the CAS display. The immediate failure of the replacement part suggests that there may be a design or quality problem in the Eclipse 500’s throttle quadrant assembly"

I think we all knew it would come to this.

(I'm waiting to see Vern try to use the FOQUA "data" against the PILOT, NTSB and FAA.)

This is pretty sad. I am sure the upcoming PR will be even sadder.

airtaximan said...

trog, until the switch to GArmin 400 and the removal of the keyboards, the answer was probably CTRL, ALT, DEL.

OK, Bad joke, at a bad time.

John said...

Metadata on the customer pilot communication indicates it was created at 7:49 AM on June 10th.

This places the creation of the document 1 day after Eclipse says it sent email to a select group of pilots and operators, and 1 day before it sent the same information to a larger group.

Dave said...

I imagine some lawyers could do quite well if Eclipse didn't end up closing shop due being run by a cash arsonist. The cash arsonist has also exposed Eclipse to liability because when not engaging in arson, Vern expressly designed the Eclipse for Common Mode Failure. Vern is extremely well-documented as having willfully designed the aircraft to be "integrated" and to actively fight against incorporating redundancy. If Vern's free-spending ways don't get Eclipse, Vern's actions making Eclipse liable for unsafe aircraft design will get Eclipse.

Gunner said...

It's all fun and games until somebody puts an eye out....
or worse.

Caveat Emptor-
Gunner

FreedomsJamtarts said...

I have never heard of a FADEC control which didn't have hard wired (as opposed to digital, and thus software controlled) cut off. Normally the fuel shut off level is hard wired to the Fuel valve, and the FADEC power. On top of this the fire handles will also be hard wired to the engine fuel valve, the airframe side fuel valve (spar valve) and all interface valves (air, hydraulic etc.)

On any airliner you can reboot the FADEC by cycling the cutoff level (although I know of none which this is an approved abnormal procedure, at least one 777 LOTC was reset in flight).

Then again I never heard of a 2008 model twin jet without Area Nav or FIKI!

Shane Price said...

Freedom,

The only thing that surprised me in that AD was that they did not specify a force to be applied in the functional check. I would guess they discussed it, but measuring a force requires a calibrated tool, which drives you to a maintenance activity.

I know what I would do:-

1. Get the aircraft to the nearest maintenance location, flying low, slow and being very careful to avoid sudden requirements for power.

2. When safely on the ground, taxi onto the ramp outside the EAC approved hanger, request EAC representative to join me in cockpit.

3. Apply max power, with my right hand, as hard as I could. When I got the failure mode from the avionics, shut down the engines, exit the aircraft.

4. Drive to ABQ, demand my money back, and leave.

As a point of information for my fellow bloggers, it would appear as if EAC have been 'successful' in replicating the condition themselves. Vern knew, when he offered the 16 DayJet slots, that he is facing yet ANOTHER redesign of a key system.

Airtaximan,

Be careful, as my sources are unclear what year was under review. My point is that Vern KNOWS he is out of cash. He ignores anything that gets in the way of getting MORE cash. Even the safety of his customers, which are the principle asset of any company, takes second place to this. The 'cash arsonist' can't stop himself, so someone else HAS to.

I ask all of you, sincerely, is this guy fit to be in charge of an aircraft company?

Don't answer, unless you are prepared to provide compelling evidence that he is.

Shane

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Is there anybody here on an airfield with an Eclipse stationed? I wonder how they did that throttle quadrant. It sounds like they have relied on a puny little mechanical stop in a Pot, rather than installing a nice big solid mechanical stop. This sort of thing even gets down adequately by the average homebuilder!

To me the throttle out of range is the smaller problem. Engine remains in last commanded position, and can be shut down. Definately a big bad problem, requiring an expensive redesign and retrofit, but smaller than the implied problem of the other engine going to idle when you shut down one.

Dave said...

Be careful, as my sources are unclear what year was under review. My point is that Vern KNOWS he is out of cash. He ignores anything that gets in the way of getting MORE cash. Even the safety of his customers, which are the principle asset of any company, takes second place to this. The 'cash arsonist' can't stop himself, so someone else HAS to.
I ask all of you, sincerely, is this guy fit to be in charge of an aircraft company?


I just saw this regarding Eclipske where it claims that Vladimir Putin is an investor:
Finally, it was also disclosed by Vern Raburn in an interview following the press conference, that Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government is involved in backing this Etric venture.
http://www.spjets.com/news.htm

If its true that Putin is involved, Putin could end Vern's management of Eclipse...or any other company by putting Vern six feet under. It's one thing to defraud US politicians where at most you'd face some time in prison and could dodge it completely with a good enough lawyer, but to engage in fraud with the russians in general and Putin in particular is suicidal. Ex-KGB Putin is known for assassinating those who cross him, so fleecing him is begging for something far worse than prison to happen to you.

baron95 said...

Hey guys - great discussion - I have the blog thread on my laptop - heading out to the airport will read it on my flight.

And no, I will not be piloting this one - will be riding in the the wonderful company of AA winning FA team seat 2H of a totally decrepit A300. The joys of flying.

I'll try to catch up with the blog and post some comments tonight after I land.

Interesting and very substantive developments indeed.

fred said...

dave :

"Ex-KGB Putin is known for assassinating those who cross him, so fleecing him is begging for something far worse than prison to happen to you."

sorry , dave , this is already a wrongly made conclusion touted by some journalists who would better be REALLY on the grounds , than to relate "gibberish" heard in other press-room ....


has Vern got some links with Mr Putin ?

let me put it this way : i am in USA for a few days ...

at the occasion of whatever , it happen to me that i enter a discussion with some local mayor , secretary of mayor , assistant to sherrif or something like ...

i go back to European Union , and publicly claim that i could be invited to the White-House for diner ...

and that G.W himself told me " you can use Air-Force-One if you need !"

would you believe me ?

the scam is : Vern want peoples to think " EAC and I are so important , even president bow in front of me ...!"

likely or not likely ?

AvidPilot said...

So Shane, if you knew about the incident of both engines on the Ecliplse getting stuck wide open upon a FADEC failure, then that means Vern knew about it before he made the special offer.

Of course, he notified his customers of this incident and the possible AD that might be issued prior to sending in their $650,000.00 non-refundable deposit, right?

I think was all know the answer to that.

By the way, position holders I know say they had almost no time to think about the offer due to the sense of urgency that was created. Now we know why.

Dave said...

likely or not likely ?

In Vern's case (along with Ed), they've got extensive political connections. In fact their political connections are about the only explanation that they've been able to get the government funding that they've got and along with the lax regulation. If this was an average company I wouldn't believe they were connected to Putin, but in the very political Eclipse case, I can believe it.

John said...

S/N 26 flew back to it home in San Diego (via ABQ). It has since made a trip to Telluride (where owner Kiernan has business interests).

The track logs of its post-incident flights show two personalities: on the legs back from Chicago airspeed was held at about 300.

The San Diego to Telluride flight showed a different pattern: airspeed was pushed above 400 at FL35

Dave said...

Here's a presentation Vern personally gave on the Eclipse 500's safety. You'll notice that he spends a lot of time not talking about safety and isntead talks about other things. When he does finally talk about safety, it actualy shows the Eclipse to be very unsafe:
Eclipse 500 Is Designed for Safety
· All electric, integrated aircraft

http://www.aiaweb.org/program/07CD/Files/Raburn_presentation.pdf
The very first thing Vern personally pointed out when talking about safety was the lack of any mechanical back-up or redundant systems!

Also how does the NTSB know whether or not Eclipse would alter flight record data?:
An on-scene examination of the airplane was conducted. The non-volatile memory in the airplane's diagnostic storage unit (DSU) was downloaded under National Transportation Safety Board supervision and its data was sent to the airplane manufacturer for decoding.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080612X00845&key=1

Vern really shows that he values money over safety by sending out that emergency buy message to position holders to get their money before the emergency safety message went out.

Eclipse - Money Before Safety

John said...

NY Times has an accounting of the incident:
Federal Agency Grounds Light Jet Used as Air Taxi
--Two paragraph extract--

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated, the airplane was trying to land at Midway when the crew encountered a sudden shift in headwinds, which the pilot sought to counter by increasing power, the standard method. But when the pilot tried to cut power a few seconds later, as the airplane touched down, the engines began accelerating to maximum power.

With the end of the runway approaching rapidly, the pilots put the plane back up into the sky. One pilot lowered the landing gear in an effort to slow the plane. Even so, the plane soon approached the maximum safe speed to fly with the landing flaps extended; at that point, the crew began a shallow climb just to keep the flaps from tearing off, according to a letter sent on Thursday afternoon to the F.A.A. by the safety board.

After the crew shut down one engine, the other engine apparently reverted to the power indicated by “the last valid throttle lever position,” according to the safety board. But that engine became unresponsive, despite the crew’s need for more power to reposition the plane for a landing.

eclipso said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/business/13air.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=eclipse&st=cse&oref=slogin

airtaximan said...

just a quick question for you flight aware watchers..

how many e500 flying today?
is this more or less than usual?

John said...

Aviation Week gets a Vern quote:

Raburn, though, doesn't believe there is a design problem with the throttle quadrant. "There's no need to fix something that isn't broken," he said yesterday. He compared the throttle quadrant problem to an inadvertent airframe overstress. "If you abuse an airplane by pulling 6Gs and pop rivets on the wings, that doesn't mean the aircraft was designed improperly. The person just exceeded the design limit."

But Eclipse Aviation is having trouble diagnosing the root cause of the failed throttle quadrant because NTSB won't release it to the company for examination, Raburn said.

fred said...

dave ...

sorry to disappoint you ...!

Vern has as much connections to Russian Govt than me with the White-House tenant ...!

just think one second :

how come , if they have this level of connections, that the deal in Ulyanovsk has been delayed for some 6 months + ? (this is exactly what is stated by Etirc ...)

in a country where the then president was such an "Horribilis monster " (drinking a virgin's blood for breakfast ?) and had as much power as his K.G.B- fist could crunch ?

it is exactly like if you would say that GW BUSH has power half a mile around White-House and anywhere else any cow-boy-local-politician can do what he wants ...
(even if during Yeltsin , at the end , it was more or less this way ... it is not anymore !)

no , unfortunately for Vern , the link you provided the other day was :

a stunt made like lots of media-stunt from Vern's P.R. =

you take a journalist , you tell him "IT IS GOING to HAPPEN THIS way " the guy reports it to an other agency , who report it to an other one and so on for a while ...

when it arrive at a certain level , the way it has been spread is either so 'comical" or "shameful" for the journalist's world , that no one is willing to cross-checking infos ...

but everyone is fast to adopt such an idea or would-be-infos because it either serves some fantasies or interests or even only because like this no one has to do some "painful introspection " (recent history is full of such , and not a single country in the world is protected ...i give you an example : in the falklands war maggie Tatcher was almost sure NOT to be re-elected , so she decided to send most of the british navy against 201 guys , ill equipped or badly trained in the name of "national pride" ... the navy won , quite logic ... she was re-elected ... only one flake : a brand new boat was destroyed because a British/french developed missile was fired by Argentinians , the bristish forgot that when you sale weapons , they may be used against you ...!! so too many soldiers died in the name of political interests , which is a shame ! always and anywhere !)

it is called Desinformations , very simple to understand ..

just put a little truth (that most will know at some point anyway) with lots of rubbish ...

there you have it !

it would be more simple for most to GO to Ulyanovsk and to see with their own eyes ...

but it is far .... in a land of mysteries ... with weird inhabitants ...

so it is better to rely on other's infos and to put at risks Millions of $....

eclipso said...

"There's no need to fix something that isn't broken," he said yesterday. He compared the throttle quadrant problem to an inadvertent airframe overstress. "If you abuse an airplane by pulling 6Gs and pop rivets on the wings, that doesn't mean the aircraft was designed improperly. The person just exceeded the design limit."

But Eclipse Aviation is having trouble diagnosing the root cause of the failed throttle quadrant because NTSB won't release it to the company for examination, Raburn said.

I just KNEW it had to be the PILOT and NTSB's fault

Dave said...

Raburn, though, doesn't believe there is a design problem with the throttle quadrant. "There's no need to fix something that isn't broken," he said yesterday. He compared the throttle quadrant problem to an inadvertent airframe overstress. "If you abuse an airplane by pulling 6Gs and pop rivets on the wings, that doesn't mean the aircraft was designed improperly. The person just exceeded the design limit."

Now Eclipse saying the pilot that the NTSB lauded actually "abused" the plane. Nice. Money Before Safety.

airtaximan said...

something tells me the current problem is more akin to the windshield cracking or the wing attachment bushing problem, or the "ready for takeoff" message with the bottom half of the clam shell open... than a pilot popping rivets by puling 6G's.

call me nostalgic...

airtaximan said...

no wonder the pilot is giving an interview... I wonder if he signed and NDA?

Dave said...

Here's some other comments regarding Eclipse and DayJet:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4024947/1/

Troglodyte said...

Dave said: “Now Eclipse saying the pilot that the NTSB lauded actually "abused" the plane. Nice. Money Before Safety.”

And did the NTSB and/or FAA personnel “abuse” the replacement throttle quadrant that also failed according the NTSB Safety Recommendation?

Also, reading the Safety Recommendation I wonder if after shutting down the right engine the left engine thrust could have been controlled via the RIGHT engine throttle: “However, because the FADEC was programmed so that the left engine would mirror the throttle position of the no-fault engine, which was positioned at idle, the power in the left engine was reduced to idle.” It is also possible that by restarting the right engine the control of both engines could have been restored. Note that I am NOT suggesting that this could have or should have been done (way to little time for such nonsense), merely wondering if control of the engines could have been regained and, if so, how.

This is a dangerous and incomplete aircraft in my opinion. Though the FAA has issued an Emergency AD, additional actions that they should take include (a) immediate initiation of a complete design and certification review and (b) cessation of use of the aircraft for air-taxi and charter operations.

--Trog

epilot said...

Is an owner who bought the plane in the secondary market affected by any of these NDA or other such nonsense documents that the original purchaser had to sign?

sparky said...

Raburn, though, doesn't believe there is a design problem with the throttle quadrant. "There's no need to fix something that isn't broken," he said yesterday.

So, according to vern, if there's no problem, eclipse shouldn't have to fix it....if he really believes this then why the hell is eclipse waisting time and money trying to certify a replacement for the main gear tires?

where the hell is mirage about now, 'cause now i'm amused. Something tells me there's going to be more and more of these problems as time goes on. so far, we've had issues with the sub-standard interior, pitot/static system, early windscreen cracking, tires blowing and now the throttle quadrant.

all this from an aircraft DESIGNED for high utilization.

Baron, if you take the money away, you're left with a complete and utter failure of an aircraft, you've said as much yourself. I son't see how you can say that vern should be applauded for being the first in thirty - fourty years to make it this far.

following the same line of logic, bill gates could be the first in any number of fields if he were stupid enough to subsidize failure after failure after failure....

gadfly said...

“The person just exceeded the design limit."

Who would have thought there would come a day when the “chief” of the little bird factory, and the “critics” come into full agreement. Virtually all normal flying activity in “general aviation” is beyond the design limits of the E500.

Yes, sir! . . . we are in complete agreement.

gadfly

(Maybe the engines are “binary” . . . either full on, or full off. But the Germans already did that with the “V-1" . . . and landing it was a “blast” at “Heathrow”.)

Shadow said...

Eclipse is recommending that EA-500 operators replace their throttle quadrants with this more durable unit: http://www.amazon.com/CH-Products-Throttle-Quadrant-300-133/dp/B0002A59Z4

chickasaw said...

Sparky said:
"following the same line of logic, bill gates could be the first in any number of fields if he were stupid enough to subsidize failure after failure after failure...."

Gates did subsidize failure after failure, released product before it's time, has sub-standard product on the shelves, and does not support old products. Sound familiar?

sparky said...

I know that some manufacturers use perposefuly built-in break limits on some pieces of equipment. a shear-shaft on a pump is in example of this. It's made to shear off at a set torque limit to protect the drive motor and associated pieces of the system.

Maybe we cold get a special set of shear-quadrant control arms, that way if you slam them to full open, they just pop-off in yer hands. You'd still have control of the engines, and vern would have one less emergency AD to deal (lie) with. problem solved.....

gadfly said...

sparky

As I recall, they already had something like that in the "wing attachment". And you'll notice that fuses are often used in electronics . . . a voltage spike blows out the transistors, thus protecting the fuses.

gadfly

('Just put the "crew" and passegers in the "black box" . . . it usually survives. Oh, that's right . . . the "E500" doesn't have a black box. That was good thinking by their lawyers.)

epilot said...

No answer?

Dave said...

No answer?

I don't know

Orville said...

Are you guys serious that an original purchaser had to sign an NDA?

Dave said...

Are you guys serious that an original purchaser had to sign an NDA?

I don't know if an original purchaser does. If they didn't before, they'll probably have to now as more and more people are learning what a lemon the Eclipses are so that Vern can rob some more people.

Shane Price said...

Orville, Dave,

Purchasers of the FPJ are obliged to sign an NDA, wrapped up in some cloak and dagger stuff about the engines.

If they want access to the E5C, the Eclipse owned forum for owners, they have to sign an NDA.

As I understand it, all operators of the FPJ require their pilots to sign NDA's. Heck, I think Vern would like me to sign an NDA.

But I don't think I will....

What do you think?

Shane

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Man, I get stuck in Europe without a good web connection for a couple days and all hell breaks loose.

1st off on Dayjet issue - you guys have all missed something very important I think.

Dayjet's 16 aircraft HAD ALREADY BEEN DELIVERED remember? This MAY be the NEXT 16, but the number 16 associated to DayJet before Vern's e-stunt du jour was for the aircraft Dayjet had already taken 'delivery' of and was reportedly wanting to lease or sell.

The sales letter is, IMO, and without any inside info, a SCAM.

As for the throttle quadrant (TQ).

Is anybody F'ing surprised:
A - that it happened
B - that the NTSB and FAA are not in lock step about the solution
C - Vern thinks there is nothing wrong with the design
D - Vern blamed the pilot who saved the plane

I predict the fleet will be grounded when there is a second occurrence in flight or when ther is an accident - at this stage nothing else will do.

This is truly disgusting behavior on FAA, NTSB and Vern's part, individually and collectively and may the final nail in the coffin of my trust in the system in general. Truly pathetic and shortsighted - this is just the latest in what will be, I predict, an unprecedented long and stupid string of failures and AD's.

For those keeping score, Eclipse still has more AD's than ANY so-called competitor, or in fact, ALL so-called competitors, COMBINED.

Unbelievable.

epilot said...

I've been watching and reading this blog since it was moved or reincarnated from the previous one. I've been pretty content to sit on the sidelines and read the posts. I thought maybe you guys would like to hear directly from an owner/operator of this plane.

We bought this plane on the secondary market. We were not an original position holder nor did we buy a position. I can certainly understand where a lot of position holders are upset at the price increases, the delays they endured, the promises that were made to them and not kept, etc. We however bought a plane on a ramp. We knew what the limitations of the plane were at the time we bought it. We knew what avionics were and were not in the plane when we bought it. In other words we knew we were buying what was sitting there, the price we would pay for it, and the capabilities it had at the time we purchased it. For the types of missions we fly we liked the specs. So now that we have some time on the plane using it as a tool for our business how do we like it? So far, so good.

The plane is actually a joy to fly. The passengers like it. I as the pilot like it. As far as the real world performance numbers go, it performs almost exactly to the book specs. We've had one minor nuisance CAS message which Eclipse fixed for us.

What's the point of my post? That for some of us the Eclipse really does fit the bill for the missions we intend to fly and does so with the performance we've expected.

I read the blog here because from time to time there is truly some good information that's posted. Unfortunately it's sometimes hard to sift through the BS to find the nuggets of good information. As Baron95 has pointed out in some of his posts, there's plenty of legitimate stuff to find fault with in regards to Eclipse without having to resort to conjecture to find more. A few posters post with such hate and zealotry that I simply skip the posts made by that particular author. A few others remind me of schoolyard bullies that simply resort to making fun of an issue or person instead of simply presenting the facts. Then there are those posters who simply must resort to regular name calling in their posts.

My point is, a lot of you have done a good job of bringing some legitimate issues about the company and the product to light here in this blog. Don't let the credibility of your message be destroyed by adolescent posts.

Dave Ivedorne said...

The track logs of its post-incident flights show two personalities: on the legs back from Chicago airspeed was held at about 300.

The San Diego to Telluride flight showed a different pattern: airspeed was pushed above 400 at FL35


John -

For starters, these are ground speeds, not air speed.

IIRC (and for reasons I can't explain, I was checking that stuff out on Tuesday & Wednesday), the second half of the KSAN - KTEX flight would have been significantly affected by the jetstream. A comparable flight by a CJ3 an hour later flown at 45000 ft instead of N612KB's 35000, shows the Citation's ground speed increasing quite a bit as it descended through FL350.

Nothing to see here, move along, don't be a looky-loo...
[/Officer Barbrady]

IANAL

airtaximan said...

epilot,
thanks.

"without having to resort to conjecture"

FYI, from our stand point, its all conjecture.

We have no inside info... its opinion, ideas, intuition, observation, and experience.

We're being sued for breaching an NDA, remember?

I'm glad you like your e500.
What do you think about the recent AD and related events?

Thanks for the post

Dave Ivedorne said...

Heh.

612KB's flight home to San Diego has an interesting anomaly in its descent. Flight Aware shows some spurious indications of 28000 feet altitude. Is Avio's altitude encoder whacked, or is this just a corruption in F/A's data? Or does the FPJ really have a climb rate of 27300FPM?

IANAL

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So, the publicly available facts are there are about 18,000 flight hours, on about 200 planes, in about a year and half.

And there are significant reliability issues for tires and brakes, trim actuators, air data system, autopilots, and now FADEC PCL position sensors.

That pretty well speaks for itself.

epilot said...

I think the recent event that caused the issuance of the AD is an extremely serious concern. I'm rather anxious to get out to the plane and go through the provided procedure to see if I can duplicate the fault. I'm concerned however that the provided procedure makes no mention of how much force should be used when pushing the throttle levers against the forward stops. Obviously I push the throttle levers to the forward stops every time I fly and I've never experienced this fault. You can count on the fact that in accomplishing the procedure outlined in the AD I will be forcing the levers to the stops with an extreme amount of force.

Again, I feel that this is a massive oversight in the testing procedure. Every pilot who flies one of these things hits those stops every day. There is a) a problem with all throttle quadrants when an "excessive" amount of force is applied or b) this particular quadrant had an issue. Because the NTSB pointed out that the replacement quadrant had the same issue I can only assume that this is truly an issue with all of them and that it simply takes the proper amount of force to make it happen. The only other explanation I can come up with is that its an interrelated system (hardware or software) on this particular airplane that's causing the issue.

I will certainly say that someone is working diligently to find the true cause of the problem. If it is indeed an "excessive" amount of force I want to know exactly how much it is. I quote the word "excessive" because it is very vague. I don't want my life depending on someone telling me not to apply "excessive" force. I want a quantitative number.

Shane Price said...

Epilot,

Welcome to the blog. I'm glad that another owner has tuned in, and am happy that you have found some nuggets of information.

As I'm sure you will appreciate, trying to sift the torrent to extract the nuggets is hard, especially if you saw the volume of email I get from all quarters.

Then try keeping up with the posts...

I agree on the name calling. I've been guilty in the past myself, and have tried to reduce it to a minimal level. However, all us critic's are trying to do is draw attention to the issues with the company, its product and (in particular) the leadership 'style' of its current CEO.

I am glad you are enjoying the aircraft, which you clearly do within the limits it currently operates under. Please keep us informed as the situation matures.

Shane

gadfly said...

epilot

Let us hope that the "crew" has read, and understands your message. A "fool" can present his message so well, that the world will believe him, while "facts" may be presented in such a bad way, that the closest of allies will run for cover.

gadfly

(And "thank you"!)

epilot said...

I meant to say, "I will certainly say that I HOPE someone is working diligently to find the true cause of the problem."

epilot said...

Shane said: "However, all us critic's are trying to do is draw attention to the issues with the company, its product and (in particular) the leadership 'style' of its current CEO."

IMHO, the best way to draw attention to the issues is a persuasive presentation of the facts as they are reported to you and a spirited yet civilized and mature discussion of the issues.

And yes, so far the plane has performed well for us within its limits. Obviously FIKI is one of the sore points for us at the moment and we are hoping that is corrected sooner rather than later. Time will tell. The question is obviously, how much time?

Dave Ivedorne said...

Epilot-

Welcome aboard, and I'm glad you love your FPJ. I am singularly impressed with how quiet they are, and I'm being sincere when I say that, for your sake, I hope they don't get too quiet in the forseeable future.

You may just wish to filter out my posts pre-emptively. Light on original research, not enough "wise", and far too much "crack".

I'm just saying...

:-)

Pay at the first window,
IANAL

sparky said...

epilot,

If you don't mind my asking, what were the major deciding factors in your purchase of the eclipse?

How heavily did the fact that the manufacturer may or may not exist for much longer weigh in?

The second question is asked honestly and without malice. this had to be one of the more important aspects under consideration when purchasing anything with in excessive amount of zero's attached to the price.

oh yeah, welcome aboard

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

epilot,

Welcome to the blog, I have a few questions I hope you will answer.

Does your EA-500 have all the updates and mod's promised to date other than FIKI - e.g., Aero Mod, ETT, Avio NfG, etc.?

Are there any 'open' IOU's and did they transfer to you when you purchased the used aircraft? If yes, how is that documented, between you and EAC?

When did you receive the CPC for the PCL issue?

Have you received a copy of the AD yet?

Have you contacted EAC for clarification on the PCL test?

FWIW, I agree with you that the test described is inadequate to safely test the system and I bet it will result in more damaged/failed assemblies.

Do you have any experience with the tires and brakes yet?

Are you flying it for hire - the way you mentioned 'the passengers' is why I ask?

Are you concerned, as is the anonymous EA-500 owner quoted in the CharterX article (another good one by Karen DiPiazza), that by sharing your thoughts/observations here that Vern might retaliate with any needed updates?

Thanks for any of these questions you care to answer.

Dave said...

Here's Vern saying there's nothing wrong, the problem has been taken care of and NTSB is exaggerating:
http://www.newswest9.com/Global/story.asp?S=8489425&nav=menu505_2

20yearmechanic said...

Shane and all the posters!

ECLIPSE has done it again, They made the cover of the Albuquerque Newspaper. But This time it was not HYPE from the Vernster, NO! It was the caption “IS THE ECLIPSE 500 SAFE?” It was about the throttle cable getting stuck in the full on position upon landing. YIKES. It also mentions that many FAA officials have converged on Eclipse Aerospace this week. MAYBE SOMEONE CAN SEND A COPY TO SHANE in IRELAND? Hit me back Shane at newdsensations@yahoo.com and I will send you a full copy of the article.

20yearmechanic said...

Eclipse Jets Safe?

By Winthrop Quigley
Journal Staff Writer
The National Transportation Safety Board urgently recommended on Thursday that engine controls on all Eclipse Aviation 500 planes be inspected for safety.
Citing a June 5 emergency landing of an Eclipse 500 at Chicago's Midway airport, NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker said, "This incident demonstrated a technical safety-of-flight issue that we believe needs immediate attention" by the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates aircraft manufacturers.
The FAA on Thursday evening hadn't responded to a request for comment from the Journal.
Eclipse spokeswoman Alana McCarraher said Thursday that the company is cooperating with the NTSB but cannot comment on the incident or the recommendation while the board is conducting its inquiry.
Eclipse Aviation, based in Albuquerque, has said its light jet would revolutionize the aviation industry because of its low price.
In a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, Rosenker said an Eclipse 500, bound from Cleveland, was attempting to land at Midway when the engines uncontrollably increased power, even though the throttles of both engines were set to idle.
The pilots aborted the landing and climbed away from the airport, but the engines kept accelerating the craft until its speed approached its maximum, according to the letter.
The pilots declared an emergency and, after consulting the plane's flight manual, shut down the right engine. The left engine went to idle speed and would not respond to the throttle, the letter said.
The plane, carrying two passengers and two pilots, eventually landed safely.
The board said that shortly before the initial landing attempt a wind shear pushed the plane down rapidly. The pilot halted the dive by pushing the power up on both of the Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines, but when he throttled the engines back down to slow the plane for landing, the engines remained at maximum power.
The board said that the failure occurred after the plane had flown a total of 238 hours. "The board is concerned about the reliability of an assembly that fails in such a short time," the letter said.
The NTSB also recommended that the FAA require Eclipse to develop an emergency procedure to handle the failure of both engines and include the procedure in its flight manual.
The NTSB said about 200 Eclipse 500 aircraft have been delivered to customers. The first Eclipse 500 was delivered in January 2007.
Production of the aircraft in the past couple of years has been plagued with delays, including supplier holdups, internal processes that didn't work as planned, and last-minute changes to the plane, ranging from redesigned windshields to replacing the jet's computerized "brain."
Last Friday, the company raised the price of the Eclipse 500 to $2.15 million, more than double what it was when unveiled eight years ago.
Last month, Eclipse Aviation's largest customer scaled back expansion plans and let go about 100 employees, more than a third of its work force, after it failed to raise a planned $40 million investment round.
Boca Raton-based DayJet, which last year launched a per-seat, on-demand air taxi service among several small airports in the Southeast, has said it planned to eventually purchase up to 1,400 Eclipse 500 jets.


http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/310989nm06-13-08.htm

Dave said...

Is it smart for Vern to call the NTSB Chairman a liar?

gadfly said...

epilot . . . and others who may fly the little bird:

Going back in aviation history, many very large aircraft used a cable control system for all flight control surfaces, and even the throttle controls. Since my own father invented* the devices that kept the cables at the correct tension (beginning with the Lockheed “Constellation”, the “B47", “B52" . . . and almost all of the “Boeings” and “Douglas”, etc. . . . and even eight of his devices on the X-15, the only aircraft to truly go into “space” (over 340,000 feet and still the fasted aircraft on record)) under all conditions (called “cable tension regulators”), I have followed closely the transition into the world of computerized controls. And all that is a good transition. However, even when the control forces mandated the use of “boosted” controls, there was still the “cable system” that allowed the pilot direct control in extreme conditions . . . even if requiring great physical effort. In other words, he wasn’t left there “thumbing through a quick-reference manual”, hoping to find a way around some stupid restriction of controlling an engine . . . less than fifteen feet (give or take) behind him . . . while enjoying the vast panorama of “South Chicago”.

The designer(s) of this little aircraft, for whatever reason (“Pride?”) has(have) refused to allow a “backup” system . . . not just the “mechanical” instruments, but the basic controls that may mean the difference between life and death.

Throughout the history of aviation, and even in the realm of “submarines” (something of which I am intimately acquainted), we always had some sort of a “backup” that was available in desperate conditions. The “aborted” landing at Chicago Midway is a prime example . . . very nearly costing the lives of four people, and maybe others on the ground.

This sort of thing is not funny . . . and the comic comments wear thin almost instantly.

We’ll attempt to keep the comments “light and friendly”, but behind the scenes a certain rage is boiling . . . against an attempt to push designs and egos into the spotlight, in deference to the lives and well-being of the aviation community. We are appalled at the behavior of the FAA, and others, that seem to have forgotten their basic responsibility . . . to keep aircraft safe under all reasonable conditions.

Am I angry? . . . yes I am . . . and being among those “listed”, our time will come . . . !

gadfly

* Another time, we may discuss the many patents, the many inventions, the “test equipment”, the “calibration equipment”, that continue to work behind the scenes . . . keeping folks safe while traveling around the world. And if they should “crash”, that system that keeps the flight-crew as secure as possible, locking up at 2.5 G’s . . . yet allowing them to “exit” with a quick twist of the buckle after impact.

The little jet is an insult to serious design of aircraft, aircraft accessories, and aircraft control systems. And, as a pilot, and an “A&P” mechanic, a manufacturer of tooling for “jet engines”, and someone who has spent most of my life in this industry, you couldn’t get me inside this “thing” for any incentive . . . Sorry!

MetalGuy said...

Dated 6/13/2008 : Eclipse president Vern Raburn says the NTSB issued an urgent press release and urgent safety communique on something Eclipse had already taken care.

So is Vern stating for the record that this is not of concern to E500 operators and they can safely ignore the AD?

I hope he is absolutely sure about this.

Gunner said...

epilot asks, "If it is indeed an "excessive" amount of force I want to know exactly how much it is. I quote the word "excessive" because it is very vague. I don't want my life depending on someone telling me not to apply "excessive" force. I want a quantitative number."

Welcome, epilot. This question has already been answered quantitatively and definitively by the leading authority in the world on this plane. No kidding. It's been answered by the very company on who's information you've entrusted your life and the lives of your passengers. To wit:

"CPC No. 500-2008-010 Throttle Lever Force June 9, 2008
Rev A 09/18/07
Subject: Throttle Lever Force
Model: EA500
Effectivity: All Aircraft

1. PURPOSE:
This CPC is issued by Eclipse Aviation to provide timely aircraft operational information to Eclipse aircraft operators. It is for informational purposes only, and all recommendations are advisory in nature.

[snip]

Initial throttle quadrant testing indicates a force in excess of 30 pounds against the forward stops is required to cause the out-of-range condition."

So there you have it. 30 lbs of pressure. If you're wondering about that I encourage you (and everyone here) to try this simple test:
- Place your bathroom scale on the counter
- Place your right palm lightly on the scale
- Apply gentle pressure with your palm, increasing it it smoothly until the scale reads 30 lbs.

Pretty scary stuff, huh? Of course this testing may soon be challenged by when Vern throws his own company under the same bus as the NTSB and accuses his staff of also perpetrating "just an outright lie".

After, as Baron reminds us, "Vern's priority is EXACTLY as it should be - keep funding coming in and Eclipse afloat."

And you wonder why this hump is so often derided by us? Perhaps we've decided those with no respect for others deserve none from us. The guy is simply a world class tool. Watching him self destruct is becoming a national past time.
Gunner

airtaximan said...

metalguy,

sounds like he's PO'ed that the world now knows about the problem... that's all. I am sure he would rather no one read their version... HIS (where he blamed the pilot) was sufficient.

have they no shame?

gadfly said...

Metal Guy

You could probably learn more by reviewing a movie by "Alfred Hitchcock", in 1960. If you put yourself in the "final jail scene" (with the "fly"), you should do "just fine".

Gunner

Among my "firearms" and "air pistols", I have some "pieces" that require, maybe, ten or fifteen pounds "trigger pull" . . . and I can hit the head of a snake every time. But at over thirty pounds, at my age, I tend to "miss" . . . so I will attempt to "restrict" myself to lower "trigger pulls" . . . the excess, along with the blind spot in my right eye (requiring me to use my "left eye" . . . never look at the partial eclipse of the sun . . . Hey, that's it! . . . It all began by looking at a partial "Eclipse" back in . . . what?, 1947? . . . I knew it would be related to an "Eclipse"!) is a "pain". However, although I seldom miss a "snake", I would not wish to fly the little bird from ABQ, even if I had 20/20 vision . . . and hadn't looked at a "partial Eclipse during recess, while in the fifth grade.

gadfly

(Hey . . . suppose I could use the incident in the "fifth grade" for my "counter suit", when it all comes up? . . . I should check out some of these clever lawyers . . . there's got to be a pony in there somewhere.)

epilot said...

Sparky,

The big factors for us were the combination of range, speed, and fuel efficiency (with speed and efficiency topping the three). The majority of our flights are myself and one or two passengers. Half the flights it's only one passenger, half the flights it's two. So we didn't need anything of considerable size. What we wanted was speed. Another 200 nm of range would be nice but we're pretty happy with it where it is for most of our flying.

How long the manufacturer would be around is definitely something we considered. Obviously we're hoping they are around for a while even if it's under "new management" at some point in the future. We felt that there were enough aircraft that had left the factory that even if something happened to the current company someone else would probably step in to at least support the aircraft.

Epilot,
Our airplane has the ETT mods (which is the aero mods) but does not yet have the Avio NG installed. That will be done soon.

Yes, there are some open IOU's. Most specifically the stormscope and radar altimeter. Other than that everything on the IOU list will be completed with the NG upgrade. Obviously there are items that aren't really on anyone's IOU list which Eclipse is still promising to deliver in the future. Those include things like the auto throttles, Garmins, nexrad wx, etc. But as far as the hard IOU's in the papwerwork we will be lacking only Stormscope and radar altimeter after the NG upgrade.

I received CPC 500-2008-010 on 6/11 between 19:00 and 20:00 PM eastern time. It was dated June 9th. I received CPC 500-2008-010 on 6/13 between 00:00 and 01:00. It was dated June 12th. CPC 10 was a notification of the incident and notification that they were working with the FAA and NTSB. CPC 11 was a notification that the AD had been issued and included the necessary revisions to the QRH and AFM. It notes that the FAA will be sending the official AD. I have however obtained a copy of the AD itself from other sources.

I have not yet contacted Eclipse for clarification on the test. I simply haven't had time yet.

I have experience with the tires and brakes every time I fly the aircraft. What specifically would you like to know?

No, I do not fly it for hire. It is operated part 91. The passengers I speak of are company employees.

I don't understand what you mean. Am I concerned that Vern would retaliate with "any needed updates?" ??? What do you mean?

airtaximan said...

epilot,

thanks for the answer. I hope as well, excessive is truly something "excessive"... especially considering the "designed like an airliner" claim for durability and reliability.

BTWY&M, I'd be more concerned with the attitude of eclipse (Vern) regarding this whole mess, rather than this particular problem.

While you say someone is diligently working on the probelm... I fear more work is being placed on covering it up. Just like more work was placed on obtaining replacements for the Dayjet planes that won't be delivered.

Please keep us informed about your findings regarding the throttle issue and your own testing.

PS. I like your comment regarding how much is TOO much - I gotta tell you, the image of the guy at NBAA poking his finger into the aluminum skin of the plane makes me really wonder about "how much is too much"... according to THEM. Judgement is WAY OFF.

gadfly said...

epilot

You seem to be in the "honeymoon" phase. Enjoy each and every minute of it, while you may. It will be over far too soon.

gadfly

Dave said...

I don't understand what you mean. Am I concerned that Vern would retaliate with "any needed updates?" ??? What do you mean?

Another EA500 owner told CharterX that they were afraid to speak on the record out of fear of retaliation and that was part of their quote as to why.

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

epilot

We are just a bunch of aviation enthusiasts that enjoy puncturing windbags. Unfortunately the CEO of the company that makes your airplane is the poster child of same. Some of us are very wealthy owner/pilots and some of have spent their whole lives in aviation and don't have two dimes to rub together. As a dear relative once said "if we didn't have a good time, we wouldn't have anything". Welcome.

airtaximan said...

boys and girls...

There is an aeroplane there...

If someone looks up in the sky, from time to time, one could see an e500.

This appears to be enough for some folks to make a decision to invest, buy one...

Our intuition, speculation and piecing things together (all we have really) has led us to another conclusion.

We see bushings, cracks, FADEC issues, blown tires... We see the "all-clear for take-off" when the door is half open. We see missed pricing, production, deliveries, market revolutions, and specs by a very wide margin. We see sleight of hand on pricing, delivery positions and the order book in general. We see no EASA, no FIKI despite assurances again and again. We see BS FSW advantages. We see failed ease-of-flight integrated avionics. We see hollow prov-TC, and BS PC. We see the aborted EJ22 engine after deposits are called. We hear about blamed suppliers and even about blamed pilots. Now, blaming the NTSB. Even blaming bloggers. We see $2.xBIllions, losses on every plane, IOU's and promised fixes, bait and switched and even software glitches.

We see cover ups, and the wholesale lack of responsibility-taking required to fix safety problems and have safety as job one. Remember: every time someone says "quality", they really mean safety. Qulity is for Hamburgers and Sewing Machines. For US, Quality = Saftey.

Some folks see some planes in the air.

I guess Vern hopes that's all they need to see to believe... and to pay...

Baron, I am on record, that EAC is no different than Maverick, but for a degree of scale. They both flew some planes. Both planes were essentially placing pilots in the position of "test-pilots". The planes were not ready for prime time. Unfinished and unfit for the general public.

My personal opinion.

I think it will not be long before another part fails, or exceeds it’s design limit, as Vern would spin it. EAC will spin the reality, and do less than they should to ensure safety. Vern, should have grounded the fleet himself. He really should have. Even for a week,. He could have sent our 50 techs to test the throttle.

Instead, he said the NTSB over reacted, and it was the pilots fault... there's no problem.

epilot said...

ATM said: "While you say someone is diligently working on the probelm... I fear more work is being placed on covering it up."

I corrected myself a few posts later. I meant to say that I HOPED someone was working on it. I didn't mean to imply that they were. I have no idea if they are.

Gunner, you are correct. The CPC indicates 30 lbs. I'll be quite surprised if that turns out to be the case. 30 lbs ain't much! While certainly not a scientific test I'll try to get a good feel for 30 lbs using a scale then try to duplicate that then double that on the throttles to see what happens.

AvidPilot said...

From KWES NewsWest9:

"And he (Vern) says that to call the aircraft unsafe is"at best a massively gross exaggeration and at worse it's just an outright lie."

epilot said...

Dave said: "Another EA500 owner told CharterX that they were afraid to speak on the record out of fear of retaliation and that was part of their quote as to why."

I guess had I signed some sort of NDA with Eclipse I would indeed be worried and would want to make sure I did nothing to violate that. I have signed nothing of the sort however and we acquired our airplane in a private party transaction.

Again, I can see the point of view for those who have tracked the devlopment of this plane from its inception. There seem to have been a lot of broken promises, stumbles, etc. along the way. I guess from my perspective it's a little different. We weren't buying into any hype or promises. We bought what we saw and we knew it for what it was... not what it was supposed to be.

And I've got to say, thus far it's been a really solid little plane. It's quiet, the performance numbers match the book, overall it seems well built, and it does what we bought it to do.

A few observations.

The pressurization seems to work extremely well.

Overall fit and finish are good.

The seats could be a bit more comfortable.

It's very docile in its flight characteristics.

In its current form it's an extremely high workload airplane in hard IFR environment or in a high density terminal environment. I see this problem being corrected with the Garmins and an autopilot that couples.

Getting baggage in an out of the baggage area is a pain.

The high level of integration is a double edged sword in my opinion.

The type rating is damned tough.

Dave said...

Here's more detail from Vern and with his recent statements, it's easy to find his doubletalk about blame-shifting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121340094355373771.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
So based on what Vern has said about this incident on one hand its no big deal because it has already been taken care of by Eclipse, while on the other hand the NTSB was premature. Along with blaming the pilot, Eclipse engages in contradictory doubletalk or anything else to not accept responsibility. By the way, why hasn't Eclipse explained why they had the ASAP special deal on the DayJets prior to informing the position holders about this safety issue?

Gunner said...

epilot said:
"Gunner, you are correct. The CPC indicates 30 lbs. I'll be quite surprised if that turns out to be the case. 30 lbs ain't much!"

Doncha get it, guy? This number has been provided by the very company that designed and built the plane! Either they know what they're talking about or they don't know what they're talking about.

If they know what they're talking about, be afraid...30 lbs of push is easily generated by the arm of a 7 year old when stretching in a yawn. Why design the plane with that limit? Does it call into question other design limits of which you are not (yet) privy?

If, OTOH, they DON'T know what they're talking about....well, then, don't be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

You can't rationalize this kind of stuff and these kind of statements, epilot. To do so is to court the eternal Dirt Nap.

Look, we all KNOW that complacency is what kills pilots and families. As pilots, we can't possibly be aware of hidden design flaws if corners were cut in engineering or manufacture. It's for that very reason that we've always demanded aircraft manufacturers be held to the highest standard possible.

Vern has changed this game, much for the worse. How much more proof of that do we need? In Midway we have a crew that apparently handed in a stellar performance. They handled curves thrown at them which some of us here (perhaps me and/or you included) would not have walked away from.

And yet we'll allow this hump out of ABQ to throw them under the bus; and the NTSB, too, for good measure? Just how much proof do you need that safety is hardly a priority at the Eclipse management meetings?
Gunner

421Jockey said...

CWMOR,

"For those keeping score, Eclipse still has more AD's than ANY so-called competitor, or in fact, ALL so-called competitors, COMBINED.

Unbelievable."

Point of clarification. I have owned my EA50 for 8 months and this is the second AD that has been issued for my aircraft. The first was for the well hashed out Pitot issue.

Normally you are very accurate in your statements. You really missed the boat on this one.

Please keep it real. There are a lot of new people watching.

EX-421

421Jockey said...

epilot,

Welcome aboard! It is great to hear from another pilot who has actually had the pleasure of flying the Eclipse.

Comments like the one from Gadfly only demonstrate that they have no idea that this is the perfect aircraft for thousands of pilots and owners like you and me.

I hope you have thick skin, you will need it.

EX-421

Dave said...

"For those keeping score, Eclipse still has more AD's than ANY so-called competitor, or in fact, ALL so-called competitors, COMBINED.
Unbelievable."
Point of clarification. I have owned my EA50 for 8 months and this is the second AD that has been issued for my aircraft. The first was for the well hashed out Pitot issue.
Normally you are very accurate in your statements. You really missed the boat on this one.
Please keep it real. There are a lot of new people watching.


Perhaps you can point me to what I missed on the FAA website as what CWMOR said appears to be quite accurate:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

AvidPilot said...

" this is the perfect aircraft for thousands of pilots and owners like you and me."

Ex-421,

Would you still feel that way if it were your engines that were stuck at full power? How about if both your tires blew on landing? How about an engine fire warning in IFR conditions? Deformities of your outer hull skin with no apparent reason? Or if Eclipse can't supply parts because they've just declared BK? Heavy icing conditions below and you're on top and have burned more fuel than you expected so you have to descend?

Calling this a perfect aircraft for anyone is, well, a stretch.

e500critter said...

epilot said "I guess had I signed some sort of NDA with Eclipse I would indeed be worried and would want to make sure I did nothing to violate that. I have signed nothing of the sort however and we acquired our airplane in a private party transaction"

I have enjoyed your candor and point of view. Would you mind giving us some understanding of the W&B data on your ejet please? I would be interested to know your empty weight, the mac and the forward and aft cg limits at gross weight. As you apparently are not under the same restrictions as the original pilots who have been reluctant to part with this data in the past, perhaps we could see why eclipse wanted this data out of the public view.

fred said...

hello for new posters from this part of the world ...

nice to have all sides of the story !

but still , the remaining question is :

do you really believe Vern would take his whole family inboard ?

because this is the crucial question ..

money can be made , lost , burned or waisted ...

life of loved ones is a very different matter !

so there is "some" peoples who love to fly the FPJ ...
fine , don't take as a proof of quality , or wisdom ...

"some" others think the FPJ is an outrage ...
fine , but don't take that as a final conclusion as well !

because when you will be "eventually" high up in the air , advice , lies , marketing , etc is not going to save you ...

and that is all for who cares : what is going to be at the end of the day/flight ...

so better make your very own mind !

yes , off-course , not everybody can or would agree with one an other here ...

but knowledge is at this price !


so you're happy to own one ...fine , but don't qualify others to fast of being childish , adolescent , bigot , zealot (with a special mention to that one as "zealots" committed suicide in Massada , where it is exactly the place where i made an oath "it will never fall again" ) and others nice name ...

because when i read this , some parts of my brain are thinking this :

Vern , after a miserable attempt to silence anyone pointing out his lies , incoherences , etc... is just "polluting a place , he couldn't have close down !"

so , yes to any arguments or counter-arguments ...

pure denigrative tout stating more or less "mine is bigger than yours because it is mine " is not bringing anything into the matter of interest shared here !

epilot said...

ex421,
Thanks, and my skin is relatively thick.

critter,
I don't have the book in front of me. BEW is approximately 3700.

Keep in mind this is not an NG airplane however. While the envelope for an NG airplane would be the same the BEW will probably change.

fred,
I'll stick with my characterizing some posters as zealots. You seem to have taken my characterization as a religious one which is not the case. I use it based on the definition: a fanatical partisan

When it comes to Eclipse I've seen zealots on both side of the issue; both "the faithful" and the critics. I tend to discount the comments of both.

airtaximan said...

"thousands of pilots and owners like you and me."

I think you mean hundreds.

And I think you may have a lot of investors to thank for subsidizing YOUR plane... otherwise it could have easily cost a lot more.

Would it be perfect for you then?
I suspect, you would have bought another plane.

Black Tulip said...

epilot,

Welcome to the blog. Several here are pilots and aircraft owners, and first tuned in to learn details about the aircraft… range, payload, speed, ceiling, high/hot performance, passenger/baggage loading and operating tips. This information was not readily available for the Eclipse 500. In contrast, if you send a couple hundred bucks to Cessna, you’ll receive several pounds of manuals and all you want to know about one of their Citations.

In addition to the dialog about Eclipse Aviation on safety, viability, transparency and corporate culture, it would be nice to know something about the aircraft. Not being bound by a secrecy agreement, please tell us more about the plane.

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

BT, what would you like to know?

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

epilot,
someone posted here, that with the top of the clamshell door closed and the bottom wide open, AVIO indicates "all secure, ready for takeoff"

is this true?

epilot said...

ATM,
I haven't had a chance to test that out yet. But I will do so next time I'm at the plane and let you know.

epilot said...

ATM,
Additionally however I can tell you that I think it would be impossible not to know that the lower half of the door is open once you start the engines whether an indicator shows it or not.

Black Tulip said...

epilot,

What is payload with full fuel?

At maximum takeoff weight:

What is center-of-gravity range?

What is required takeoff distance?

What altitude can you directly climb to at ISA, at ISA plus 20?

What is speed and range at an altitude of your choosing?

What cruise altitudes do you favor for various stage lengths?

How many of your flights get cancelled due to forecast icing?

Many thanks.

MetalGuy said...

Ok, so I did the 30lbs bathroom scale test – yes, you can fairly easily reach 30lbs of force. So just when you need it most (wind-sheer, stall, single engine failure, emergency go-around, etc..), the software controlling both engines locks up on you.

Was it implied somewhere that 30lbs was the actual intended design point or was I imagining that?

------

Welcome epilot – I do have a question for you:

Based on the statement from Vern:

Eclipse president Vern Raburn says the NTSB issued an urgent press release and urgent safety communique on something Eclipse had already taken care [of].

And he says that to call the aircraft unsafe is"at best a massively gross exaggeration and at worse it's just an outright lie."



As an owner, could you interpret this statement as meaning that you do not need to comply with the AD and have your throttle quadrant tested for this failure mode?

After all, the CEO just told you it’s a non-issue and has been “taken care of”.

Thanks and welcome again!

epilot said...

BT,

Payload with full fuel is approximately 600 lbs. That's +/- 20 lbs. I don't have my AFM here at the house.

I don't recall the actual CG range at MGTOW. I can tell you that I don't generally have an issue. I usually take full fuel with only one or 2 pax and am always within the envelope.

Takeoff distance varies with weight. At sea level and ISA I remember that it's right at 2400 ft.

"What altitude can you directly climb to at ISA, at ISA plus 20?" I don't really understand the question. You can climb to any altitude. Are you asking about the ceiling limit at ISA and ISA +20?

Before RVSM when I was limited to FL280 I'd see right at 600lbs/hr fuel burn generally at 370 kts depending on temp. At FL350 I see about 440 lbs/hr at about 360 kts. Again, varies with temp. I generally limit myself to FL350 so I'm not having to wear the mask. Oh, and the above numbers are based on high speed cruise, not long range cruise. I don't see much sense in LRC unless it can prevent a fuel stop. The specific fuel flow benefit from HSC vs. LRC just isn't worth it to pull it back most of the time.

I use flight planning software to determine the best altitude. It generally varies. I use flitestar which takes all the performance numbers and wind info from the wx download and will show me the time, burn, and cost at various altitudes for any given trip. I plugged the numbers into flitestar directly from the AFM. On most flights I check the flitestar plan against the actual burn in the plane at several points through the flight. I'm always amazed at how accurate the calculations are using the AFM data. My last flight, 2 hours in length, I checked the estimated fuel burn from the plan against the actual burn about 1 hr 15 min into the flight. It was within 7 lbs. Obviously winds vary but the book numbers seem to be dead nuts on.

With it being summer I've not had to cancel any fligts due to icing. And I'm an ultra conservative when it comes to icing. I get nowhere near it. Of course I'm based in the south.

epilot said...

MG,
As an owner I'm more concerned with operating the airplane within its published limitations (be it those in the AFM or modifications thereto by service bulletin or AD) rather than interpreting Vern's statements. Vern can state whatever he wants. I'm going to continue to operate the plane in accordance with its limitations. If the FAA issues an AD I'm certainly going to comply with it regardless of what anyone says.

MG said: "Was it implied somewhere that 30lbs was the actual intended design point or was I imagining that?"

It was stated, "force in excess of 30 pounds against the forward stops is required to cause the out-of-range condition." It has not been stated, that I'm aware of, that that is or was the actual intended design limit.

fred said...

e-pilot ...

no , i didn't take "zealot" as a religious meaning , in some others parts of the world , it has a very different sens ...

but yes the original ones were a bit fanatical ...!

that said , i never made any mystery about not having a 10th of the knowledge most seems to have ...

i came to thinking about jet because i travel a lot (both work and pleasure) and once came across an advert from "you-know-who" stating it was "so easy , so inexpensive ,so great " to own a private jet ...

after some checking , it became evident that only the third was may be right ....!!

yes on the old blog , there was some fanatics (always wondered if they were getting a pay-check from ABQ) so now as a reaction , after so countless miserable failures , when i read someone writing all good about E500 , i still wonder : "P.R or not P.R."

Black Tulip said...

epilot,

Thanks for your detailed response. Yes, I was curious whether the aircraft ceiling is limited when departing at max gross on a ‘hot’ day.

As you are probably aware, Jeppesen has a free aircraft model exchange program accessible on the customer support website for FlightStar. For those of us who use FlightStar as a planning tool would you consider uploading your aircraft model to Jeppesen’s site? If you attach your model to an email to ACModels@jeppesen.com, then they will post it for others to use. There is no current listing for Eclipse, either basic or advanced models.

airtaximan said...

ATM,
Additionally however I can tell you that I think it would be impossible not to know that the lower half of the door is open once you start the engines whether an indicator shows it or not.

Of course, hysterically funny, too.. my comeback...

"I thought the plane was REALLY quiet!"

Kidding of course.

Just an indication of the thinking that's gone into AVIO... especially given the "design point" argument regarding the throttle.

Its not a big deal, just indicative.

Thanks.

BTW, with you hear, I guarantee everyone will be a lot more polite! No one will want to scare you away.

No one, from this blog, that is.

Thanks.

Orville said...

Hey - didn't the 'man' say he would respond here to 'non-anonymous' posts? I've noticed quite a few names out here.

We're all waiting...

Gunner said...

epilot-
FWIW, I think you'll find many of the "zealots" on the Critic side are simply people who treat others as they're treated. They became "Critics" only AFTER being insulted by faithful zealots.

Thus you'll see little more from us than disdain and ridicule for Vern Raburn, as that's how he treats us and the world. Likewise, we tend to be dismissive and sarcastic toward the Fluff Boy Choir, given their inability to form a coherent statement independent of the Eclipse PR machine.

Most important, however, is our collective treatment of guys like you, EO386, 421Jock and Baron95; Eclipse defenders, one and all. You'll find you're treated with significant respect here, and your honest contributions are gratefully accepted.

This doesn't stop us from panning a product/company for which we have growing concerns regarding safety/integrity; but neither does it mean that we dismiss your own thought process in your purchase decision. (After all, this author is in process of building an experimental.)

Thus, we value your insights and experience with the plane; most important, your honesty. If you occasionally slip into hyperbole, as we all do and as 421Jock did in describing the jet as perfect for thousands of pilots, expect us to pounce; but that hardly means we're the enemy.

The real enemy of pilots is ignorance and complacency; two traits which Mr. Raburn seems to value most in customers and investors.
Gunner

Anonymous said...

Re: NTSB report
"Had it not been for the resourcefulness of the pilots, the visual meteorological conditions that prevailed at the time, and the airplane’s proximity to the airport, the successful completion of this flight would have been unlikely."

I hope no one missed the exquisite irony of this statement in the NTSB report. It looks like one of those incompetent pilots that Vern recently blamed for causing accidents just saved his @$$ from a huge lawsuit.

Re: NTSB exaggeration
"The immediate failure of the replacement part suggests that there may be a design or quality problem..."

How can Vern possibly claim that the NTSB is exaggerating when you have an "immediate" failure of the new parts? More importantly, why would anyone consider putting your life in this man's hand? B95 was spot-on in declaring that Vern's primary motivation is to bring in more money. Safety is definitely not a priority when he accused the NTSB of lying.

Orville said...

Gunner said:
"(After all, this author is in process of building an experimental.)"

sorry - off topic, but curious - what have you chosen to build?

Anonymous said...

Orville said...
Hey - didn't the 'man' say he would respond here to 'non-anonymous' posts?


I suppose that means I definitely won't be receiving a response.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 268   Newer› Newest»