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
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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 268 of 268Anonymous said:
"I suppose that means I definitely won't be receiving a response."
Um - yeah - you're like 'anonymous squared'.
Orville-
Well known to those who've hung about here for a bit....I'm building an Epic LT.
Lest that fact be misconstrued and/or spun, the LT purchase decision was made a bit more than a year after I walked away from my EA-500 position and well after the time I joined the ranks of EA-500 Critics.
The very fact that I'm building an Experimental gives an inclination of my own risk aversion (or lack thereof); the fact that I'm paying the same amount for a SE experimental as I would have paid for a twin engine "certified" aircraft, demonstrates my own conclusions regarding the "value proposition" of the EA-500, having seen the deal from the inside.
Gunner
Gunner,
Awesome choice - best of luck on your build!
Although a 'newbie' here, I especially revere posts from you and a few others whose knowledge and insight rise to a new 'flight level'.
A lot of the press is reporting that the "FAA grounded the Eclipse 500 fleet" (Google - 'FAA grounds eclipse'.
Is this technically accurate? Whether it is or not - those are pretty damning headlines.
I think when the FAA issues an emergency AD, the affected aircraft are in efeect, grounded...'tho not specifically stated, i.e."This check must be complied with prior to flight"
Glad the media interpreted it correctly. :)
Just foreshadowing the inevitable.
"I especially revere posts from you and a few others..."
Is that you, Mom?
;-)
Gunner
epilot said:
"I don't have the book in front of me. BEW is approximately 3700. "
and
"Payload with full fuel is approximately 600 lbs. "
----------
Eclipe website states BEW at 3629 lbs and BCA states BOW in the 3800's, so I assume your BEW is accurate, however if the MTOW is approx 6000 lbs and full fuel is approx 1700 lbs, then you must be including all of the operating weight as part of your 'payload'. If you assume a nice round 200 lbs of operating weight, that leaves 400 lbs of true 'payload'. Not to pick a fight, but if that's the case, it's a BIG difference from what you stated.
Also, do you know what the maximum (non-fuel) payload is?
Why is DayJet contradicting the NTSB?:
The aircraft involved was not a DayJet plane, she said, explaining that the pilot involved used excessive force on the throttle, causing it to remain stuck at full power.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080614/BUSINESS/806140464/-1/newssitemap
Don't both Eclipse and now DayJet risk being sued for slander?
I would like to know why the second engine rolled back to idle and stayed there when the first engine was shut down.
By Friday morning, "all fleet operators using the Eclipse 500 already have complied with the inspection requirement, and their aircraft are in the air operating normally," the company added. It said private owners of the plane would be able to complete the inspection in less than 10 minutes
–The F-15s were airborne at 8:52 a.m. Just after 9 a.m., as United Flight 175 struck the World Trade Center, the F-15s were eight minutes away, or 71 miles
Just showing how "less than ten minutes" can be spun any way you want.
Vern REFUSES to grasp the severity of what happened. I'll be interested to hear when this pilot gives an interview.
Welcome Epilot, thanks for your openess. I have a few questions relating to some of the topics which have cropped up over the blog...
1/ How many cycles are you getting between tire changes?
2/ How many INOP stickers do you have in your flight deck?
3/ What has been your experience with the Autopilot in turbulence?
4/ Is it coping or disconnecting?
5/ How many weeks did the Aero Mods take to be installed?
6/ What was the minor EFIS nuisance message which occurred on your A/C which you had fixed?
7/ How many components have been replaced so far? Which ones?
8/ Have you had a windscreen replacement yet?
9/ You mention that the AvioNG "Upgrade" (TM Eclipse) will be performed soon. Have they provided you with the modification maintenance slot yet?
10/ Has this slot slipped yet?
11/ How many days are they asking you to schedule for this?
12/ What is the ground effect performance of the Eclipse like? Does is need very precise speed control to prevent float (like say a Mooney) or is it insensitive to speed variation in the flare?
13/ How does the emergency engine shut down function?
14/Do you see any GPS antenna blanketing in steep turns?
15/ Have you performed Radio range checks at altitude with distant stations?
16/ Do you get any coupling between closely spaced antenna?
17/ Are you using the Garmin 496 with XM weather as a alternative to an on board Weather radar?
18/ Have you had ATC give a late descent yet? Without speedbrakes/ spoilers, what descent rate is the A/C capable off form the upper flight levels?
19/ Does you A/C have the Part 135 packages with the standby instruments?
20/ Without moving map/ Area nav - What is shown on the MFD in flight?
CG & weight info, FAA notes, and more (such as "maximum tire ground speed - 139 knots") can be found in the Type Certificates here. There are three different certs - the original, revision 1 & revision 2.
IANAL
I would like to know why the second engine rolled back to idle and stayed there when the first engine was shut down.
I believe that was due to the software. I think this is explained in one of the reports by the feds (I think the NTSB report).
FreedomsJamtarts said...
I would like to know why the second engine rolled back to idle and stayed there when the first engine was shut down.
Excellent question. My somewhat educated guess is this:
[speculation starts]
1 - Pilot shoves both throtles up past their stops, that causes invalid position signal and FADEC SW maintains thrust at last valid position (TOGA just before the levers blew past the stops.
2 - Pilots run checklist and decide that the right course of action is to idle/shutdown one engine. FADEC SW then detects an idle postion indication on that engine and an invalid/out of engine indication on the other engine (the one still producing full power.
3 - FADEC SW logic interprets the only valid throtle lever input (idle/shutdown) as the pilot's desired command and rolls back power to idle on the other engine as well.
Now, I have no idea how the FADEC SW was coded, but if I were doing a credical design review on the FADEC SW you can bet your ass I would be all over the "boundary conditions" i.e. what happens at the margins of normal/abnormal inputs. I can conceive of no scenario as to how that condition would have escaped a review that I was conducting.
[speculation stops]
Here's an Eclipse Type Certificate:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/d9f75b6a99704d7d862573db0052826b/$FILE/A00002AC.pdf
Re Eclipse's/Vern's comments to the press re NTSB/FAA action.
1 - Vern is not Gary Keller and Eclipse is not Southwest i.e. there is no deep reservoir of credibility to draw on. So don't even try to challange the NTSB/FAA actions publicly.
2 - I find it amazing that Eclipse rushed a CPC that they tonned way down trying to pre-empt the NTSB/FAA actions.
3 - I find it even more amazing that Eclipse was not totally involved with the NTSB and FAA trying to identify the cause and the solution and the recomendation. Incredible.
This is how it should have happened:
A - The second the incident happened, Eclipse should have sent their accident/incident rapid response team to talk to pilots and immediately start working with the NTSB/FAA.
B - An immediate communication should have been sent all owners notifying them of the problem/potential problem.
C - IMMEDIATE tests should have been performed on ALL the 20 or sao EA500 that are still at the Eclipse ramp in ABQ and other locations. A MAX, AVerage and Safe amount of force needed to trigger the problem should be determined.
D - An urgent CPC/SB should have gonne out saying: Do not exceed xx of force in the thrust levers. If you exceed that and get a CAS message and or/lose enine control pull levers back into range and pull/reset breaker number ZZ to regain engine control. If that fails perform zzz action. Add the following note to the airframe manual.
E - Eclipse is working with the FAA and NTSB to send out an emergency AD to the entire fleet and will be working with the FAA, NTSB, Eclipse Engineering and supplier of the throtle quadrant to identify a longer term solution.
F - If you need any more info on this matter contact ABC ant 123-555-1212.
Boom. Don't be an ostrich, Vern - being combative or sticking your head in the sand never works. Be humble, be open. Get some respect.
Epilot - thanks for the first hand info.
I wonder what kind of missions you are flying. In it's present form, for those that can afford it and get the type rating, the E500 is a good VFR very-soft IFR, 150-500nm plane.
I look at my log books and my most frequent missions are BDR/HPN to MVY/ACY/HAT/ACK/MYR. Most often these were flown VFR or soft IFR. I can see the EA500 fit well there replacing the Baron I fly.
But I'd have to flying A LOT to feel really comfortable going to FL350 and coming down to shoot an approach in the NY/DC terminal areas with the current avionics.
Certainly do-able but I have to confess I'm just too spoiled with WAAS/MovingMap/coupled descent and approach.
What is the primary mission you bought the plane for?
P.S. You are spot on. If you forget the $800M (some claim $1.xB) invested and the 5 year delays, etc and buy the pane for what it is with your eyes open it has value and the 200+ planes in the field will be supported one way or the other. Really, how much do you have to spend to fly at 370 KTAS if it were not for the EA500? $5M+ for the CJ1+.
Baron-
Serious series of questions follows:
How much do you discount the value of the plane, given what you just learned about the engineering FUBAR on the throttle quadrant? The one that VERY nearly cost four peoples' lives.
How much do you discount the plane for likely engineering cluster-humps of which we are, as yet, unaware? The ones that may VERY possibly cost lives in the future.
How much do you discount the value of the plane for a philosophy toward safety that is summed up by the CEO's reaction to the current Goat Screw (the one that VERY nearly cost four peoples' lives); and by his statements that this was a simple case of "pilot error" and NTSB exaggeration?
Were we to take such cavalier attitudes toward our own preflight responsibilities as some here take toward this plane's ostensible airworthiness, we'd be laughed out of any serious flying club in existence.
This is starting to get pretty scary, people.
Gunner
easybake,
I certainly didn't to mislead you. The BEW is about 3700 lbs. Usable fuel is about 1700 lbs. In other words, with full fuel you can put about 600 lbs of people and baggage on board.
FJT,
1. I'm not sure yet. We've not yet had to change them. I check them very carefully before each flight. Plane has less than 100 cycles at the moment.
2. I haven't counted the inop stickers. They are the standard inop stickers that every eclipse coming off the line has and which are detailed in the AFM.
3 & 4. The autopilot disconnects more than I would like in turbulence. Don't get me wrong, it takes some pretty good turbulence (I'd say close to moderate) to get it to do so, but yes, it will disconnect.
5. This airplane already had the aero mods when we purchased it.
6. I'd prefer not to say what the nuissance message was. I'm willing to share information about the plane but will not be giving my exact weights, a/c location, what work has been done when, etc. as I prefer to remain anonymous and am not going to give info that could pinpoint a specific airplane.
7. I've had two minor components replaced.
8. No, the windscreen has not been replaced. I forget what the new limit is on the windscreen but I recall that the inspection/replacement interval has been increased from what it was originally.
9. Again, information I'd rather not provide that might point to a specific plane.
10. Same as 9.
11. The SB calls for 18 days but I'm told by the mx facility that it's taking more like 22 to 23 currently. They tell me that the first few were taking much longer but as they've progressed they've managed to shorten to the current 22 to 23 days.
12. In my opinion, it exhibits considerable ground effect and proper speed control is necessary. I think this was a contributing factor in some of the blown tire incidents.
13. You'd need to be more specific with your question.
14. I've not noticed any. However at the moment the only data you get from the GPS is a synthetic DME to a VOR. So no, I've not noticed the distance disappear.
15. If you're talking about navigation radios, yes, I have. I always recall having a usable signal even outside of the service volume of the navaid.
16. I don't understand the question.
17. No, I'm not using the 496. I'm using Jeppesen's Flitedeck which I MUCH prefer to messing with the 496.
18. Yes, I have been given some late descents but mostly at mid-level altitudes. I've been able to get 3500+ fpm descent rates with the throttles at idle with no gear or flaps without exceeding the limits of the plane.
19. Question I'll choose not to answer. Again, identity.
20. The MFD has about 11, 12, 13?? I can't remember the number, of synoptic pages that can be displayed. They range from electrical, to fuel, to environmental, pressurization, ECBs, etc.
"Mr. Raburn said Eclipse believes it can fix the problem with a change in its software, but he said the company will make additional design changes if necessary. "I don't want to downplay this. There is a condition here that we did not anticipate," he said."
here's the link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB121340094355373771.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj
There's a lot of news on this... and most of it is Vern making his remarks about how the NTSB acted inappropriately. The quote from above was the most sober statement I found.
Youknow, I somehow find this remarkable , in a very bad way - after the wing attachment bushing issue, the premature window and windscreen cracking issue, the blowing tires, the inability to successfully complete the AVIO avionics system, the botched EJ22 engine selection and replacement, and now THIS - a crappy throttle design plus a engine control software problem... and one knows one fact...
this is not the end of the string of failures. I would say, these guys have pretty much cut corners as a matter of business practice.
Some folks have said "the planes are being held together by the paint"... in their opinion.
I can't help but think, this is one decision where saving a little cash (short term) is not the right decision.
And yeah, Stan, you were right - Vern provides all the material that is needed to keep this blog alive and fresh - unfortunately.
Boom. Don't be an ostrich, Vern - being combative or sticking your head in the sand never works. Be humble, be open. Get some respect.
why would you ever (have to) say such a thing?
PS. does anyone know if Vern makes these decisions in a vaccuum? Isn't anyone involved in helping hi make the statements and decisions?
"I can conceive of no scenario as to how that condition would have escaped a review that I was conducting."
But my friend, you have your answer.
What is your opinion on this?
Baron,
Vern all but confirmed the $1.3B figure by claiming I had to have come to that conclusion based 'all or in part' on non-public information as part of the blogger subpoena statement.
The FADEC rollback is indicative, once again, of SUBSTANDARD design and testing practice in terms of flight critical software.
Qualifying a throttle quadrant that fails when it sees 30 lbs of force is also indicative, also again, of SUBSTANDARD design and testing practice - as well as a FAILURE of Vern's much vaunted training program and AFM to provide pilot's with critical information.
The NTSB has stated clearly the pilot is responsible for the safe completion of the flight, IN SPITE of the issues of the Eclipse design.
Tip of the Iceberg, right ahead.
Eclipse Says Its Jets Haven't Been Grounded
By J. Lynn Lunsford and Andy Pasztor
Once again, I maintain that anytime it's states "Before further Flight"...The aircraft IS grounded
epilot,
Repeat message in case you did not look at the previous 200...
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.
Leave a reminder post on Monday when I get to the office and I'll upload it.
S/N 80 flies to Europe tonight
John,
Schefferville, Quebec to Iqualuit, Nunavut (formerly Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories)...
The route brings back memories. It's a late evening flight but still daylight at the upper latitudes.
Back to the DayJet airplanes that DayJet is no longer buying.
The FAA registry website shows that Eclipse has sold two aircraft with DayJet N numbers to non-DayJet owners.
On June 5th, paperwork was filed to register N165DJ (serial #199) to UF Equipment LLC.
On June 4th, paperwork was filed to register N166DJ (serial #200) to Canterbury Preparatory School, Inc.
Can someone please re-post the incredible FPJ SDR summary and comparison with other aircraft - I have spent hours trying to find it, but the blog is so big now I am having trouble just keeping up with the main tent....SM
"Federal Agency Grounds Light Jet Used as Air Taxi"
This is a headline from the NY Times.
Vern, better add the NY Times to your hit list. It appears they have done more to discredit Eclipse than any Of the bloggers you are going after.
By the way, I've heard a couple of Eclipse owners have said their wives are refusing to fly in the airplane again.
Eclipso is correct, if the compliance window is 'before next flight', the plane is damn well grounded until the check/test can be made.
Without a specific method for testing to 30 lbs/force, the result of the test will just as likely be either the condition of concern is not met (not enough force), the component is damaged but possibly not annunciated (too much force), or the pilot essentially requalifies that the weak part (30 lbs/force???) is still weak.
The FADEC behavior after the shutdown on 1 of the 2 engines suggests to me there are some sneak failures in the code (probably related to voting and comparators based on my intermediate knowledge of other FADECs) that behaved in a totally unexpected way, which Vern essentially admitted himself in the WSJ article ATM quoted.
How many more of these issues are, pun intended, waiting in the wings of the preemie jet?
3 significant AD's - in about 18 months, against about 200 planes, in about 18,000 total reported flight hours.
AD's against the throttles, the pitot static system, and possible sparking at the fuel filler caps.
Then there is the issue of the autopilot.
There is the issue of the actuators.
There is the issue of the wing bushings.
There is the continuing issue of the transparencies.
There is the issue of the large number of CAS messages.
There is the issue of Air Data system failures.
There is the issue of premature tire and brake wear.
And lastly, there is the truly unprecedented history of 'vendor failures' as identified by Eclipse, where the engine, the avionics (twice), actuators, lights, power distribution and major structural vendors are blamed for all sorts of design and quality issues - resulting in lawsuits, mediations, and very messy public divorces.
The program history and SDR reports do not lie.
It all begs the question how many more issues need to be identified, how many more near tragedies need to occur before adult supervision steps in?
By the way, I've heard a couple of Eclipse owners have said their wives are refusing to fly in the airplane again.
The problem for Eclipse is that you can't [safely] run an aircraft manufacturer like an OS company though Vern seems to go out of his way to try to. You can have buggy equipment in an OS and have your first paying customers be your defacto beta testers, but in aviation the standards are far greater and bugs are very serious. With Windows you usually don't get a version until they're at least a few years out and up to at least Service Pack 2. The same also goes for vaporware and software that is released late. I think right now the Eclipse is at SP3 and there might be even more "service packs" on the way. The claims that the Eclipse was going to be like the F22 are laughable and Avio is turning into at best vaporware with the delivered software potentially hazardous.
So far Eclipse has been lucky with the press coverage of this that Avio hasn't gotten as much bad press now as it got good press in the past. Perhaps it will only be a matter of time until journalists connect the dots and see that what grounded the Eclipse was Vern's much-hyped Avio.
Epilot said:
"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."
----------
I think what CWMOR and others are hinting at, but you have sort of danced around, is that the E500 can only fly two normal sized passengers (+ one crew) with full fuel. Now that's nothing to be ashamed of, there are plenty of much bigger planes that have similiar problems, but they are not brand new, standard equipped planes!
And OMG! looking at the Flight Envelope shown on the FAA website it is obvious that this airplane has already been grown to its limit, with the fwd and aft CG limits converging as shown, there's no room for any more weight growth. And if that aft flight limit cutback is due to a MLG tire limitation, it's no wonder they are having so many problems!
So the next question is why is the fwd CG cutting back at high weights? There are several possibilities, does anyone know the answer? Is FIKI approval going to impact this even more?
L. Vern Hubburn on the throttle problem:
"We think this is probably just a software fix. It might be a hardware fix."
Would you like the ixorn sauce?
IANAL
Who will Vern throw under the bus next? He's already thrown the NTSB and the NTSB-lauded pilot under the bus, now he's got these groups still left:
* Novatronics (throttle quadrant)
* Hispano-Suza (FADEC)
* Low level Eclipse employees
* Eclipse executives (besides himeself)
In a fight between Vern and the NTSB, I pick the NTSB.
Dave-
I like this one better-
"And like any vehicle, if you exceed what you design it to, you're gonna get a fault"
Is that like:
"No officer I wasn't speeding; the car was. What I mean is I pushed down on the accelerator to make that yellow light and the autopilot took over and just floored the bejeziz out of her. No kidding. Well, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it."
Or might it be more along the lines of:
"And so, My Son, what brings you to us today?"
"Well, it's like this, St. Peter. I backed the Pinto out of the garage and ran over the mail box. The last thing I remember was the explosion."
Easybake,
You are absolutely correct. With full fuel you are going to get a pilot and two passengers. Maybe some baggage to go with them depending on what the pax weigh. I'm extremely light so I can easily haul 2 pax and bags with no problem.
Baron,
What you can get out of it as far as range really depends on the weather and what your alternate is. Eclipse has always quotes an 1100 nm range. That's with a pilot and two passengers. I also determined that's at FL410 at LRC. I don't fly at FL410 because I don't want to wear the mask. And I don't pull it back to LRC because quite frankly it's too long for me to sit there.
So just as a for instance, I plugged in a recent flight into flitestar. The wx was good so no alternate needed. Flitestar calculated the time at 2:07 with a total burn of 985 lbs. Add 50 lbs for taxi. Total burn now 1035 lbs. Flitestar added 45 minutes holding/reserve at 626 lbs. That left 38 lbs of extra fuel according to flitestar. This was a recent trip I made and the burn was dead on. So that will give you what I consider to be a max distance at HSC at FL350.
Obviously if I wanted to go further and the wx was good I could pull it back to LRC and fly at FL410. I just choose not to. In the real world I'm running this thing at HSC and FL350. Again, if going a little higher or pulling it back to LRC meant the difference between a fuel stop or not then I might do it. But I certainly wouldn't be stretching it to 1100 nm at FL410 at LRC. I'm a rather conservative pilot. I plan at FL350 and HSC and if something comes up I have the opportunity to climb higher and pull back to LRC if necessary.
Sorry for the grammatical errors after reading my previous post. I also left out the distance! That was for a 724 nm trip.
epilot-
If Vern had sold this bird with your honesty, this Blog probably wouldn't exist. You're a keeper and I thank you.
Of course, if Vern had admitted to the limitations you cite, the business plan would have recognized a market of about 150 units per year. And the price would have been equivalent to the Mustang. And the performance would have been known to fall far short of the Mustang. And the investors would have dried up in 2002. And General Aviation would be a more trustworthy industry.
Gunner
First the immediate (although in my mind less significant from a design/certification standpoint) non-compliance):
Concerning a design 30 lb limit on the throttle, I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that this is in compliance with FAR 23.1141 (d)
Each control must be able to withstand operating loads without failure or excessive deflection.
or comply with FAR§ 23.675 Stops.
(a) Each control system must have stops that positively limit the range of motion of each movable aerodynamic surface controlled by the system.
(b) Each stop must be located so that wear, slackness, or takeup adjustments will not adversely affect the control characteristics of the airplane because of a change in the range of surface travel.
(c) Each stop must be able to withstand any loads corresponding to the design conditions for the control system.
Seeing as FAR23.397 specifies a minimum load of 100lb to be demonstrated for the elevator control, you might be able to argue 50lb minimum load for the throttle (only one arm used). In reality any justification based around a force number is dumb, a real company builds this stuff to be completely trouble free for the life of the A/C, assuming the most ham fisted, gorilla of a pilot.
This issue is for me less concerning because, although it's a failure to observe Stanislaw's Axiom, it is a design failure. It just show inexperience of the design team.
For me the far more disturbing non compliance is the lack of independence in the engine control system. If this is true, it indicates a complete lack of understanding of a hundred years of aviation best practices, combined with a lack of transparency from Eclipse towards the FAA.
From the limited information given in the NTSB safety recommendation, it does appear that there is some sort of voter function in the throttle control system which is prepared to drive both engines off one lever in a case of a signal out of range.
I can't for the life of me see how this could get certified. On all the FAR 25 FADEC installations, you have the throttle resolvers energized by their FADEC dedicated PMA's. The only non independent system effects I know are the ATAC system on the B777 (and likely others) where an engine fail input, from one engine during start, kicks the other FADEC out of derate T/O modes to full rated thrust. It has no further effect on engine control.
If this lack of independence in the Eclipse engine control system is true, how the hell did they certify this thing?
Here is FAR 23.1143(a), I wonder which interpretation of the word SEPARATE allows you to control your engine off the other sides throttle lever?
§ 23.1143 Engine controls.
(a) There must be a separate power or thrust control for each engine and a separate control for each supercharger that requires a control.
There are two CRI's which may have been used to certify the novel features of this system:
23-121-SC for Electronic Engine Control System or;
ACE-02-19: 14 CFR §§ 23.777(d) and 23.781 Fuel Cutoff Control
Given the new and novel nature of the Eclipse engine control system, these CRI's should have gone to public consultation (at least that would have been the case in the JAR/EASA world).
How would someone in the US mind obtaining these CRI's under a Freedom of information Act request?
Epilot and 421, does your Pilots Operating manual, or AFM or any other document describe the mode where HAL gets between the FADECs and the control levers, votes and intervenes in which throttle position is used to control thrust?
If this system was designed to do this, the behavior of the system should be provided to the user. If this information is not available, this to my mind would be a non compliance to FAR23.1541 A(2) The airplane must contain—
(1) The markings and placards specified in §§23.1545 through 23.1567; and
(2) Any additional information, instrument markings, and placards required for the safe operation if it has unusual design, operating, or handling characteristics.
If there is no information of this mode in the AFM/POH, and the above CRI's do not specify this behaviour, then Occam's razor would lead me to the conclusion that Eclipse never informed the FAA of this fundamental system behavior.
I would not expect the FAA certification team to be able to pick up on this software driven mode in certification.
The FAR 33 certification would have demonstrated that the engine responds correctly to TLA input (regardless who generated the signal upstream in the Eclipse case), and remains at last commanded thrust when it received an invalid signal.
If this behaviour implied by the NTSB's safety recommendation is as I have presented it here, then I would guess that Pratt and Whitney Canada is as surprised everyone else.
The follow up AD's to the emergency AD could be a hammer!
Disclaimer, I have used information leaked by the FAA AD server and leaked by the NTSB combined with Public information (FAR's) leaked from the FAA website and common sense leaking from my brain in creating this post.
Feel free to send this post to:
Fort Worth ACO
2601 Meacham Boulevard
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0100
(817) 222-5100 FAX: (817) 222-5959
Epilot,
I understand and respect your desire for anonymity, and appreciate the generic information which are providing.
Considering the scenario put forward by EASA in their draft CRI, combined with the event which lead to this Emergency AD, have you a personal plan of action for the following occurrences:
1/ In windshear on approach, you firewall the throttles and get a LOTC at Full throttle.
2/ You are cruising at HSC at FL350, and have a full electrical failure.
Pure speculation, but what would you do?
If this lack of independence in the Eclipse engine control system is true, how the hell did they certify this thing?
"Integration" is Vern's whole design philosophy. For Vern it helps that he's got lots of political friends. Vern however will find out that political friends can be very unreliable if Vern looks to be going down. Vern probably paid for their rose colored glasses when looking at the Eclipse, but politicians can quickly lose those glasses if it looks like they're going to pay a political price. DayJet had better watch out too as they're very political, but not as political as Eclipse. More such incidents with the Eclipse could raise questions about DayJet's NextGen contract.
FJT,
1. I thought about this loss of throttle control a lot. Obviously it's easy to Monday morning quarterback. I would first like to say that I think the pilot of the MDW incident did one hell of a job. Truly, one hell of a job.
Had I had only the information the pilot had at the time, I don't think I'd have done anything differently. So much of what I would do would depend on the situation at the time, specifically the wx.
Of course knowing what I know now I'd follow the new procedure in the book to reset the thing.
2. A full electrical failure? I assume you mean a dual generator failure yet the engines are still running ok?
To all here:
HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!!!
Hi Epilot,
I think it is important to learn from other peoples experience. Especially with something life threatening.
1/ So the new AFM procedure is basically calling for you to reboot the engine in flight? This is the logical conclusion but is something I am not sure the FAA have ever accepted before. The microsoftication of aviation...
2/ Yes dual generator fail. From the published EASA CRI, this leads to a LOTC with thrust at last commanded setting - HSC at FL350. What will you do? You have thirty minutes of battery electrical power. What does the AFM Emergency procedure section give you for guidance (likely none).
On your next ferry flight, please try initiating descent with the throttles at HSC, and see what sort of descent you can get without overspeeding.
Another thing which would be of interest toward the E400 FL410 cert, would be for you (on a ferry flight) to put on the oxygen mask and confirm it is working, stablise the cabin altitude at 8000', then turn off engine bleeds, and check the cabin climb rate (this is a standard cabin leak test for the Beech 400 as an example, where the limit is a 2500 fpm climb rate).
I think its important to note one basic fact...
The right development process and the right company culture would not have resulted in the situation eclipse is now in.
The boss called it "teething"
Now the boss says NTSB "over reacted"
The basic fact - its not the end of problems with this plane... likely, only the beginning.
I sincerely believe that this plane was designed for low cost - period. They tried to build the lightest, cheapest plane.
When they ran into issues with the wrong engine selection, (again, based on lightest and cleapest) awhole host opf problems arose. They did not do a wholesale redesign, and they cut corners IMHO.
This after trying to make the lightest, cheapest jet.
The BIG talk about designed for high utilization/airline type use, is complete BS. Especially after trying to eliminate as much weight compensating for the PW increased engine weight.
All that said - the design drivers yielded the cracking, blowing and mal-functioning that we are seeing, now on a young fleet, at lower than desired rate production.
Recipe for disaster, I fear. I guess so does EASA.
This program is a big failure, economically, as well as politically, and a smear on aviation in general, IMHO.
Its only the beginning of the problems. Problems arise when safety is job one, at mature aviation companies... just imagine what lurks here.
FJT,
1. The procedure calls for resetting the ECB's for both FADEC channels.
2. A dual generator failure will not result in the loss of throttle control. Only after the loss of both generators and the subseqent draining of both batteries (30 minutes) would you lose control over the engines. If I had a dual generator failure I'd make damn sure I had the plane on the ground within 30 minutes.
3. I would venture to guess that you'd be hard pressed to get any decent descent rate with the throttles at HSC at FL350. Tough to test as ATC isn't normally going to let me make such a descent test. They might be talked into it however. The descent rate you could get would really be dependent on your altitude at the time. If I was below FL200 and could climb to bleed off enough speed to get below 200 knots so I could drop the gear then I'd venture to guess that I could get a descent. All conjecture on my part however as I've not tested that.
4. I've been meaning to conduct a leak down test at both FL250, FL350, and FL410 with both a single bleed turned off and both bleeds off to see what I get. Unfortunately as this isn't my personal airplane the likelihood of me having an opportunity to do such a test will probably be a while. But the next time the opportunity presents itself I'll be trying it.
ATM,
I was thinking the same thing as I crossed the North Atlantic at FL400 along with 300 other folks in a B777 recently.
The 777 is an amazing piece of hardware, truly amazing. Consider the complexity just of delivering customized entertainment options to over 300 people in 3 classes.
Consider the challenge of keeping a comfortable environment, again for over 300 people - where the OAT is -60, where ToUC is precious few seconds.
For Vern to have ever compared his never-ready-for-primetime toy preemie jet, to the monumental achievement the triple 7 represents is simply offensive, an example of unbelievable arrogance and frightening proof of a complete lack of appreciation of the challenge of designing, certifying and producing a safe and efficient aircraft.
If it were just a case of a pilot exceeding a design limit it would be one thing. But the design limit itself, the one presumably deliberately chosen by the Vernster and his design team is the actual problem. 30 lbs? This is a jet, not a toy.
Add in now the issue with the FADEC behaving unpredictably, as admitted by Vern himself.
And then add in the list of other previous issues.
The trend line is not good and it is about time that the wider media pick up on it.
Just like with Williams, BAe, GD, DeVore, Avidyne, Hampson and many ex-employees, Vern takes no responsibility or accountability on himself or on Eclipse - he blames the pilot who safely landed a plane, that was REFUSING TO OBEY CONTROL INPUTS - and then has the unmitigated gall to blame the NTSB, for 'overreacting', and then goes on to state that the AD (#5 against the plane in the short year and a half Vern and crew have been pushing partially functional incomplete preemie jets out the door) did 'not ground the fleet', even though the compliance was clearly 'BEFORE NEXT FLIGHT'.
This event more than anything, but certainly in combination with the ongoing history of other issues, really aggravates me.
Midway incident:
Isn't it likely that both tires were blown during the initial landing- full engine power, just touched down and the airplane wouldn't stop- most of us would first try to brake to a stop until it became obvious that HAL had decided to keep on flyin'. That would add another element of luck and skill to the pilot's handling of the incident, having to take off with two blown tires!
Turboprop_pilot
CWMOR,
The Boeing 777 is indeed an amazing piece of engineering. I'm sure that Boeing must have done a MUCH better job than Eclipse in failure mode analysis, and considered every possible case.
By the way, have you heard anything else about the 777 that lost engine control on short final at Heathrow, resulting in a crash? Last I heard, the FADECs did command full fuel flow, but neither engine responded, despite the lack of any evidence of fuel contamination.
G
For Vern to have ever compared his never-ready-for-primetime toy preemie jet, to the monumental achievement the triple 7 represents is simply offensive, an example of unbelievable arrogance and frightening proof of a complete lack of appreciation of the challenge of designing, certifying and producing a safe and efficient aircraft.
He compared it to both the 777 AND the F22. Listen to some of this:
Consistent with Raburn’s elec-tech background, the Eclipse 500 will bring to the top end of GA and the bottom end of business aviation a level of electronic sophistication and integration that has never before swooped this low down the totem pole. “The Global Express, 777 and A340 come close,” Raburn ventured, “but no civil project has taken integration as far as the Eclipse 500 does.”
http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/eclipse-sees-light-of-day-as-prototype-preps-for-first-flight/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1
The Avio system makes the Eclipse 500 "the most electronic and computerised aircraft the general aviation industry has seen. We can't think of any other civil aircraft that comes close. The only examples are in the military world - the [Bell Boeing] V-22 and [Lockheed Martin/Boeing] F-22, that's the level of integration we've talking about", Raburn says.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewarticle&id=355&Itemid=51
Eclipse also unveiled details about the Avio NG system's planned compatibility with the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NexGen) integrated plan. Raburn said the Avio NG system is infinitely scaleable and extensible to fit the aircraft's needs into the future.
"The Eclipse 500 is essentially future-proof," Raburn said. "Avio NG is software-driven. The hardware is already there; this translates to infinite capability."
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=c32cdc4b-ca24-4f73-bae3-f777ed0b9184
Gunner said...
Baron-
Serious series of questions follows:
How much do you discount the value of the plane, given what you just learned about the engineering FUBAR on the throttle quadrant? The one that VERY nearly cost four peoples' lives.
Not a lot 1-2% because this is the problem that we do "know" and there seems to be procedural steps to prevent it and possibly a simple "fix" improve throtle stop strenght.
As you correctly pointed out, the scary part is always the problems that we don't know and haven't found out yet.
I think the EA500 wthout an avionics like an integrated G1000-SVS has very little value. If one were offered to me for $300-400K I might consider it as a cheap way to build jet time.
If it had a G1000-SVS fully integrated, and 1M hours on the fleet, the value would jump to $1.5M-$2.0M.
I did not like the tone of Eclipse/Vern on this very, very serious safety problem. the throtle quadrant is trully not strong enough and the FADEC SW is screwy at best.
eclipso said...
Eclipse Says Its Jets Haven't Been Grounded
By J. Lynn Lunsford and Andy Pasztor
Once again, I maintain that anytime it's states "Before further Flight"...The aircraft IS grounded
I disagree. There are many ADs and mandatory SBs that require that a trivial action is required before further flight. If we used your definition, there would be headlines all the time saying "The entire 147 fleet is grounded".
To me, a fleet is gournded if there is a non-trivial action that needs to be perform before further flight and the way to comply is either not yet available or takes a non-trivial amount of time to perform.
This AD calls for a trivial check by a private pilot and AFM language insertion and there is no flight that would likely be cancelled because of it.
So no airplane was in effect grounded.
The Boeing 777 is indeed an amazing piece of engineering. I'm sure that Boeing must have done a MUCH better job than Eclipse in failure mode analysis, and considered every possible case.
Alas, Gorak, t'weren't always so - indeed, more recently than we'd care to think. I've spent the morning reading about the Gimli Glider, an Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel at the intersection of Imperial, Amurrican & Metric units of measure (and their accurate translation). In light of the quoted comment, this passage jumps right out at me:
"After repeated unsuccessful attempts to restart the stalled engines, Pearson and Quintal once again consulted the 767 emergency manual, this time for advice on an unpowered landing. Much to their dismay, no such section existed, presumably because a simultaneous engine failure had been too ridiculous for Boeing engineers to contemplate. The pilots sat anxiously in their darkened cockpit and monitored the plane's slow and silent descent using a handful of analog instruments based on pre-WW2 technology: a magnetic compass, an artificial horizon, an airspeed indicator, and an altimeter."
Airbusses & that generation of Boeings were truly disruptive in their use of leading-edge technologies to eliminate the "need" for a third crew member in the little room up front. Yet even all that "cutting-edge" thinking failed to account for an event which, given how the craft are crewed, cared for & used, was all-too-likely to occur.
Which reminded me of something quite a bit more recent. And notably, it's the "ancient" equipment that saved the day.
The linked article is really well-written, and quite entertaining:
"Back in the passenger compartment, the in-charge flight attendant radiated counterfeit calm as he informed the plane's sixty-one passengers of the situation, and instructed them in the subtle art of not freaking out during an in-flight emergency...
...A crew of engineers from Winnipeg airport clambered into a van and headed for Gimli to assess the damage. During transit, however, their vehicle unexpectedly ran out of fuel, nearly ripping a hole in the delicate space-irony continuum."
Would you like the wet dripsticks?
IANAL
Gorak,
The Heathrow incident, as you may know, is still under investigation however the FADEC, and fuel supply have been cleared to-date, and the AAIB investigation is reportedly looking at the Trent's which the FDR data show did not respond to pilot inputs.
All appearances are that the accident was the result of an as-yet undetermined problem with the engines, not the airframe. But the accident, the only one for the B777 type to date by the way, is still under investigation.
The NTSB and FAA have not issued an emergency recommendation for the 777 as the result of the Heathrow incident, have they?
Some stats for your consideration:
The 777 has been in commercial service for 13 years and the Heathrow incident is the first hull loss and only major accident.
Not bad for well over 700 deliveries of fully functional aircraft.
In the 13 years the 777 has flown more than 2 million flights, carried more than 500 million passengers, more than 1,500 million passenger miles, with a single fatality (ground crew) that was incurred in a ground fire incident while refueling.
In 1.5 trillion passenger miles flown, no major passenger injuries have been sustained.
By the time the B777 had as many AD's against it as the Eclipse 500 has had so far (5 in 18 months), it had been in production for 5 years, about 180 fully functional aircraft had been delivered, and it had been in commercial service for 3 years.
FWIW, many of the AD's the B777 is subject to are against the amazing variety of installed equipment for passengers.
Also, all of the above info about the B777 was taken from publicly available sources, eg., Boeing.com, Wikipedia, FAA and NTSB websites.
As much as I admire the achievement of the B777, I have nothing to do with the design or Boeing.
Gorak said...
By the way, have you heard anything else about the 777 that lost engine control on short final at Heathrow, resulting in a crash? Last I heard, the FADECs did command full fuel flow, but neither engine responded, despite the lack of any evidence of fuel contamination.
Gorak, the latest official communication from the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation Branch) which is the British equivalent of the NTSB, was dated May 12 and can be found here:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/S3-2008%20G-YMMM.pdf
The principal area of investigation now is focused on fuel flow restriction between the fuel tanks and the high-pressure fuel pumps. FADEC comand failures has been pretty much rulled out at this time.
Here is the "Suspected Cause" not yet a "Probable Cause":
"The high pressure (HP) fuel pumps from both
engines have unusual and fresh cavitation damage to the
outlet ports consistent with operation at low inlet pressure.
The evidence to date indicates that both engines had low
fuel pressure at the inlet to the HP pump. Restrictions in
the fuel system between the aircraft fuel tanks and each
of the engine HP pumps, resulting in reduced fuel flows,
is suspected."
Hope this helps. I have been following this very closely. It is the first 777 hull loss. At least, thang god, the 777 remains free of any fatal accidents.
Baron,
(2) Do a one-time pilot evaluation of the throttles. Before further flight. Follow the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. A person holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the pilot evaluation. Make an entry into the aircraft logbook showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
The next column states "Before further flight" (did not specify how trivial)
"Before further flight" means it cannot fly which. (call me slow), means it's GROUNDED
Now even Eclipse is saying the TC might have been issued early, but they're blaming it on the FAA's "pay for performance":
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Foul_Play_At_FAA_Over_Eclipse_500_TC_195082-1.html
Dave
I tried to find your reference but could not find any newer than 2007
Turboprop_pilot
Dave,
relax.
this is related to the grievance filed in 2007 - nothing to do with the current state of affairs.
BTW, thre should be a recant of the TC, PC, IMHO... based on what we've seen to date..
Grounding the fleet for a while for multiple system inspections and safety checks will suffice, though.
Lets's see what transpires over the next week or so.
PS. CW, what I wrote might seem trivial to many, BUT as you point out it IS the main concern here. QMS are based in commitment and systems which place quality (read safety) as the top priority - and this is lacking, at EAC according to evidence at hand. Period, enough said.
Only a matter of time.
baron, thanks for the continued involvement... I really like your posts, eventhough we disagree on amny things.
PS. my spelling is worse than yours always!
The Number is down to 75.
Reading through the old blog posts, I see it described as a seller's market if less than 10% of the fleet is available on the used market.
Of the Controller craft, 25 have serial numbers below 200 + 2 without serial numbers, but described as 2007 models.
Superficially that makes it look like over 13% of the fleet is on the market. Superficially, because I didn't note any Dayjet S/Ns or tail numbers among the 27. Given that the inactive Dayjets are ostensibly "on standby" rather than for sale, we can probably just deduct the 17 from the fleet size (for purposes of my Exercise In Nothing) to arrive at nearly 15% for sale.
At the risk of asking a question that's been answered many times by now (and cognizant that one or more of the 27 may be shares in an FPJ), how much of this is just speculators' churn? And is it an indication of a more fundamental weakness in demand for the weejet?
IANAL
Been meaning to ask - what is IANAL?
New post up.
Smartmoves,
IANAL is I Am Not A Lawyer.
Or so Google says....
Shane
Post a Comment