From: Vern Raburn
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 6:57 AM
To: _All Employees
Subject: Farewell
Dear Fellow Eclipsers:
It is with a very heavy heart and disappointment that I must send you this letter today. Effective immediately I will be stepping down as President and CEO and our Chairman, Roel Pieper, will become Acting CEO. As you can imagine, this development came as quite a surprise to me and it saddens me more then I can tell you to have to leave Eclipse. I think you know that I am no quitter. But I have not had any choice but to accept the terms of an agreement that provides Eclipse the first funds in a new round of financing that will take the company to a cash flow positive position. My departure was required under the terms of the agreement that was made with the debt investors to clear the way to secure the new funds.
I still very much believe in the dream that is Eclipse Aviation. I founded this company with a very big vision--to create a whole new category of aircraft with new technology. The idea is to create new markets and ultimately a new form of air transportation. This company and the people who built it with me are doing just that. Time and again, we overcame the many challenges that confronted us. Today we have delivered more than 230 Eclipse 500s and our next aircraft, the Eclipse 400 has been launched and is in development. This company did what the industry thought was impossible. I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished and created.
To be successful going forward, we have to focus on operational excellence. We must achieve the product development, production and operations goals that we have committed to.
Today marks the beginning of a new phase of growth for the company and new leadership to go with it. Roel is a veteran executive and an extremely competent leader. He has been committed to this vision since 2003 when his company, ETIRC Aviation became our Eastern European partner. Today, after investing in the company and becoming our Western European partner as well, Roel is deeply involved with Eclipse and I am confident he will help grow the company and provide it with the operational excellence required to move forward. I will assume the Vice Chairmanship of ETIRC Aviation and provide counsel to Roel in the global expansion of this effort.
Thank you all for your commitment, dedication and enthusiasm in building this company. It is something we can all be very proud of. And I’ll be with you in spirit as you continue to prove that we can change the world of aviation.
Sincerely,
Vern
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
572 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 572 Newer› Newest»he agreed to it in a previous round... and he likes it..
But it isn't his money. It's the money of others.
Someone really smart here clamed EAC could produce the E500 for 85% of the cost of the Mustang... I said if they were Cessna.
They clearly are not.
I suspect the B/E price all things considered on the e500, on a good day is closer to $3M than $2M... and probably NORTH of $3M.
I agree. If the Eclipse were priced properly, it would turn out they're a lot less than a Mustang but cost much more to produce even if they have a higher volume of production than the Mustang.
Oshkosh - Day 2
There seemed to be the typical amount of traffic at the Eclipse booth. I observed some employees appear to be less than enthused at providing customer service. That's either a) an extension of the corporate culture or b) they're busy being concerned about their own future.
Although it's hard to eavesdrop on other conversations - I did hear several people asking about changes and future, etc - with Vern out and Roel in. The usual response of "not exactly sure" and "business as usual" were given. Of course, "business as usual" wouldn't exactly be a good answer IMHO.
Will try to get more tomorrow.
It would seem that "Oshkosh Week, 2008" will be the longest in Eclipse Aviation history . . . with a few orphans left alone among crowds of aircraft enthusiasts . . . looking this way and that, without their parents anywhere in sight . . . one gone fishing, and the other gone to ABQ.
gadfly
(Someone please give them an ice cream cone, and report the missing children to "Security".)
It is mind boggling that Roel's message to the employees was stay the course.
At a time when anyone who is awake can see that radical change is required to live to fight another day, Roel says "stay the course".
Not a good sign.
sorry to digress a bit :
yesterday on the Baïkal lake , a mini-submarine made a survey on the ecologic system working/protecting the water of the said lake ...
one top official was commenting on the subject :
we made the survey because we would like to understand how this eco-system works to see if we can turn the lake water into a resource to be exported as drinkable water bottles ...
as drinkable water is probably going to be more valuable in future than oil , we must take any measure and expenses to protect what we already see as one of our national jewel ...
on commenting a news broadcast from "euronews" (on the fact that they did it to see if there is any oil or gaz at the bottom of lake ) the official answered : if we didn't have any sens of humor , we would buy the channel , find the reporter who spread this lie , and force down his throat the paper he wrote ...
seems Roel plan for a mega-plant producing Hydrogen from water is gone ....!!
good news for EAC , now they have a spare Billion .... ! ;-)))
but unfortunately dave , E500 won't be flying hydrogen cans ...!
by the way : a VLJ filled-up with light gaz (H) is it becoming a Ultra-light-jet ??? wow ... this is disruptive !!!
gad ...
i read your post about your school-time ...
60 years ago ??must be kidding ...:-)
anyway , what is important = youth of mind ! (until the flesh betray you...which is our common lot )
the youngest person i have ever met was 76 when we met ....
keep-up !
I see that our old pal James Fallows found out about Vern's ouster:
"This means something. I just don't know what"
It means "You need to develop a crush on someone else, Jim - Vern won't be returning your calls".
Pull around to the second window,
IANAL
Eclipse UCC information:
http://secure.sos.state.nm.us/ucc/soskb/FilingChain.asp?FileNumber=20070004143B
http://secure.sos.state.nm.us/ucc/soskb/FilingChain.asp?FileNumber=20060005744K
This also shows who has had a security interest in the Eclipse Aviation trademark:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75909091
Roel IS the BANK.
This also shows who has had a security interest in the Eclipse Aviation trademark:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&qt=sno&reel=&frame=&sno=75909091
Try explaining to The Bank of New York that Roel is the bank. He isn't. He's an equity holder. The banks want Roel in the picture because he has the most to lose, next to them. You can bet the banks have loan covenants in place, and they are not going to sit around while EAC fails to comply with them for very much longer. Where are the new dollars? What new dollars???
TBMs
I think it was made clear that the latest round was Etrick, again.
I agree, there are no UCcs filed in favor of Etrick...but, there could be many reasons for this.
I maintain, as a licensee, Roel has certain assets/rights tied up, even if there is no UCC.
I also contend that even if Etrick is not listed, he is in effect the bank.
I also now, I could be completely wrong... its just my opinion on how this is unfolding, these guys' history of forming companies an dealing between themselves to create an illusion, and cover their behinds.
Just a hunch..
ATM
It is quite possible that some self-dealing is going on involving ETIRC and EAC.
However, there are real banks involved also. It is probable that real banks have more cash invested than ETIRC. Of course, this is secured debt. Interestingly, the Bank of New York holds liens on the patents and intellectual property. Think about the implications of that, were they to call the loan. I seriously doubt that ETIRC wants to repay the bank loans so as to become THE bank.
Where was the announcement that ETIRC invested more money? Where was the announcement as to how much the new round is? All I saw was Vern claiming right before he announced his firing that they had the first money from a new round. Sounds very fishy.
I think it was made clear that the latest round was Etrick, again.
But its not Roel's personal fortune at stake. It is the money of others that is financing ETIRC. That's why I called Roel a middleman.
I also now, I could be completely wrong... its just my opinion on how this is unfolding, these guys' history of forming companies an dealing between themselves to create an illusion, and cover their behinds.
I agree. I expect Mirage will be extremely amused.
"I seriously doubt that ETIRC wants to repay the bank loans so as to become THE bank."
my point, precisely.. if he has a license, he does not need to own the IP, he can use it... its a terrific way to double finance something, or encumber an asset, without a UCC... let someone use it through a license.
Also, Dave, how do you know Roel has outside capital? I think you are correct, but I would suspect, its just BS...no real money.
If he signed a guarantee of sorts, and a bank provide the cash.. who know???
Also, Dave, how do you know Roel has outside capital? I think you are correct, but I would suspect, its just BS...no real money.
I don't know that, but I do know that Roel only has so much of a personal fortune. Roel's personal fortune had been previously estimated around $300 million and ETIRC has put in between 1/3 and 2/3. It is possible that Roel is risking the bulk of his personal fortune, just I don't see it as likely. Roel has put his own money in ventures before, but when we talk about approaching nine figures, its somebody else's money:
http://www.businessweek.com/ebiz/0001/0131pieper.htm
Hearing the talk from Eclipse this latest infusion was the first among many...I don't see that Roel has a sufficient personal fortune to put into it even if he wanted to.
if he has a license, he does not need to own the IP, he can use it... its a terrific way to double finance something, or encumber an asset, without a UCC... let someone use it through a license.
It's pretty unlikely for him to have a license that trumps the lien. If he had it before the loan leading to the lien, the bank would not have accepted the IP as collateral (they do check these things). If he got a license after the lien, then the lien holder can most likely invalidate the license if they take possession of the IP. There is no way the Bank of New York took that lien without it being real security.
Looks to me like the banks have EAC by the short hairs, and that includes Roel. As long as they think the company will service the debt and stay in business, they'll play along. But, if the company stumbles, for example by not meeting it's newly revised projections, they won't play nice.
I believe that there isn't a realistic possibility for ETIRC to "steal" the IP, unless it's taken to Russia and effectively beyond the reach of the banks and the legal system. But, that would be a hoot!
If Eclipse got $100 million in February:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FTC-2008-0010
And they desparately need more money in July:
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6825860&action=article
That would put Eclipse's burn rate at $20 million per month. That is of course assuming that the amount was only $100 million (it had been implied that it was higher than that) and that was sufficient amount to pay Eclipse's bills for those months.
It's pretty unlikely for him to have a license that trumps the lien. If he had it before the loan leading to the lien, the bank would not have accepted the IP as collateral (they do check these things). If he got a license after the lien, then the lien holder can most likely invalidate the license if they take possession of the IP. There is no way the Bank of New York took that lien without it being real security.
I'm not so sure about that, but I do think that would be something really interesting to investigate. I'm of the belief that you can have a license that isn't invalidated by a lien-holder. ETIRC [supposedly] paid money for a license to represent Eclipse in Europe and use Eclipse's name. I believe ETIRC could argue that it would be injust enrichment for lien holders to attempt to cancel any license ETIRC had because ETIRC put up consideration for those rights. This could get very tricky depending on in which country and jurisdiction the contracts were made and how this plays out with Roel in the CEO chair now. I could see how alternatively lien holders could argue that Roel is self-dealing (something he is going to have to be very careful of now), but I believe the license came before Roel was on the board or CEO.
I believe that there isn't a realistic possibility for ETIRC to "steal" the IP, unless it's taken to Russia and effectively beyond the reach of the banks and the legal system. But, that would be a hoot!
I believe the IP has already been stolen, but that it has way less value than what Roel paid for it...Roel will find out that he was the one who was actually taken.
I say this because Roel has a license to manufacture and distribute Eclipse in europe and Russia, but its already been pointed out by others the hurdles involved in getting it those Eclipses manufactured and sold.
This is such a farce! You're right that Roel got taken. All of the equity holders got taken. They all just have some wallpaper at this point.
Who in his right mind would want the right to manufacturer such a crap airplane as the FPJ?? Gadfly got it right, the real problem is the product.
Here's some interesting records from the Copyright Office:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=eclipse+aviation&Search_Code=TALL&PID=Dwfpxjh0HnJcgvkohYNUK4EUD&SEQ=20080730111404&CNT=25&HIST=1
Also here's a security agreement file from the Copyright Office:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&Search%5FArg=eclipse%20irb&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=tVz_LTXYPnJcgEYeIt7fvdmIz&SEQ=20080730111714&SID=5
All of the equity holders got taken
...And debt holders.
The only ones who seem like they'll make out OK are the lawyers.
Could the same thing happen in New Mexico (and possibly Florida as well)?:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5479544
Another document to read is this. Go to "Debt Placement For Eclipse Aviation Project":
http://www.gra-gnv.com/docs/033006ag.pdf
Compass Bank had the airport's revenue from Eclipse be the security. Does that seems wise for a bank to do? No, but this probably explains why such a deal was offered:
http://www.abq.org/about.html
It turns out that both Vern Raburn and Ron Smith of Compass Bank are board members.
"It's pretty unlikely for him to have a license that trumps the lien."
it does not trump anything... its a different right, and it does not have anythng to do with a lien.
The lien-holder has the right to take the revenue from the license, but does not have the right to simply cancel it.
They are different rights.
Imagine you have a mortgage on a apartment building, and the owner defaults. You take over the building, BUT you cannot simply kick the tenants out. They have a lease, and a right to use the apartments as long as they have a lease.
Sample principle...
Folks! . . . folks! . . . folks!
You seem to be forgetting the basics. In a shell game, it’s assumed there is a “pea” under one of the shells. And the fact remains, all three shells are empty . . . the “pea” (a.k.a. “Complete VLJ”) isn’t there . . . IT NEVER WAS!
But you all seem to be dazzled by the motions on the table . . . so carry on!
gadfly
(My oh my!)
You seem to be forgetting the basics. In a shell game, it’s assumed there is a “pea” under one of the shells. And the fact remains, all three shells are empty . . . the “pea” (a.k.a. “Complete VLJ”) isn’t there . . . IT NEVER WAS!
But you all seem to be dazzled by the motions on the table . . . so carry on!
The question is who are the players and who are the ones being played? The fallout from this should be veeeeeeery interesting.
Gadfly said,
“Over the years of aviation history, there have been many aircraft that were easy to fly . . . the Luscombe . . . Stinson . . . but they didn’t make it.”
How true. We have an Eclipse 500 charter operator nearby and I ran into one of their captains. He said the aircraft was ‘fun to fly’ except for the well known deficiencies in navigation, flight director, autopilot and ice equipment.
They fly Part 135 with a crew of two, and typically two passengers plus bags. He said the Eclipse was a five hundred nautical mile airplane – leaving allowance for wind, weather and traffic.
Lately the blog has evolved into a business discussion but I think it is interesting to reflect on Stan Blankenship’s original post of two years ago. Can a little airplane, about the size and weight of a pressurized Baron but with thirsty turbine engines offer practical utility? For those who must have the smell of jet fuel in the morning the answer may be yes. But even if all the problems can be overcome, it’s still a novelty.
With 45 percent higher gross weight, and now only marginally more expensive, the Cessna Mustang would seem a better entry level jet – even if you believe Eclipse will survive or a successor will support the product.
Lately the blog has evolved into a business discussion but I think it is interesting to reflect on Stan Blankenship’s original post of two years ago. Can a little airplane, about the size and weight of a pressurized Baron but with thirsty turbine engines offer practical utility? For those who must have the smell of jet fuel in the morning the answer may be yes. But even if all the problems can be overcome, it’s still a novelty.
Here's some of the first posts on EAC back in 2006:
http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2006-05-07T10%3A41%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=50
Its amazing how prescient they were.
fred
You come to ABQ, we'll get together for lunch or whatever . . . and swap funny stories about 'those old folks' . . . and maybe some serious stuff, as well.
tulip says: "For those who must have the smell of jet fuel in the morning the answer may be yes."
Well, as an ex-submariner, and an ex-United Airlines employee (at ORD . . . loading luggage and freight, while going through A&P and flight school), I've inhaled far more than my share of Diesel fumes, and JP3/4 both morning and evening, and all times between . . . and take it from an "expert", they all smell the same. And the novelty wears mighty thin mighty quick.
And now if you wish the wonderful joy, the pleasure of flight, then get a "real" airplane . . . prop, turbo-prop, pure jet . . . whatever. But stay away from the shell game by the Rio Grande (They go by New Mexican rules . . . and you will lose, every time.)
(Tulip . . . you have a way of brightening this website, every time!)
And now we return to the regular scheduled broadcast from visitors at the event in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, . . . in progress.
gadfly
(And no, I didn't vote for Lincoln . . . I wasn't registered!)
And now if you wish the wonderful joy, the pleasure of flight, then get a "real" airplane . . . prop, turbo-prop, pure jet . . . whatever. But stay away from the shell game by the Rio Grande (They go by New Mexican rules . . . and you will lose, every time.)
No kidding. I think the Eclipse is too dangerous to fly. Eclipse tries to turn Eclipse lack of safety features into something good by calling it an all digital aircraft, but guess what, computers crash! No lives are at stake if someone's computer goes BSOD and I've even been in newer cars that have gone BSOD due to their computer integration, but it wasn't an instantly hazardous situation. Having wholly independent redundant backup systems isn't "old fashioned" (how Eclipse has tried to demonize anyone calling for safe aircraft). Eclipse has repeatedly cut corners in safety to reduce both their production cost as well as weight of the aircraft and then tried to make their valuing money over customer safety to be a good thing. If anyone should have known that computers crash, it should have been Microsoft Employee #18, yet he foisted this unsafe aircraft on customers anyway.
What we should all be wondering is:
What aviation manufacturers are going to get hit hard when Eclipse finally goes BK? Look at Eclipse's vendor list and assume that the newest vendors are probably not under such silly contracts as early vendors. I know the contract we were negotiating with Eclipse way back when was an absolute joke commercially, but anyone who ended up with even half of it in force is going to take a serious hit in bad AR. I'll bet there are some Cessna suppliers that are also Eclipse suppliers that are gonna get hit hard. How much is not getting paid going to hurt their cash flows? What production line at another company will the Eclipse BK shut down?
ATM,
I agree that Cessna could produce the EA-500 for less than Eclipse all things considered - I factored that into my estimate of 85% for Eclipse to produce the Eclipse. I bet Cessna could do it for as much as 10% less.
The Mustang very probably has a sizeable margin (relatively speaking) built into it, giving Cessna room for a price war with anyone, including Eclipse had they felt it necessary.
Contrast that with the Eclipse which I bet even using the most optimistic of prognostications probably had half the margin the Mustang offers, or less.
Factor in reality and you find that you lose money on every copy and then you try and make it up on volume.
I believe we remain in agreement.
Cold Fish
The problem with all these comparisons is that you’re NOT comparing apples with apples, nor apples with oranges, nor apples with bananas. You are attempting to compare something that actually exists, with an “imaginary” thing that does not now, nor has ever existed. If, and when (as in never), the little jet ever exists, as promised, you’ll have a target, a goal, to reach on cost and final price.
Until then, you might as well stand (or “sit” on a board) out in the high desert of Northwest New Mexico, in March, and speak into the northwest wind with nothing between you and the North Pole but a barb wire fence (and it's down)at midnight, with a chill factor well below zero.
Why did I use such an example? . . . been there, done that, in a little square house, with a wood seat, set on the plain over a hole among the sage, after a dinner of too much chili and beans . . . and announced my discomfort to the coyotes and anyone (anything) else in that desolate area. And, by the way, I got the same response that you will get from your comments (but felt much relieved, having made the effort).
gadfly
(Ever since, I order “green” chili! . . . at least it tastes better with milder results.)
The problem with all these comparisons is that you’re NOT comparing apples with apples, nor apples with oranges, nor apples with bananas. You are attempting to compare something that actually exists, with an “imaginary” thing that does not now, nor has ever existed. If, and when (as in never), the little jet ever exists, as promised, you’ll have a target, a goal, to reach on cost and final price.
Has anyone noticed that the length of their retrofits (10+ days) takes longer than how long it was supposed to take to manufacture the FPJ (4.5 days). Raburn touted to unsophisticated investors that Eclipse could build a plane in less than a week and have it delivered and paid before before he'd have to pay suppliers for the parts because...building a jet aircraft is as easy to build as a Dell computer, but only Vern the Dot Com Messiah could accomplish this because everyone else was in the stone age and hadn't heard of Henry Ford and Mass Production.
Eclipse still has issues outstanding and depending on what happens with Congress and the FAA, it could be back to square one. The design has changed so many times and is still subject to change, that the true cost of building the FPJ still isn't know. With the 200 aircraft their total cost isn't known either since the cost of retrofits has to be added in on top of what it cost to just get the plane off the factory lot.
anyone know how many folks on the factory floor at Cessna building Mustags?
this would be an interesting comparison...
Sorry Gad... I know "apples to ???"
"The design has changed so many times and is still subject to change"
does anyone really think these planes could now be tagged as no-conforming?
or, worse,
"not certified" if the certificate is somehow revoked due to the investigation?
If so, what happens?
Gad,
(And no, I didn't vote for Lincoln . . . I wasn't registered!)
I'm surprised, I thought you had voted for Washington....
Joke.
On another topic, word reaches me that some funds have started to flow from ABQ, at least in the direction of certain suppliers. Let's hope that the long suffering depositors get similar good news before the end of Airventure.
Which leads me to another observation. A trusted source 'on the ground' there tells me that the EAC 'compound' has been more or less abandoned by the public. Seems Cirrus are showing what people really want to see. Product they can actually purchase, from a company that has a reputation for delivering.
What a novel idea! Do you think it will catch on?
Final thought for tonight. Since Vern has left the company, does that make EAC a dinosaur?
Or is he one?
Shane
Shane,
I think he's more like Houdini!
Dave
A long time ago, we switched to Dell computers, (having begun with systems costing ten to twenty times more, using "HP-UX" operating systems . . . and badly burned) and every time with Dell I was pleasantly surprised to receive our very high end computers, not "on time" but "early" . . . with all things complete.
To think that the management of the little bird was ever connected with the personal computer industry, software or hardware, leads me to believe that they sent him "packing", to avoid the embarrassments now inflicted on "General Aviation".
In the long run, we came to appreciate a better system, far less complex, and easier to fix when things go south. 'May General Aviation also realize that "new and interesting" is not necessarily the better, safer, more reliable way to go.
Sure . . . "MS" is not the ultimate by any means, but it gets us where we need to go, without fatalities. And until someone proves a better and safer system of moving from point to point, fast and high, we need to go just a little bit cautious. Otherwise, we may not survive to "see" the next innovations . . . if you get my drift!
gadfly
(taximan . . . we're all trying to figure out this mess . . . anything goes in the process. And Shane, you, an Irishman, have hurt this Scot most severe . . . I was only a wee lad when George was yet beginning to walk and talk . . . and we came from different shires. Yes, indeed, ye have wounded me most deep!)
"I expect Mirage will be extremely amused."
How about Mirage Venture Capital? To go with Favonius Ventures, ETIRC, and ETIRC Aviation. It somehow gets to the point better than the other three names!
airsafteyman
At first, I thought you were fishing too far afield, but you are not!
Do I smell fish, more than a few days old?
I'll let you and others continue the search for the source . . . but it's certain that you are on to something, and it don't smell too good.
gadfly
anyone know how many folks on the factory floor at Cessna building Mustangs?
this would be an interesting comparison...
There are about 150 on days and about 100 on nights. All are young average between 18 and 28. Most are local kids right out of High School from there in Indepndance, KS.
Gad,
At this point, I think the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges should just about go without saying.
Cessna did not just lose it's CEO as a requirement for Bailout Infusion NG Ver 3.8; Cessna is not delivering incomplete partially functioning preemie jets; Cessna does not have any (let alone several) AD's against the Mustang; Cessna does not have a large, growing, and angry mob of villagers waiting for their refunds.
I have not lost sight of that, I was only endeavoring to answer the questions posed - I think my opinion of the plane and the company are a fairly known quantity at this point.
Cold Fish
We're on the same page. Sometimes we speak for the "audience" that may not fully understand what's happening. It's sort of an "over the shoulder" type of comment that is required, to bring the entire audience up to speed (as it were).
You're doing fine . . . on track . . . and providing understanding to others . . . and your presence is always welcome.
gadfly
Congratulations to the folks in Vero Beach for the successful first flight of the PiperJet SEJ/VLJ and good luck with development flight test.
As a fan of 'form follows function', I have to admit that I like the PiperJet alot, maybe even too much. Call it re-evolutionary, I see a lot of thoughtful re-use and compromise in its' basic design and as an engineer I appreciate that.
Everyone on the blog....take a few seconds and look around your areas and see if we can locate Gad's meds....LOL
Gad,
You ARE the bomb (a good thing)
eclipso
Ain't no use . . . I lost it years ago . . . and the doctors give no hope. I am resigned to my fate . . . it's terminal! Death or Taxes . . . either way, I'm doomed.
gadfly
(Can I go home now? . . . I've been here all day.)
This may become relevant soon:
http://www.crfonline.org/orc/pdf/ref11.pdf
Looks like we finally lost an airframe; thankfully without any injury.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/17043819/detail.html
'Just when we were running out of things to discuss!
gadfly
(That's goin' to leave a mark!)
N333MY
Registration Type: Corporation
Owner: My Aviation Llc
Address: 800 Andorra Rd
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-1703
S/N 103
"Looks like we finally lost an airframe; thankfully without any injury."
Runway at Brandywine is 3347 x 50 feet, temps in the low 80s, with effectively no wind most of the day. The photo depicts wet conditions (as does radar history), the article says crash occurred while trying to take off.
The FPJ appears to have met its maker on the road just off the departure end of runway 27.
Thank God nobody was hurt.
It's to soon to speculate on cause with any efficacy, but I contemplate the known history of static port/moisture issues causing false CAS alarms (distractions) on takeoff, coupled with single pilot ops, compunded by a narrow, shortish runway, compounded by ... ad infinitum.
Thank God nobody was hurt.
Perhaps the next emergency AD will limit operation to clear & a million with two pilots required.
I remain unamused.
Thank God nobody was hurt,
IANAL
It will be blamed on the EAA (like every other crash in the country this week).
It was in Oshkosh 3 days ago.
Looks like we finally lost an airframe; thankfully without any injury.
FAA authorities are investigating a small jet crash at the Brandywine Airport in West Goshen Township.
Officials say the Eclipse Jet was attempting a landing at the airport around 6:30 tonight, when it overshot the runaway and landed in a nearby Street.
2 people aboard escaped injury.
N333MY
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6296930
Article on Avwebinsider:
July 28, 2008
Vern Raburn: Never Saw It Coming?
By Paul Bertorelli
"The axe fell swiftly and hard on Monday as Eclipse's voluble CEO, Vern Raburn, was shown the door by the company's board of directors. Despite the fact that Eclipse's arc has been defined by one stumble and delay after another as the company burned through hundreds of millions in funding, Raburn seems to have been genuinely surprised by this sudden turn of events.
In a letter to Eclipse owners and position holders on Monday, Raburn said "As you can imagine, this development came as quite a surprise to me and it saddens me more than I can tell you to have to leave Eclipse." As of late Monday, it still wasn't clear to us how complete Raburn's divorce from Eclipse really is, since the company says he will retain duties in international marketing.
Whatever. Could he actually be that naïve, not to have seen this coming? Or could the company's billowing and relentless promotion mask the fact that along with producing a sexy little light jet, it had also burned a giant hole in its own credibility. Evidently, as of this week, investors in the company--who have reportedly invested more than a billion dollars--had had enough. Raburn's departure was linked directly to the next round of funding. Evidently, it was either Vern or the money and we know what won."
[snip]
source:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlogVernRaburn_198429-1.html
Bank of America is a secured party of My Aviation LLC:
http://www.corporations.state.pa.us/ucc/soskb/FilingChain.asp?FileNumber=20041041988
I wonder if their security was in the value of the FPJ?
Whatever his flaws, he brought Silicon Valley insouciance and self-confidence to a deeply traditional industry. There will presumably be a lot of people who are pleased that his showmanship did not quite work out, but I am not among them.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9548610-5e97-11dd-b354-000077b07658.html
It was Vern's insouciance that resulted in Eclipse turning out unsafe aircraft.
NBC10 says take off and one on board, and ABC says Landing and two on board.
Some great journalism going on there :(
My bet is on an anti skid system failure. Failure to install one!.
Looks like someone found a way to get their deposit / money back. How many think they will order another FPJ to replace this one, or go with something a little more finished?
No one was seriously injured, but the pilot sat for an hour after the crash comforting his young daughter, who was a passenger in the aircraft.
The pilot was attempting to take off from the Brandywine Airport, near QVC's corporate headquarters, when he apparently decided to abort takeoff and run the plane into the wooded area.
http://www.allaroundphilly.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19880422&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=635398&rfi=6
The latest from Roel at OSH:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/31/226251/oshkosh-2008-the-new-order-at-eclipse-is-buoyant-about-the.html
"The plane did not catch fire when it hit the ground, but the controls went dead, Everhart said. Because the engine continued to run and could not be shut off, firefighters had to flood it with foam."
Ooops! Pesky FADECs!
Anyone think the FPJ needs a manual shutoff? Just a thought...
OMG. Yesterday I was riding my bike past the Nantucket airport and this plane was sitting on the ramp. I see it has been to Nantucket several times.
Glad nobody was hurt. This will certainly add fuel to the FAA's fire when it comes to reviewing the type certificate.
gad :
if i happen to be in ABQ , i will accept your invite with pleasure ...
food and drinks on me , off course !
dave :
on the latest from Roel : different person = same shit all over , again and again
touting about the 2600 orders , the 350 for European Market , bla bla bla ...
but doesn't say , on European orders , EAC sister-mother-cousin , sub. , main headquarters ...( how could we call the relation [incestuous] between EAC & Etrick ??? here i am a bit lost ...) has already the biggest chunk of it ...
if memory serve me well ( may be it is me who could have voted fro washington ...) :
180 units for Etrick "air-taxi"
120 units for Turkish etrick ...
damn , its is already 400 ...???
something must be wrong !!! ;-))
touting about the 2600 orders , the 350 for European Market , bla bla bla ...
but doesn't say , on European orders , EAC sister-mother-cousin , sub. , main headquarters ...( how could we call the relation [incestuous] between EAC & Etrick ??? here i am a bit lost ...) has already the biggest chunk of it ...
if memory serve me well ( may be it is me who could have voted fro washington ...) :
180 units for Etrick "air-taxi"
120 units for Turkish etrick ...
You're right. The Eclipse CEO is touting his own orders. ETIRC placed combined orders for 220 units:
http://www.etirc.com/news/news1.htm
The bulk of Eclipse's european orders are basically from Eclipse themselves!
Digging around on the NTSB accident/incident database:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
The latest incident showing Eclipse was on 7/17 with the fairing coming off (the Goshen accident hasn't hit the NTSB DB yet):
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080723X01105&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI08IA200&rpt=p
It turns out N875NA is owned by North American Jet Charter Group and was the first to use the Eclipse 500 in charter operations.
dave :
your link is quite good ...
# ETIRC Aviation is being supported in its launch by Eclipse Aviation, which has just delivered ETIRC's first Eclipse 500 jet, one of the first ten commercially supplied planes from Eclipse anywhere in the world. #
may be it is my lack of proper english , but when i read this caliber ...
my mouth grunt a "holly crap!"
in the first part of sentence , one can read EAC support Etrick ...??
some types of relation should never occur ...
and i am not even talking about the therapy they will all need after folding ...
( the kind of Roel speaking to Vern "am i your son or your father , may be i am both ??")
Sigmund raise from the dead , we need you ...:-)))
333MY flight summary April 3 - July 31
This would not include non-monitored flights. Last recorded flight was an arrival at nearby KLOM field at 18:02 Local. News reports make the KOQN accident at about 18:30 Local. So a unrecorded short hop was made from between two Philadelphia area fields. Last recorded flight landed on a nearly due west heading.
Brandywine (KOQN) .. 14:33
Wings Field (KLOM) .. 6:58
Key West Intl (KEYW) .. 3:16
Nantucket Memorial (KACK) .. 3:13
Naples Muni (KAPF) .. 3:02
Aspen-Pitkin County (KASE) .. 2:52
Quincy Rgnl-Baldwin Field (KUIN) .. 2:34
Wilmington Intl (KILM) .. 2:16
Burke Lakefront (KBKL) .. 2:03
Wittman Rgnl (KOSH) .. 1:58
Witham Field (KSUA) .. 1:42
Albany Intl (KALB) .. 1:41
Craig Muni (KCRG) .. 1:20
Ormond Beach Muni (KOMN) .. 1:10
Nantucket Memorial (KACK) .. 1:09
Knox County Rgnl (KRKD) .. 0:50
Palm Beach Intl (KPBI) .. 0:32
Grand Total .. 51:09
So a unrecorded short hop was made from between two Philadelphia area fields. Last recorded flight landed on a nearly due west heading.
This appears to me to be a private flight of the owner seeing how it was a part 91 flight even though this is a part 135 aircraft. It might be the recorded flights are the part 135 flights. In any event, this aircraft hasn't had many hours put on it.
Roel Said: The entire layout of the factory was built to get to 2.0 without problems. I think the whole goal of getting to 1.7, 1.8 is a reasonable goal. It doesn't say 2 and a half.
I don't want to overstress it, but that will give us an opportunity to get to profitability in Q1, March of next year," adds Pieper.
I say NO WAY, ain't gunna happen.
First to echo the others, thank God nobody was hurt.
Second, what does it take to get some decent basic journalism? Takeoff or landing, one or two souls aboard - these are important but basic facts.
If, as reported, the engines were again not responding, expect some serious and near immediate FAA action.
Roel, if you are listening, the actions you take over the next 48-72 hours re: this incident and the potential response from FAA and NTSB may very well make or break your company.
Discard the Vern Raburn 'blame everyone else' playbook, keep your mouth shut and your ears open, and cooperate fully and humbly with the Feds - everyone will be watching.
Again, thank God there were no injuries - now we wait for the initial NTSB report to hit AvWeb or another reputable source, or maybe the Eclipse House Organ ANN.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/54702/im_my_own_grandpa/
Maybe this said it best .....Incest...a game the whole family can play
I say NO WAY, ain't gunna happen.
Particularly considering that Eclipse has had nothing but problems in achieving that...they can't even get to half that. The factory, the aircraft itself, etc have all been seriously misdesigned from the get-go.
If, as reported, the engines were again not responding, expect some serious and near immediate FAA action.
The idea of computer controlled everything sounds good on paper, and it might work ok for normal operations. But, the glaring hole in this theory is an emergency that damages some part of the aircraft. Where is the safety margin then? Computers go down, engines are uncontrollable, and disaster looms. In this case we have a survivable crash that could have turned to disaster after the plane came to a full stop. Or, what about an aborted takeoff with engines stuck on full power?
This is a patently stupid and irresponsible design, IMO.
In this case we have a survivable crash that could have turned to disaster after the plane came to a full stop. Or, what about an aborted takeoff with engines stuck on full power?
Fortunately there were trees around to stop the so-called plane.
Passenger on 333MY was the pilot's 5 year old daughter. FAA needs to ground the Eclipse 500 and do a certification review now before someone gets killed. Too many close calls lately!!
Passenger on 333MY was the pilot's 5 year old daughter. FAA needs to ground the Eclipse 500 and do a certification review now before someone gets killed. Too many close calls lately!!
If Eclipse was a normal sustainable company I'd say that they she voluntarilly ground the fleet before the FAA does. That would be best in the long term, but I don't see how Eclipse is going to survive much longer in the short term...short of continual cash infusions, which don't make a sustainable business.
to talk about something else ...
(yes , thanks whoever ... no one got hurt this time ...hope no one run out of luck !)
today in Moscow most Modern Airport (domodedovo) there was a kind of show for whatever is flying and in or from Russia ...
Eclipse/E-trick (or the opposite ) was brilliantly absent !
is that the way they want to treat new potential customers ?
it seems to be along the same lines that the ones used in NM ...!
More competition the way for Eclipse:
http://jets.halogenguides.com/articles/1372-phenom-100-on-target-for-fall-certification
Also is this simulator certified?:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/29/226157/oshkosh-2008-bringing-the-x-factor-to-eclipse-training.html
A Doug Cayne is asking for a refund:
http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/NewEclipseCEOAddressingRefundConcerns_198427-1.html
Is it this one?:
http://www.aspenavionics.com/index.php/company/management-team/
Or this one?:
http://www.cayne.com/
This is the FAA report:
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING, WENT OFF THE END OF THE RUNWAY AND INTO AN EMBANKMENT,
BRANDYWINE AIRPORT, WEST CHESTER, PA
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/I_0731_N.txt
— Eclipse v. Does: transcript excerpts from the June 6 hearing, and possible dismissal —
I've just added a new post and a few more court documents to Eclipse-vs-Does.blogspot.com. The post includes several excerpts from the transcript of the June 6 hearing in Eclipse Aviation Corp. v. Doe, et al., No. 1-08-CV-110380, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.
The new documents include the complaint and answer from Geiger Excavating v. Eclipse Aviation, No. 1:08-cv-164 (N.D. Ind.).
Also, I've just heard that Eclipse's new management has decided to withdraw the subpoena to Google and voluntarily dismiss its case against the John Does, and that tomorrow's hearing in San Jose will therefore be canceled. However, it will be at least a few more hours before I have any written confirmation of this.
The recent incident in Illinois and accident in Pennsylvania appear to have one thing in common. The engines either want to run wide open or idle. Perhaps Eclipse could adapt a technique from the dawn of aviation. The early rotary (not radial) engines had no carburetor and ran only at maximum power. The pilot ‘controlled’ the engine for approach and landing with a momentary-push ignition kill switch on the control stick.
If you’ve see one of these antiques fly you’ve heard the engine ‘burp’ on and off maximum power on approach to landing. Given the Eclipse engine control architecture, perhaps a time-tested kill switch on the side-stick controller would be in order… it will be henceforth known as the Brandywine Switch – the scene of recent events.
I've just heard that Eclipse's new management has decided to withdraw the subpoena to Google and voluntarily dismiss its case against the John Does, and that tomorrow's hearing in San Jose will therefore be canceled.
Perhaps the first evidence of some sanity in the new regime...
Also, I've just heard that Eclipse's new management has decided to withdraw the subpoena to Google and voluntarily dismiss its case against the John Does, and that tomorrow's hearing in San Jose will therefore be canceled. However, it will be at least a few more hours before I have any written confirmation of this.
That should save Eclipse a few dollars to actually deliver on their promises. I think it is simply too late for Eclipse to turn things around, short of BK.
Great write-up Al.
Eclipse has got some serious order book problems and production problems. Just looking at the known vapor orders, it looks real bad. Eclipse claims 2300 outstanding but...
300 are from Linear Air that I don't see happening:
http://www.linearair.com/downloads/Linear_Air_%20Breaking_%20into_the_VLJ_Air_Taxi_Business.pdf
1400 from DayJet:
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/PDF%20files/SIC%20minutes%208-23-05.pdf
Then there's 220 from ETIRC:
http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2007/05/21/daily20.html
Just looking at the big announced orders and not even getting into the smaller announced orders, Eclipse's order book isn't big enough for a year's production if Eclipse did get up to 1.7 units per day. Eclipse is in a catch 22 - if Eclipse makes them real fast, they'll just sit on the tarmac with no buyers, while if they make them at their current rate of less than one unit per day, they're way too expensive to make. Also another problem with fast production, it means more units will need to be retrofitted. Until all the fallout happens with the FAA/NTSB/Congress, any units produced now are potential liabilities needing expensive rework. Alternatively, if the plan is BK, the more units on the market would make Eclipse more valuable for servicing.
Hmmm...
Even Captain Zoom now says this was a runway overrun, where an engine could not be shut down after the impact with the local flora. The Fire Department had to use foam, as there is clearly not even a fuel shutoff capability on our very own FPJ.
I think I'll have to add that to the list, even though it might end up being the 'Top ELEVEN Shortcomings'.
Seems the wing was damaged enough to leak Jet A as well.
Question, do you think Captain Zoom would be keen to fly his own family around in one of these 'aircraft' after this? I know there are plenty available if he wants to borrow one. A little bird tells me that EAC themselves believe less than 50 of the 200+ 'deliveries' are actually flying.
The phrase 'hanger queens' was used to describe the other 150 odd.
This would also explain the constant stream of emails I'm getting from brokers and position holders who can't shift a serial number not actually attached to a hull. Seem the competition from owners is too great to live with. And as for EAC, well it seems they will stop at nothing to prevent anyone other than themselves selling a position.
Shane
Dark Blossom
In the early days of engine design, my grandfather, even then concerned about fuel economy, designed all his farm, marine, and industrial engines with a governor controlled throttle. But the competition used what is still known as a “hit and miss” ignition system, predating the “Gnome” rotary engines of which you speak.
In light of recent history of the little bird, possibly your suggested speed control should be more properly named: “Hit and (hopefully) Miss”. Or, “Hit and Miss, NG”! . . . part of the ‘tree-at-the-end-of-the-runway avoidance system’.
gadfly
(Thank God for trees! . . . the video showed a rather busy highway just a few feet beyond what appeared to be a “jet” buried under a pile of foam, an unusual method of shutting down an engine or two. The “E400" will require only half as much foam.)
given the recent "excuses" and "test required" to detect the last "uncontrollable engine/FADEC" problem... namely shifting the throttle back and forth and listening for noise... ASIF the throttle is the problem...
and what could very well be the same condition that caused or exacerbated the accident this morning...
someone need to ask a lot of questions, AND someone should be very, very angry. Perhaps many peole...
I echo the sentiments of thanks that no one was hurt. I hate to think its just luck.
Shane,
thank G-D you kept this blog alive...
Seriously, buddy.
This is a big deal.
PS. any word from Gunner?
The fishing trip is over. Vern is on his way home.
The airplane clearly needs a manual fuel shut-off valve for each engine and a means of getting weight on the main wheels during landings or rejected take-offs and it really needs these things prior to further flight. If the image of a little traumatized girl that could have easily been burned to death doesn't get Eclipse and the FAA off their asses nothing will.
Interesting track John Travolta's Eclipse left on the way to Oshkosh. Wonder if those are radar returns of fairings falling off...?
If the image of a little traumatized girl that could have easily been burned to death doesn't get Eclipse and the FAA off their asses nothing will.
Maybe it will get Congress to act since after Midway but before this happened Vern said that throttle tolerances weren't even part of the certification process. The FAA certification process itself should be reviewed in addition to seeing if Eclipse skirted what requirements there were in the existing process.
This article title came out two days before the crash:
A crash landing for an entertaining entrepreneur
http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/2008/07/a-crash-landing-for-an-entertaining-entrepreneur/
Dave
Actually, except for the trees, we would possibly be reading about the jet being hit by an "18 wheeler", on a highway.
In December 2006, we read about the 737 that killed a small boy in a car off the end of a runway at Midway . . . the plane had the weight advantage in that case. This one was similar, but in reverse . . . but for those trees and a few feet.
gadfly
(No matter how you slice it, there is no "good" ending . . . and the sequel may be worse.)
Presenting the Eclipse 400, the aircraft from Eclipse Aviation that will lead the single-engine jet market. This is the only single-engine jet to boldly unite the hallmarks of Eclipse Aviation - impeccable safety, quality, and value - into a personal and exhilarating ownership experience.
http://www.eclipseconceptjet.com/
Does anyone even at Eclipse actually believe that? Then again I guess all the terms could be relative. "Safety" - it's safer to fly one than serve in the military; "Quality" - it's made better than a toy airplane; "Value" - Eclipse is subsidizing the purchase of earch one they turn out, so that must mean there's value. Also Roel has already said Eclipse might not go through with it afterall and he'll tell people in November.
A brief open letter from an ornery taxpayer:
FAA, NTSB, and DOT . . . anybody home?
There’s some stuff that you might wish to examine down in the land of green or red chili. ‘Last I heard, you still get regular pay checks, sponsored by we lowly taxpayers. We rarely question how you earn your pay . . . but due to recent events our curiosity seems to be somewhat aroused as to your activities . . . it’s all so secret.
If it’s not asking too much, might you in your busy schedule, do a complete audit on the safety of the flying machine being constructed down our way? It’s probably nothing of concern, but we would be greatly comforted to know that those who fly in this new contraption are safe, as well as those on the ground . . . including those that sometime drive or walk on highways close to the runways on which they takeoff and land.
The little birds are quiet, and therefore we have little warning to get out of their way . . . as sometimes they seem to borrow space with cars on nearby roads (you see, right there the DOT has jurisdiction). And we would wish to know if the use of foam on a regular basis to shut down engines is environmentally safe.
Well, as a taxpayer, I and some others want to be assured that you folks are doing an excellent job . . . so many ugly rumors are beginning to appear of late.
That’s it!
Sincerely,
Your loyal gadfly.
(And then there’s that other little item about the use of our local taxes, without our direct approval, to subsidize this little bird factory, that seems to be headed down an arroyo in a flash flood.)
Between the Eclipse crash and this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01crash.html?ref=us
It's probably not going to hurt both Eclipse as well as DayJet even though the fatal crash didn't involve them.
The tragic loss of the Hawker and 7 of the souls on board is a grim reminder that things can and do go wrong in this thing we call aviation.
The Hawkers have a much deserved reputation as being incredibly tough birds, they are actually 2 - 0 against SAM's and air-to-air missiles. Given the description of the weather at the time of the accident one can only imagine what happened.
This is why it is incumbent on all OEM's to design solid, reliable and easy-to-operate aircraft - not for the 99% of the time when things are going as expected, but that 1% when things go awry.
God rest those lost and comfort their loved ones.
Dave said:
"it's safer to fly one than serve in the military"
I was in the military on heavy bombers many, many years and would easily do that again than be in the FPJ
from the NYT article:
...A spokeswoman for the company, Carla Kern, said....
“I think everybody here is relieved that it wasn’t Viracon people,” she said, “but still it’s very sad. It’s a very terrible tragedy.”
What a disgusting, cold comment. I wonder how the families of those customers who died feel.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, so to speak, Adam Aircraft is getting back to building A-700s. For those not familiar with the history, Adam had 800 employees before going belly up in February. Then it's assets were purchased by Russian investors for $10M. The new owners have abandoned the twin piston A-500. These investors also own a Russian air-taxi company called Dexter.
I've flown the A-700 and it is a very nice aircraft with a large cabin, very easy to fly. Like EAC, Adam had many orders from would-be air-taxi operators. Unlike EAC, the A-700 had fairly conventional systems, with avionics by Avidyne and Garmin. It's original price was about $2.1M. They were part way through the certification process when they ran out of money.
You can read about their new existence here:
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/mobile/stories/2008/07/28/daily53.html
tbms,
The A-700 has many problems and needs redesign in areas. I don't think this one will be profitable, even if they do eventually manage to certify. It takes way too many man hours to produce.
Apologize for the off-topic response. Just wanted to keep it "real."
The A-700 has many problems and needs redesign in areas. I don't think this one will be profitable, even if they do eventually manage to certify. It takes way too many man hours to produce.
I certainly agree with that! I bailed on an order for one a very long time ago, and actually got my deposit back. They'd have to completely rethink the manufacturing approach to stand a chance. Funny, though, the commonality with EAC in being broken, and probably broke as well.
mountain high said: “Just wanted to keep it "real."”
That is a problem. If we were to keep it “real”, we could not discuss the little bird in ABQ. The “A-700" may not yet be real, but it is much less threat to the flying public than the little bird.
It would be nice to solve all the problems of other aircraft . . . such as that which occurred with the “Hawker” . . . but we are unable to do that much. The best we can do is to work on the problem at hand, which seems a total handful, and then some.
There is no desire to make light other tragedies, of course. But within the purpose of this blogsite, we have opportunity to address the serious issues surrounding the Eclipse before major tragedies take place.
Whether or not the company ever makes a profit . . . I couldn’t care less, quite frankly. But to inflict an unproven, and obviously unsafe vehicle on the “unsuspecting”, borders on the criminal . . . and “we” have opportunity to do something about that.
Whatever method is within your means, you have an obligation to put pressure on whatever person or agency within your grasp . . . and either force this flying machine to become “safe”, or get it off the street (as it were). And of late, it seems to be coming a danger to traffic, even “on the street”.
The little girl, with her Daddy, who could have easily lost her life . . . there are others of any age who deserve to be treated with equal concern . . . and until a few federal agencies wake up and do what we pay them to do, I, for one, will make my voice heard . . . day after day after day, until we see positive results.
gadfly
(And now, the gadfly will catch a couple McDonald's "green chili cheese burgers" (not available outside NM), coffee, and fries" . . . go home, and see what some of you have decided to do, on the home computer.)
Airtaximan,
Shane,
thank G-D you kept this blog alive...
Seriously, buddy.
This is a big deal.
PS. any word from Gunner?
Thanks for your kind comments. I did what I did for my own reasons. I regard the whole EAC 'thing' as a smear on the reputation of good business people everywhere. My primary motivation is to demonstrate that there are honourable (proper spelling) people, of which I believe I am one, who can stand up and say:-
"This is wrong"
and be prepared to back it up.
What VolderVern was doing was, well, just plain disgusting. I would not stand for it, so you have this blog.
And yes, there should be word from Gunner shortly. Being a good and patient marksman, he is waiting for the right time to shoot.
I may be wrong, but he has impressed me so far. With any luck at all, we can expect a bullseye.
Shane
From Dave Demerjian at Wired Blogs:
A CEO Resigns As His Jet Stalls
"It was big shocker when Vern Raburn, grandaddy of the Very Light Jet (VLJ) resigned as CEO of Eclipse Aviation this week. But maybe it shouldn't have been. The company has been plagued with a series of production and safety issues that have turned some people sour on the promise of the VLJ..."
-----------------------------------
Re: the Brandywine crash - first it was during takeoff, then it was during landing, then it was during takeoff again. And now the FAA report says it was during a landing. The press article that said it was a landing crash is (IIRC) also the one that described a pilot comment that the controls were unresponsive. And we know that the fire department needed foam to shut down an engine.
The mind boggles at how many known issues may have contributed to this crash.
Was it the lack of anti-skid? A tire failure? Throttle quadrant failure which invoked partial-or-full-throttle operation of one or more of the engines? A little FADEC cross-controlling going on? Phantom CAS alarms distracting the pilot?
While I hold open the possibility of pilot error, it's truly disturbing how many ways the preemie-bird conspires to invoke one.
Would you like the Combo?
IANAL
Was it the lack of anti-skid? A tire failure? Throttle quadrant failure which invoked partial-or-full-throttle operation of one or more of the engines? A little FADEC cross-controlling going on? Phantom CAS alarms distracting the pilot?
I think this was Midway 2.0. Both involving a landing, both involving the "unique" FADECs and both with the engines being locked at full throttle. If this was remotely like Midway, it should be enlightening to see how the regulatory agencies respond when two very similar events happen so closely to one another with a fleet that isn't that large and hasn't been in the air too long. If the NTSB Chairman got on Eclipse after one incident, I could only imagine what the Chairman would say for two such incidents right after one another.
Ok, here's my take on recent events. And no...I'm not Vern.
Vern flew back from fishing trip to help coordinate crisis of second accident due to FADEC/throttle quadrant/tire/brake problem. Although ousted from company he still thinks of it as his "baby". All involved know that FAA is likely to ground fleet due to this problem. My guess is that pilot of ill fated E500 has been interviewed by EAC and they now know a major problem exists.
Position holders being very mum at present. Why? They have been promised all will be made right if they hang on a little longer. A few of the more adamant have been given refunds. Checks were good and funds have cleared the bank.
Position holders will likely be told they will be told they can purchase E500s at "old" price if they will forego their desired refund. Second possibility is they will have to pay an increased fee for their jet but won't have to put up most of the money until it is very near completion. Big effort will be made to provide position holders a better level of comfort in an effort to get them to rescind their efforts to obtain refunds. Recent accident likely spells end to these efforts as FAA grounding likely to occur and nothing will restrain position holders from obtaining refund. Sufficient funds likely not available and bankruptcy looms.
Just my best guess and NO I'm not Vern:)
Landing procedures for a FPJ
1.Final approach.
2.Alert air traffic control your in a FPJ (They have special ground procedures).
3.Dump excess fuel.
4.Lower landing gear and hope tires still hold air.
5.Hope for dry tarmac.
6.Place first hand lightly on throttles and hope for no crosswind or needed changes.
7.Place second hand on fuel shutoff for right engine.
8.Place third hand on fuel shutoff for left engine.
9.Place fourth hand on stick.
10.Pray to God of your choice.
11.Touch down.
12.Listen for tire failure.
13.Hope engines go to idle.
14.Taxi to park.
15.Exit FPJ (and now you know why it’s called a FPJ)
16.Kiss ground.
17.Hug your wife and children.
18.Change underwear.
19.Kick yourself for ever buying this joke in the first place.
20.Check for missing parts after flight.
21.Post FOR SALE on web, pick up only.
Ok, here's my take on recent events. And no...I'm not Vern.
Interesting perspective. Thanks, Peg.
As it turns out,
I'm not a lawyer
Landing procedures for a FPJ...
2.Alert air traffic control your in a FPJ (They have special ground procedures).
Ug, I found some transcript excerpts:
8EA: Albuquerque Approach, Eclipse five two eight echo alpha with you at niner thousand over the bridges, inbound for landing.
APR: Eight echo alpha, Albuquerque Approach. Squawk seven seven zero zero and ident. Descend to eight thousand and expect straight in to runway zero eight. We'll get equipment for you. Contact Tower on zero point three, G'day .
----------------------------------
TWR: Eight echo alpha, Albuquerque Tower. Cleared to land runway zero eight. Equipment will be waiting for you at taxiways delta, alpha-5, and alpha-6, so exit runway to the right.
8EA: Equipment? But this isn't an emergency.
TWR: We'll worry about the body count, you just worry about landing that b------ in one piece.
Tray tables up and in the locked position?
IANAL
#Position holders being very mum at present. Why? #
because (may be ) out of the 15 who are accounted for by shane ...
there isn't enough to make a big crowd ??
i agree with ATM = D.O.A. ; and dave (intricacy of the diabolic pair EAC/Etirc) really too much things going on with the 2 entities , for much too long ..
to be a real change ...
they play the "hoho ! how should i have known before i took over ?"
the orderbook is on the same lines =
day one : EAC make a plane ;
day 2 ; etirc and dayjet buy planes ;
day 3 eac tout mega orders to attract investors and depositors ;
day 4 EAc take the mega orders as a proof they were right to "bury dinosaurs "
day 5 dayjet bizz plan fail
day 6 to compensate etirc decide it's better to build plane instead of buying them (whoa ...it's that easy !)
day 7 Etrick buy out EAC
day 8 Etrick remove Vernicus from CEO position , but keep him as adviser (???? on what ? level of stupidity ?)
day 9 E-trick claims support From EAC (???) and get "one of the few first ten plane to be delivered anywhere " (i thought 220 had been delivered to date ? as for abroad = may be because NO one want the Fpj ?)
day 10 : first fatality avoided ONLY by luck and a few trees ...
day ? : FAA in a strike of clear vision put an end to this nightmare ...
the story wouldn't be credible even in "Hollywood" , Ed , Vern and Roel are buddies for a long time , much longer than this story ... = level of intricacy : maximum , level of transparency : non-existent !
result : too many to be screwed !
Pratt Canada...
Wake up...
An article that provides a general summary of what is going on at Eclipse:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/eclipse-forges-ahead-on-500-fixes/
"Meanwhile, Eclipse is developing a software fix that will prevent the thrust levers of its model 500 from being pushed beyond their design limits during normal operation. The software fix comes in response to an FAA emergency Airworthiness Directive issued on June 12 that called for thrust-lever inspections and revised procedures in more than 200 Eclipse 500s after an out-of-control thrust incident at Chicago Midway Airport on June 5.
The pilot of Eclipse 500 N612KB apparently moved the thrust levers forward with enough force to cause the engines’ fadec to believe a control failure had occurred. Eclipse said more than 80 percent of the in-service fleet has undergone thrust-lever inspections, with serious anomalies found in two other Eclipse 500s. Eclipse plans to increase the range limit of the thrust-lever assembly enough to prevent the fault condition, pending approval of the software update by the FAA."
Fix hardware with modified software stands out to me. Sounds like a great cheap easy fix if you don't have to FLY THE DAM THING!
I'm sorry but even the inventive minds on this blog can't come up with anything this far out there.
Just unbelieveable. (shakes head)
wwooow
they want to fix the "throttle" problem with more software ??
is it that difficult to put a physic stop ?
and with their "enlightened vision" of software coding , don't they understand that the more code you put into soft , the weirder reactions you'll get ???
amazing !!
and they expect Easa for late summer ? hilarious : one of the concern of european agency was the level of integration , never at this level before ...
with all the problems , they want to "integrate" even more ???
i say again : "wwooww!"
Uglytruth:"Fix hardware with modified software stands out to me. Sounds like a great cheap easy fix if you don't have to FLY THE DAM THING!"
From what I've read, the problem with the throttle is that the actual range of movement with 'high' control forces exceeds the expected range of movement. The throttle position is indicated to the system by a rotary encoder without a physical endstop, and the limit of 'believable' throttle readings is set in software. So modifying the software to allow a wider range of movement seems like a good fix to me.
The trade-off, I think, is that inreasing the permissible range of movement decreases the dynamic range of the throttle - ie slightly poorer precision in throttle settings.
The (very) poor engineering was in not fully understanding the import of an out-of-range throttle setting, and therefore not being more conservative with the throttle setting range (ie allowing a wider 'believable' range).
I'm guessing that the guys who wrote the software never met the guys who designed the throttle quadrant, and no-one ever really worked out whether the permissible range was appropriate for the (apparently rather flimsy) quadrant.
Perhaps it is only coincidental, but all the major incidents have happened near the Great Lakes - two in Illinois, one in Michigan and now one in Pennsylvania. I'm wonder how much the lakes affect the humidity where these events have happened.
Weather data where incidents took place:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPTW/2008/7/30/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KRFD/2008/7/17/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA (this is for Rockport which was the fairing falling off)
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMDW/2008/6/5/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA (this is for Midway where on first glance only gusts were a factory, but perhaps it was more with the ultimate root cause)
http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=3527&refer=&units=us
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KFNT/2008/4/17/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
While this shows ABQ's weather:
http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=56327&refer=&units=us
Unfortinately I don't have all the SDRs to plug in since the FAA system is being upgraded.
Lame as is sounds it is probably an appropriate correction.
Let pretend the Throttle resolver is a Potentiometer fed with 5V DC.
You do not use the full range, so idle is not 0V and T/O 5V, but Idle might be 1V and T/O 4V.
Now you need a bit of tolerance where the FADEC accepts say 0.8V thru 1V as idle and4.0 thru 4.2V as T/O.
This is analog to a mechanic control cable with the primary stop on the fuel control, and a secondary stop on the throttle quadrant.
My guess is Eclipse either forgot the tolerance band, or made it too tight.
Pilot in wind shear slams the throttle forward, the quadrant flexes just a little, the FADEC sees 4.02478V, see that this is out of range, packs its toys and goes home.
If the quadrant was not damaged (no distortion, it returned to tolerance), then it likely is mechanically robust enough, and doesn't need a redesign. A software load to expand the FADEC's tolerance band may be adequate.
Shame this won't fix the non-compliance to the regs for the Crossed throttle mode, or the non-compliance for the lack of operating instructions for this mode.
I guess Ceri and I were writing at the same time.
Good summary CERI.
freedom,
shame the recent grounding required a "test" for sqeeking and rubbing in the throttle quadrant, that apparently have nothing to do with this issue.
The fleet should be grounded until a real fix is developed and in place.
Also, even if the recent issues were NOT shown to be related to a deformation of the throttle, testing should be done under reasonable emergency conditions to establish whether the unit is robust enough under certain conditions...
So there are apparently two immediate fixes.. the tolerance (software) issue, which should be FIXED before another e500 flies, PLSU a test for emergency loads on the throttle, and a potential fix for the unit if it proves less than safe in all conditions.
Neither of these, as you so well put it, resolved the crossed throttle compliance (safety) issues...
Yeah, if people can break or deform the throttle mechanism or its endstops, something is wrong.
I interpreted the Eclipse ground check procedure after Midway to basically amount to 'Push the throttle as hard as you dare - now, does it sound like you've broken it? If so, you exceeded the allowable control forces, if not it's OK.' I think the physical check was a piece of theater prompted by NTSBs reports of 'faulty' units, which were just standard, flimsy throttle units which broke when subjected to maximum control forces.
I'm sure pilots have been yanking at throttles since Orville and Wilbur, and that expected/maximum forces are very well known and published. There's no excuse for doing it wrong, really.
"I've just heard that Eclipse's new management has decided to withdraw the subpoena to Google and voluntarily dismiss its case against the John Does"
Don't take everything you "hear" at face value, Al. The CA Subpoena is an outgrowth of the NM suit. The key is not to cut off the Subpoena, leaving the underlying action to regrow. The key is to kill both in such manner that they cannot be reasonably resurrected.
What you are "hearing" is hardly an Eclipse management decision taken in a vacuum. Rather it's been something that has come about as a result of our own intervention on the news of Vern's passing.
I'd like to offer more here. In fact, I owe an explanation to The Chosen. But I also need to focus on the main priority....keeping my word to fight this thing right.
I can state that The Chosen are temporarily out of the line of fire....and we humbly take credit for a good part of that. We're now working on making it all permanent.
Please bear with and keep an eye on our favorite journalistic Ms. Rambo! ;-)
Rich Lucibella
Rather it's been something that has come about as a result of our own intervention on the news of Vern's passing.
He's only resting.
Ah yes, Gunner . . . we await the driving of the final stake!
gadfly
(Yet even Dracula would rise again! . . . 'probably had a clever lawyer.)
Gunner. Thanks for all your efforts! I appreciate it a lot and I'm sure others here do as well. On the matter of Vern and Roel, I am beginning to think that it is all theater for the public, investors, and depositors. I don't think there is really much of a change at all. It was a PR stunt to give a little more breathing room. A real company would have announced the change to the employees first well before or after Oshkosh.
Gad,
Thank you for bringing us back to the most important issue for this blog and the industry, SAFETY.
Indeed, it's amazing to see the FAA collude with Eclipse (due to political pressure, bonuses, etc). Has the FAA yet moved off its position (after Midway)? The reports I saw indicated that the FAA was standing behind the safety of the plane.
Let's hope the acting head of the FAA, Bobby Sturgell, will do the right thing! This occurred on Blakey's watch, not his. Unfortunately, he was her "right hand man" for 4-5 years and has obviously maintained his loyalty to her.
If the FAA is to maintain any credibility, Sturgell needs to act now (before fatalities occur). If he cannot/will not due to his loyalty to Blakely... he needs to resign!
If Sturgell doesn't take action I think a second investigation into the collusion/ corruption/ incompetence of the FAA itself re this TC is appropriate.
Gunner,
I think what Dave meant was:
He's only resting
You're correct with your additional comments though...
IANAL
And again, I cannot thank you enough Gunner for your efforts on our behalf. And a salute to Gadfly for his steadfastness and willingness to step up to the plate as needed!
I don't think there is really much of a change at all.
I agree. These guys are too much cut from the same cloth. Roel has his own version of DayJet going on and it is being used to re-enforce the validity of Eclipse's operating model, so I just see Roel as doing essentially more of the same.
Dave said ... Raburn touted to unsophisticated investors that Eclipse could build a plane in less than a week and have it delivered and paid before before he'd have to pay suppliers for the parts because...building a jet aircraft is as easy to build as a Dell computer, but only Vern the Dot Com Messiah could accomplish this because everyone else was in the stone age and hadn't heard of Henry Ford and Mass Production.
Hummm.... Boeing is doing that and more with the 787. 787 final assembly is designed to take 3 days. The wings, fuselage barrels, etc fly in to Everet in the Dreamlifters, Boeing puts it all together in 3 days, pushes the plane out to acceptance, gets the money wired, than pays suppliers.
That is, also how Airbus is attempting to set up the A350 production line. [Except that they have to find a way to get past the unions and actually sell some factories to new risk partners].
That is also how Mitsubishi is setting up for MRJ production.
Cessna with the Columbus, Gulfstream with the G650 are also going to be using risk partners for MAJOR sub-assemblies.
In fact, Dave, Aerospace is moving very fast away from being a vertically integrated business to a risk sharing business with the OEM handling a very fast final assembly, marketing, sales, support, etc.
Eclipse was just the first one to do it for GA in a big way. Their use of risk sharing with vendors (like Williams et all) was very innovative for GA and is now the norm for virtually every totally new civil aviation project.
Please, don't let the fact that they totally f#@% up the execution, prevent you from recognizing that the approach they chose [risk sharing, major assemblies from vendors and quick final assembly], is the way of the future in this industry (and many others).
In the immortal words of Marion Blakely:
"What I have in my hand is probably the most significant piece of paper in America today, a piece of paper that will truly change the face of aviation," said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey, just before handing the provisional Type Certificate for the Eclipse 500 VLJ, to Vern Raburn, Eclipse Aviation’s president and CEO.
http://www.airventure.org/2006/frijuly28/eclipse.html
Mountain High-
Gadfly is actually the true stalwart hero in the Eclipse Blogger Attack. We've never publicly stated it, but it was Gad\fly who stepped up and was willing to release his name to the courts as the "named defendant", should our hand have been called.
That took one helluva a lot of chutzpah and i have the utmost respect for the man.
Gunner
Baron, sorry but it is time for another history lesson.
Beechcraft used MHI as a risk sharing partner for the wing of the Hawker Horizon, which was announced even before the Eclipse project (hard to believe I know). MHI had full responsibility for engineering and fabrication.
Like Air Taxi, 3D design, design for supportability, supplier management and so many other things, Eclipse merely took credit for doing what other companies were already doing - they had the chutzpah to suggest nobody did it before them - because they did not know any better - and in most of the cases I list above, they failed miserably when compared to the 'dinosaurs'.
CW said ... Cessna did not just lose it's CEO as a requirement for Bailout Infusion NG Ver 3.8; Cessna is not delivering incomplete partially functioning preemie jets; Cessna does not have any (let alone several) AD's against the Mustang; Cessna does not have a large, growing, and angry mob of villagers waiting for their refunds.
Hummm.... Why are you comparing a startup company [EAC] with a company that has been operating for decades? Makes no sense. Are you aware that Cessna was bought by GD fron the brink of bankruptcy? Are you aware that Cessna's market share in piston plane production went from 70% to ZERO in the late 80s? Are you aware that when Cessna launched the Conquest the plane had several in-flight failures and landing PIO crashes and had to ground the whole fleet for months to redesign the empenage?
So even all mighty Cessna has a spotty record. And starting up a new company is a messy process. Lear, Cirrus, Columbia, De Havilland all had messy starts with many stumbles, some fatal.
This Blog should be one of constructive criticism. Point out what is wrong with Eclipse and the EA500 and point out ways to improve it. Instead, this Blog seems to be emotionally invested in trying to prove that EVERYTHING related to Eclipse is wrong, stupid, fraudulent, etc.
That is sooooo sad. Personal GA aviation inovation, even when it ultimately fails, needs to be encouraged if this industry is going to prosper.
Otherwise, we'll continue to see private pilot numbers decline, small GA airports close, and the whole industry be priced out of reach and vanish.
Gunner :
keep-up ! anyway , you know you are our "hero" !
(and thanks for enrichment of my english swearing vocabulary ...)
Asm : yes ,all a show nothing more ,nothing less ...!
B95 : you still don't get it = never assume that what is not white has to be black ! GA is to prosper = yes ! EAC participate in it ? = no way ! i would say "they put off new comers !"
mountainhigh
Expect to have our comments “ignored” by the various federal agencies. ‘Playing with words, and their meanings, the act of ‘ignoring’ (facts) may be called ‘ignor-ance’, a close first cousin of ‘stupidity’ . . . and a political example of the results of ‘incest’ (in the family of government bureaucratic relationships).
But don’t be fooled for a moment. These folks are reading our remarks on a regular basis . . . we “bait” them with humor, insults, sarcasm . . . whatever it takes, and they hear our message, loud and clear. Sometimes we even complement them in their work . . . and in much of what they do, they deserve to be complemented. In fact, for the most part, the many people who work within these organizations have done excellent, and seldom recognized, good work. (Yes, I passed a battery of their tests, one time, . . . they held me to a high standard . . . I passed them all, and I’m grateful, to this day, that there was no compromise. And for the wizenheimers . . . No!, Orville Wright did not administer the exams.)
However, of late, a few of the more visible, have brought a shadow over their integrity. It is for that reason, we must press on . . . to re-gain the credibility, and integrity, that is most important for their benefit, and ours, and that of the general aviation industry.
To allow this little upstart in New Mexico (with all its unwanted “baggage”) to gain a foothold in an otherwise honorable industry, is to open the doors to disaster. It is not our responsibility to clean up their act . . . but until they do, their standards are not to be a part of general aviation.
May it never be!
gadfly
(Yeh, I’m preachin’ . . . but there’s a few visitors in the congregation that may get the point.)
(And don't believe everything that Gunner has to say . . . he has a tendency to get carried away at times! By the way, Gunner, how much did I agree to pay for your comments?)
Baron I was answering another blogger's question.
Had Vern and crew not tried so hard to compare themselves to Cessna I would agree with you that it was nonsensical.
However, the stumbles you speak of occurred decades ago - they are public lessons that a humble start-up could have learned from.
Instead, Eclipse has gone on not only to repeat these same problems, they have done them faster, and bigger and it is only pure luck that the results to-date have not been worse.
Again, the real legacy of Eclipse to-date is one of Brando's character in On the Waterfront, they could have been a contender, they could've been somebody.
sorry !
Monsieur Gad & Monsieur Gunner = our Heroes !
Please, don't let the fact that they totally f#@% up the execution, prevent you from recognizing that the approach they chose [risk sharing, major assemblies from vendors and quick final assembly], is the way of the future in this industry (and many others).
That's true. I've always seen Vern et al as totally incapable of doing this, but it doesn't mean that it is itself impossible. When there's a great deal of snakeoil mixed in with incompetence, it all looks like snakeoil.
Gunner,
My heartfelt thanks...You have much integrity and honor!
Gad,
Thanks to you also....(hope you found your meds..)
fred
You were correct the first time. 'Keep your focus, man!
Gunner is the man that "put his money where his mouth is" . . . for the rest of us, it's fun to talk, but talk can be cheap.
'Let's leave it at that, and get on with issues.
For the rest, If you know something that needs to be shared with the world, here's your opportunity. If it saves a life, you have an obligation to come forward. Aviation is not a "joke", nor a casual thing to "take or leave", according to current weather conditions, politics, or the humidity.
Let me be even more explicit:
What is going on in New Mexico may very well affect the safety of your grandmother, when she comes to visit on some airplane in the future. It's easy to lower standards . . . and almost impossible to "raise" them at a future time.
'Here's your opportunity to take a stand, and make an impact on the future. Some of us have done a part . . . and we'll continue. But the little jet has provided an opportunity, a "catalyst" (as it were) to move to a higher plain, a higher standard.
gadfly
(Shucks! . . . I was really on a roll there . . . almost forgot where I was.)
eclipso
You stole my meds . . . 'fes up, man, you dirty rotten . . . (lost my train of thought . . . again) what was the question?
gadfly
No one was seriously injured, but the pilot sat for an hour after the crash comforting his young daughter, who was a passenger in the aircraft.
Thank god no one was hurt.
Runway at Brandywine is 3347 x 50 feet, temps in the low 80s,... wet conditions...
Isn't that a bit tight? Anyone has access to the EA500 flight manual? What is the landing distance over 50'obstcacle at 80F and wet conditions? [P.S. Not trying to blame the pilot, just wanted to know how much margin was there to begin with]
...engine could not be shutdown after the accident ...
For crying out loud!!! If this is true, it has to be at the top of the certification review (I had already put the whole FADEC/FMU at the top of my list). I knew there was no way "normal"to shut down the engine if electrical power was lost, but doesn't the EA500 have an engine fire/emergency pull handle? Pulling that does not shut down the engine in the abscense of electrical power? Again, someone that has the AFM can please answer that? This is huge safety issue for passenger egressing and even rescue workers.
Looks like a garden variety runway excursion on a tight and wet runway, but with the Eclipse agravating factors: no anti-skid, no way to shut down the engine, etc.
I'm alway saddened when I see the first hull loss on a type - kind of innocense loss.
Mr. new Eclipse CEO - all eyes are on you - do the right thing as it relates to this accident. Your first test under fire.
Pieper: More than 2,000 employees are now working at the Albuquerque plant and the service centers in Albany and Gainesville, with more being hired. As production increases, so does the number of pilots who need Eclipse's training program. McCarraher says training facilities are growing, too. "We have two full motion simulators and two flight Training Devices, which are going to become full motion. One by the end of this year, and the fourth by the first half of next year."
Doesn't sound like a company slowing down and on the brink of failure to me.
Pieper: If enough orders come in for the Eclipse 400, it will enter production in 2011. "If there's not sufficient interest we'll give their (deposits) back,
Mature management processes and decision making being installed?!
Could someone explain this to me how Eclipse pays a company to build a test airframe and pays them to test said airframe and then the FAA goes by what Eclipse's bought-and-paid-for tester says?:
Eclipse 500 static testing was accomplished at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Southwest Research, under contract to Eclipse Aviation, was tasked to design and assemble the static test load frame and integrate the load control and data acquisition system.
http://www.aerospaceonline.com/article.mvc/Airframe-Is-Cleared-To-An-Initial-10000-Hours-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO
baron
Your comments bring to mind, "Big Jake", John Wayne, and the comments including "nobody's fault", etc.
In the final scene, various characters "bought the farm", as it were, but the boy, the grandson, was saved.
In the present case, the fault is clearly defined . . . but maybe shared by more than those in charge of the little bird factory.
There is no question . . . sooner or later, someone is going to be hurt . . . and no-one can claim that they didn't see it coming.
Well, for the moment, let's munch on those thoughts . . . a person can digest only so much at a given meal.
gadfly
(The daughter trusted her Daddy . . . and he did the best he could as her father, and pilot. Others didn't have "her" best interests in mind, when they claimed to have produced a complete aircraft. And that, my friends, is bordering on criminal behavior. Therein lies the problem!)
The Eclipse definition of a rare occurence is 1400 hours:
Eclipse 500 aircraft have experienced three in-flight events in which pitot pressure was lost on both
left and right primary air data sources, resulting in the loss of airspeed indications on the Primary
Flight Displays (PFDs). The standby airspeed indication was not affected, and continued to function
properly. All aircraft regained the function of both air data systems upon encountering warmer
temperatures. Only three instances of this failure have been recorded in over 4,400 fleet hours,
making this a rare occurrence.
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/Eclipse_letter_040907-1.pdf
"Eclipse was just the first one to do it for GA in a big way."
RSP for GA have been going on for decades already, especially on the engine side... nothing new here, MOVE ALONG!
Baron, I would agree that there is a lot of criticism for eclipse, here... on many fronts. I think the problem is all the BS - claiminig revolutions where there really were few. Perhaps the integration of the plane was one area that withstood time, until recently. The G1000 (Phenom flavor) provides more functionality and integration that the kluge job at Eclipse... the last BS story has been untold... so to speak.
A lot of criticism is available
Here I sit, fired up about the events of late . . . of Eclipse. And my thoughts turn to “cows”, and other animals of the New Mexico landscape.
Did you know, for instance, that a cow, or elk, or deer, cannot gain any food value from grass or other vegetation from what they eat? They chew it up . . . and later “bring it back up”, to “meditate” on it . . . that’s the Hebrew meaning of the word . . . they “meditate” on what they have taken in, and little organisms break down the cellulose, etc., . . . living maybe 24 to 36 hours . . . providing both “sugars” and protein in the process, to provide beef, venison, elk, . . . etc., . . . and life to humans. I took “video” of my wife, and grand-kids, putting their arms and hands inside the side of a cow, handling the “meditation” . . . and observing on a monitor, under a microscope, the activities of tiny short-lived critters, that make our life possible.
What’s the point? The point is that much happens just beyond the understanding of the general public. What appears to be the “facts” are often false. A cow eats grass and produces milk or a prime rib roast. ‘Not that simple! Behind the scenes, the cow goes through a complex series of carefully created processes (and no, I did not stumble over those words . . . carefully chosen for my own reasons) . . . and produces milk, cheese, meat. A reliable aircraft manufacturer goes through a careful process of design, and manufacture . . . and produces a complete product . . . notice the word, “Complete”, that will meet all the requirements of transporting people safely from point “A” to point “B” . . . or whatever. Now, in that process, the designer/manufacturer desires to make a profit . . . maybe that’s the bottom line, and maybe not. But to get folks from one point to another is the first priority.
Enter Eclipse:
It would seem from all outward appearances that the bottom line is to “prove a point” or “make a profit” . . . nothing much wrong with those things, but we’re dealing with “people”, not things, and people are not commodities, to be manipulated like “pawns”.
From here on in, you can fill in my “sermon notes” as you choose . . . by now, you get the point. We are dealing with human lives, and the humor wears mighty thin in this process. Each comment, I think, “what to say to get attention to the bottom line?” Well, with the mentality of a “gadfly”, it’s most easy to make a joke, a comment, to go on to the next subject. But you, who read our comments and criticisms, need to add your thoughts to the mix . . . this thing is not about to go away anytime soon, and if you have been looking in from the sidelines, you need to come up with some “pseudonym” (a “false name”) and make your thoughts known.
OK . . . I’m done for the moment, but not through . . . by any means.
Your beloved “gadfly”
(‘About to post this, when I notice comments about the pitot system. ‘Sorry folks, but “been there, done that” for a much more delicate temperature probe (original design/fabrication/produced . . .for a much higher altitude, and much higher velocity, and much lower temperatures . . . successful/reliable) . . . Please . . . give me a break! This thing is a joke! These folks should have stayed with selling computer software . . . they could have done decently well.)
Baron said:
"Are you aware that when Cessna launched the Conquest the plane had several in-flight failures and landing PIO crashes and had to ground the whole fleet for months to redesign the empenage?"
Therein lays the difference. Cessna grounded and redesigned, eclipse would have, and did, sign-off on it and send it out the door.
GAd,
good point about staying with selling computer software...
In fact, THEY DID...
That's the problem... it's supposed to be an airplane
Could someone explain this to me how Eclipse pays a company to build a test airframe and pays them to test said airframe and then the FAA goes by what Eclipse's bought-and-paid-for tester says?
Dave, that question is a straw man. The practice is commonplace across all industries - the core competencies needed to build a reliable airframe are not the same as those for building a test rig & performing the tests.
In other news, Learjet once hired Stan Blankenship (remember him?) to build a test rig for their original airframes. Not only did he build the rig, he performed the tests and had the [sarcasm] unmitigated gall [/sarcasm] to submit those results to the FAA. And the FAA accepted the results.
Now, whether or not SRI performed competent tests, or whether anybody at FAA viewed them with a critical eye are a couple of different questions. But the fact of a contractual relationship between Eclipse & SRI does not represent even a shred of intrinsic conflict of interest.
(man, Dave, you must have the World's Largest Bookmark File)
Would you like a moist towelette?
IANAL
Day 5 - Oshkosh - Eclipse booth
Question: How many deposits have you taken on the E400?
Answer: 107
AT said ... RSP for GA have been going on for decades already, especially on the engine side... nothing new here, MOVE ALONG!
I wasn't talking about RSP only. It is the whole concept of major subassemblies subcontracted to risk sharing partners that actually engineer and build it, then deliver it for a very fast final assembly.
If you can't tell the difference between how a 787 will be built vs a 777 or a Cessna Columbus vs the Citation X or a G650 vs the G550, you are missing "THE" big revolution in aerospace mannufacture.
Eclipse, originally (9 years ago), subcontrated even the airframe design itself to a RSP (Williams) and planned for a 4.5-day final assembly of a jet. That had not been done before in GA aviation or, I believe, any civil aviation project.
Orville said...
Day 5 - Oshkosh - Eclipse booth
Question: How many deposits have you taken on the E400?
Answer: 107
Not a bad number.
Follow-up question: How many do you need to launch the program for 2011 delivery?
baron,
check out bombardier continenetal model...
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bombardier/
major sub assemblies built up, brought to the factory for final assembly...
I remember reading about this program then...
PSst... it was not touted as a revolution, but it was precisely as you state.
"In the immortal words of Marion Blakely:"
Its "Blakey" not "Blakely," as in Flakey Blakey, her nickname accoring to an FAA Inspector.
Dave, that question is a straw man. The practice is commonplace across all industries - the core competencies needed to build a reliable airframe are not the same as those for building a test rig & performing the tests.
Sorry, but just because something is common in an industry, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. It's not the building the rig by itself I question, but rather having the FAA sign off on whatever they told by a 3rd party who was paid off.
In other news, Learjet once hired Stan Blankenship (remember him?) to build a test rig for their original airframes. Not only did he build the rig, he performed the tests and had the [sarcasm] unmitigated gall [/sarcasm] to submit those results to the FAA. And the FAA accepted the results.
Just because Stan is a good guy or that those in aviation in general who do this are good, it doesn't mean that bad folks couldn't put people at risk. Look at what happened in the bond industry where those who were selling bonds paid rating agencies to rate them...it invited trouble by that arrangement to artificially give bonds higher ratings than they deserved. If you can't see how potentially very risky this is, it surprises me. With bonds it was only money involved, but this is with people's lives. This process is just begging for FAA ratings to be sold to the highest bidder to score whatever that bidder wants the reults to say.
Now, whether or not SRI performed competent tests, or whether anybody at FAA viewed them with a critical eye are a couple of different questions. But the fact of a contractual relationship between Eclipse & SRI does not represent even a shred of intrinsic conflict of interest.
If all they did was build the rig and not do the testing used by the FAA there wouldn't be a conflict, but that they do both is where the conflict is. That encourages shopping for whatever tester will get you the highest FAA rating and for said testing companies to cheat for their clients rather than build the best rigs. That it doesn't happen now, it doesn't mean it can't happen. If the FAA themselves might have engaged in questionable activities on Eclipse's behalf, why assume that 3rd party private companies who can give FAA ratings wouldn't be prone to the same thing?
Question: How many deposits have you taken on the E400?
Answer: 107
Not a bad number.
Follow-up question: How many do you need to launch the program for 2011 delivery?
So the Frankenjet orderbook has frozen up. That's about what it was two months ago:
Eclipse Aviation president Vern Raburn says "nearly 100" Eclipse 500 buyers had opted to buy the new Eclipse 400 single-engine personal jet in addition to their Eclipse 500 orders as of 3 June, less than a week after the company began offering the new aircraft to existing customers. A small number of buyers also traded their Eclipse 500 orders for Eclipse 400s, he adds.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/09/224477/eclipse-nears-triple-digit-orders-for-eclipse-400-personal.html
How many people switched from the FPJ? How many are vaporware air taxi orders?...How many are from Eclipse ordering from themselves (ETIRC)? Given what we know of the Eclipse orders, this figure itself seems fishy.
Orville said...
Day 5 - Oshkosh - Eclipse booth
Question: How many deposits have you taken on the E400?
Answer: 107
Baron calls it Not a bad number
I call it an unsecured $16 million loan.
IANAL
Dave said... If all they did was build the rig and not do the testing used by the FAA there wouldn't be a conflict, but that they do both is where the conflict is.
Option 1: Eclipse pays (salary, benefits) for internal team A to build a rig, test and document it.
Option 2: Eclipse pays company B to build a rig test and document it.
Option 3: Eclipse pays company C to build a est rig, build the wing, test and document it.
Option 4: Eclipse pays company D to build the rig, build the wing, build the airframe, test and document it.
What is the problem? This is the 21st Century. There are all sorts of OEM subcontracting arrangements. Building, testing, documentation, certification submission are ALL tasks that are routinelly subcontracted.
An Eclipse employee doing the testing has just as much (or more) financial incentives and exposure to presure as a vendor.
What is your point?
You are not a GM or Boeing frustrated machinist that things that the only way to build something is for a single union shop to melt the ore, make the metal, cut the metal, assemble the pieces, test the article, service it, etc under one roof, are you?
It must have been a bummer for you when Ford stopped making tires and steel early last century. How did you get over that?
Dave I. said ... Baron calls it Not a bad number
I call it an unsecured $16 million loan.
Precisely why it is not a bad number (assuming it is true). Think about it. How many startup and strugling companies can get sophisticated customers (well-off pilots in this case) to fork over $16M in one month for a product that won't exist for another 4 years? See. It must be a very compeling product!!!
Thanks for helping make my point.
Dave said... That's about what it was two months ago:
Good point.
Option 1: Eclipse pays (salary, benefits) for internal team A to build a rig, test and document it.
Option 2: Eclipse pays company B to build a rig test and document it.
Option 3: Eclipse pays company C to build a est rig, build the wing, test and document it.
Option 4: Eclipse pays company D to build the rig, build the wing, build the airframe, test and document it.
You leave off multiple options.
What is the problem? This is the 21st Century. There are all sorts of OEM subcontracting arrangements. Building, testing, documentation, certification submission are ALL tasks that are routinelly subcontracted.
An Eclipse employee doing the testing has just as much (or more) financial incentives and exposure to presure as a vendor.
What is your point?
The point is the FAA should:
A) Test it themselves, like how they test themselves for certification, etc.
B) They have a contract with a company that does testing for the FAA
It doesn't matter what century it is. Would you want Eclipse to pay some private 3rd party for their Type Certificate? Their Production Certificate? I see this as no different...I'm OK with the FAA being the one to subcontract it out to private companies to do the work, just not leaving it to the companies who are having their product certificated being the ones hiring and paying the certification testers.
You are not a GM or Boeing frustrated machinist that things that the only way to build something is for a single union shop to melt the ore, make the metal, cut the metal, assemble the pieces, test the article, service it, etc under one roof, are you?
No, I believe the FAA is there to ensure aircraft are safe.
It must have been a bummer for you when Ford stopped making tires and steel early last century. How did you get over that?
Ford isn't the DOT.
If the FAA themselves might have engaged in questionable activities on Eclipse's behalf, why assume that 3rd party private companies who can give FAA ratings wouldn't be prone to the same thing?
I'm afraid we're in violent agreement on this one here. It's not a safe assumption [1]. I was just pointing out that the fact of Eclipse having subbed out the the work - by itself - does not indicate anything even slightly foul. I'll happily discuss this later tonight/tomorrow - for now, I've got a bridge-raising party to go to.
[1] We had a little mishap in these parts a year ago today, and more than a dozen folks died. My conspiratorial mind sees a bridge inspection company that got_the_job, and kept getting_the_job, by ignoring evidence of Failure In Progress, and never pressing the government_agency_that_was_hiring_them to take immediate action - because the corrupt administration of that agency didn't_want_to_be_told that it had to spend money on certain things.
IANAL
I was just pointing out that the fact of Eclipse having subbed out the the work - by itself - does not indicate anything even slightly foul
I agree. I was talking about the process itself inviting trouble. The company Eclipse contracted with could have acted perfectly honorably.
Eclipse 500 full owner registry data. Are you guys interested in this or is it already known info? we should probably have a link to it at the Blog's first page, IMHO.
Eclipse 500 Owner Registry List
"A small number of buyers also traded their Eclipse 500 orders for Eclipse 400s, he adds."
Reality... the e400 went on sale to the general public at Oshkosh...
- and we've heard that there was a mass mailing to everyone and their cousin during the last few months...
so, it would figure that the massive sales effort led to around 100 e500 defectors (our of around 400 non-vaporwear orders left... so there's 300e500 left to build, less those who requested deposit refunds... maybe as few as 200 left to build...plus the incest-orders...
AND,
only 107 e400 orders... thats 7 "new" orders... or so.
NICE JOB... build and fly a prototype plane and receive 7 new orders.... and destroy your intial order book at the same time.
Talk about disruptive
Dave said... Would you want Eclipse to pay some private 3rd party for their Type Certificate? Their Production Certificate?
If I understood your question correctly, I wouldn't care. It matters little to me if Eclipse prepares the TC/PC submission themselves or hires a third party to do it.
What is it with you guys and this obscession with FAA certification equaling safe?
There are thousands and thousands of EAA amateur and experimental airplanes flying with no FAA TC whatsoever, no demonstration of load factors, no demonstration of part 23 stability. Tens of thousands of pilots, including at lest one on this forum, are atracted to flying them with their families.
I'd be perfectly fine flying in the 787 from Boeing even if the FAA ceased to exist tomorrow and Boeing self-cetified the thing. Same for the G650 or Cessna Columbus. Probably the same for the D-jet.
The point is that, the chances of an FAA inspector finding something on a Jet that Boeing or Gulfstream or Cessna did not faind themselves is pretty much ZERO. Does the FAA act as an effective deterrent from cutting safety corners? Compared to the economic deterrent of insurance premiums and potential law suits, the FAA deterrent effect is again "white noise".
As a buyer of a new airplane type, you either have confidence in the design and mannufacturing abilities of the vendor or you shouldn't buy. If you don't trust the ground meat at a fast food joint, don't buy the burger. If you are expecting the FAA seal of approval to mean safe for flight or the FDA seal of approval to mean safe from salmonele, good luck.
Eclipse 500 full owner registry data. Are you guys interested in this or is it already known info? we should probably have a link to it at the Blog's first page, IMHO.
I found a bit of interesting data there. Eclipse's first aircraft as a non-citizen corporation was S/N 128. Eclipse was granted authorization for non-citizen status during the end of March:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=FAA-2008-0138
I guess this gives some idea as to how fast production is going.
Dear Eclipse Aviation customer,
At this time we do not have an exact date as to when the refunds are going out, we do know that we are adding six percent (6%) per annum simple interest that will accrue from the date Eclipse received your request for a refund. We sincerely appreciate your patience and will notify you as soon as we get anymore information.
Kind regards,
Eclipse Aviation Customer Care
1.877.350.0538 US
1.505.472.1200 International
Dear Bagholder:
Eclipse Aviation held its annual customer breakfast this morning at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis. During the presentations, Vern Raburn's departure and the plans for the remainder of 2008 were discussed with the customers in attendance.
Mike McConnell offered an overview of the four main areas of focus for the second half of 2008: Financial health, the fleet's continued airworthiness, Avio NG 1.6, and EASA certification.
In keeping with those goals, I then communicated the plan for performance and Avio NG modifications. To date, 13 percent of 37 scheduled performance modifications and 24 percent of 72 scheduled Avio NG modifications are complete. The latest Avio NG modifications were completed in an average of 25 days.
Eclipse remains committed to modifying all customer airplanes as we promised. However, we must balance our financial health with our modification schedules over the next few months. Therefore, we are announcing the following modification plans:
Avio NG and performance modifications will be postponed up to an additional six months.
Flight Into Known Icing (FIKI) upgrades will begin on September 1, 2008 on aircraft with Avio NG. We expect all FIKI modifications to be completed by Q1 2009.
Since Avio NG is required for FIKI approval, those customers awaiting the NG mod may be delayed in receiving FIKI.
We are in discussions with several third party service provides to increase our modification capacity. These providers will be announced as they are finalized, and will be in the following general locations:
Albuquerque, NM;
Atlanta, GA; and
Chicago, IL.
Today we announced the first of these third party providers, Harbour Air in Vancouver, British Columbia. Harbour Air will provide overall service center capabilities for customers in western Canada and FIKI modifications for North American customers.
In addition, Eclipse will hold a conference call with customers on Tuesday, August 5, 2008. The call will include an introduction from acting CEO Roel Pieper, an update on the modification plan, and a question and answer session. The one-hour call will begin 11:00 a.m. Mountain Time. Customers in the United States and Canada can dial 888-827-3224. International customers can dial 706-643-9405. The conference code for Tuesday's call is # 58793920. An e-mail reminder will be sent to all customers on Monday.
Sincerely,
John Ricciardelli
Vice President of Customer Support
Eclipse Aviation
The point is that, the chances of an FAA inspector finding something on a Jet that Boeing or Gulfstream or Cessna did not faind themselves is pretty much ZERO. Does the FAA act as an effective deterrent from cutting safety corners? Compared to the economic deterrent of insurance premiums and potential law suits, the FAA deterrent effect is again "white noise".
As a buyer of a new airplane type, you either have confidence in the design and mannufacturing abilities of the vendor or you shouldn't buy. If you don't trust the ground meat at a fast food joint, don't buy the burger. If you are expecting the FAA seal of approval to mean safe for flight or the FDA seal of approval to mean safe from salmonele, good luck.
In general with commerce I have more faith in regulatory agencies than with the courts. We can agree to disagree on POV.
The latest Avio NG modifications were completed in an average of 25 days.
This was supposed to take "less than 10 days":
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Better_Brain_Eclipse_500_194601-1.html
Also note how Eclipse says this was with the most recent ones, so that must mean the overall average is even longer.
Since Avio NG is required for FIKI approval, those customers awaiting the NG mod may be delayed in receiving FIKI.
So at least 55 aircraft are grounded are far as FIKI is concerned.
I've been thinking more about the Frankenjet order book. We know from a few months ago:
* "Nearly 100" ordered
* All orders from existing customers
* Some from FPJ transfers
Now we know there's 107 ordered. How many of those came from individuals who could afford to have both an FPJ and a Frankenjet? My guess is that some, but few orders are from individuals. My guess is that almost all the 107 orders came from air taxi businesses and are highly speculative, if not pure vapor.
Those who are debt and equity holders better watch things veeeery carefully...
"If you can't tell the difference between how a 787 will be built vs a 777 or a Cessna Columbus vs the Citation X or a G650 vs the G550, you are missing "THE" big revolution in aerospace mannufacture."
Baron, Airbus has been doing this for 20 years - at least. Even before that very large sub-assemblies of airplanes were manufactured by world-wide suppliers and shipped to manufacturers for assembly. This concept goes back to the early 70s if not before.
So now that nobody is getting Avio NfG, and hence no FIKI, what are all these planes going to be doing as the winter weather takes hold?
"The point is that, the chances of an FAA inspector finding something on a Jet that Boeing or Gulfstream or Cessna did not faind themselves is pretty much ZERO."
Would that be one of Eclipse's "high-volume" inspectors finding all these discrepancies? The fact is that FAA inspectors are not subject to the same pressures that company people are and can inspect sister airframes for the same discrepancy. They can also insure that any serious discrepancy becomes a mandatory AD note throughout the fleet. Responsible manufacturers will welcome this cooperation. Irresponsible manufacturers, such as Eclipse, seem to have the same opinion of the FAA that you do.
ASM said... Baron, Airbus has been doing this for 20 years - at least.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Airbus was FORCED for POLITICAL reasons to divide production based on the member countries financing/participation - it was NEVER an efficiency thing - quite the contrary. Most if not ALL the subcontracting parties were Airbus or Airbus' parents (EADS, BAE) owned facilities not independent parties.
In fact Airbus management is scrambling to get unions to go along with selling some facilities to true risk sharing partners for the A350 program. They know they can never compete with the 787 on cost unless they adopt, at least in part, the 787 risk sharing and subcontractor model. If you read the recent Airbus/EADS releases on the A350 program you will see how important this is to them. They want 80%+ of contracted value of the plane to be in US$ and with external suppliers.
Personally, I don't think they'll get there - there will be too much political interference and union resistnce.
A couple of thoughts - who really wants FIKI on this airplane anyway.The Eclipse 500 as it sits today is such a high-workload airplane and the panel is so freakin unreliable that most single pilots shouldn't be flying it in IMC conditions anyway.
Take off with your family into hard IFR conditions knowing full well that other owners have experienced "glitches" which have no logical explanation? Can you really handle this aircraft in turbulent IFR with no moving map, unreliable backup systems and multiple warning messages distracting you at the same time? You really better be on top of your game.
No, thank you.
ASM said ... They can also insure that any serious discrepancy becomes a mandatory AD note throughout the fleet.
You mean like the bogus MD80 wiring AD compliance politically motivated re-inspection requirement that f$#@-up the lives of tens of thousands of passengers, because the FAA needed to look tough in front of congress?
I wonder how many lives were saved there.
Listen, if I were in line to buy a jet, I'd make an independent determination as to the safety, support, performance of the plane and its mannufacturer. FAA certification (if it were optional) is the last thing I'd care about.
For example, I'd feel safer in an experimental D-jet with G-1000 SVS than a certified Eclipse jet or an early Lear jet at this time.
So now that nobody is getting Avio NfG, and hence no FIKI, what are all these planes going to be doing as the winter weather takes hold?
its safer this way, don't complain
I must say that, outwardly at least, Eclipse appears to be taking some long overdue, hard, but promising decisions.
Outwardly at least.
I would still like to see more focus on the overall IOU situation, and some public humility as well as the straight skinny on the orderbook.
As I predicted earlier, I think we will continue to see some of the tough decisions we have been recommending for years (layoffs will be next), but the vaporware orderbook can not ever really come clean as without that illusion there can be no IPO.
Baron,
Does your aircraft have the NfG mod? If not, when were you promised it? What is your opinion of the now indefinite postponement of any further NfG mods?
"I would still like to see more focus on the overall IOU situation, and some public humility as well as the straight skinny on the orderbook."
Focus? Do you need any more focus than the just released today announcement that the NfG mod schedule has been halted? Money IOUs? Does this answer any questions or clear up your focus?
"Dear Eclipse Aviation customer,
At this time we do not have an exact date as to when the refunds are going out, we do know that we are adding six percent (6%) per annum simple interest that will accrue from the date Eclipse received your request for a refund. We sincerely appreciate your patience and will notify you as soon as we get anymore information.
Kind regards,
Eclipse Aviation Customer Care
1.877.350.0538 US
1.505.472.1200 International"
Baron, It has been a staple of Aviation Week for at least 20 to 25 years to have drawings showing which companies and countries get which slice of a new commercial aiplane, including the airframe, avionics, and engines. A lot of the Airbus airplanes have US engines and avionics. A lot of US manufacturers would sub-contract out subassembiles to different foreign manufacturers. Italy, for example made almost all the DC-9 fuselage skins. How far back does that go? Sometimes it was justifibly done to create jobs in a country that the manufacturer wanted to sell airplanes to. Usually it was because the foreign manufacturer was the best at what they did. If Boeing thinks they can go to the third world exclusively and have the happy gomers bang away and deliver cheap sub-assemblies they are going to have more of the same problems they have been having.
gettingready,
The kind of details I am interested in may come out during the next customer conference call (but I am not holding my breath nor do I suggest anyone else).
Things like status of the options (how many are certified?), more specificity on the Avio NfG and aeromod upgrades, better insight into the EASA certification, Eclipse opinion on risks associated with upcoming FAA audit, etc.
"You mean like the bogus MD80 wiring AD compliance politically motivated re-inspection requirement that f$#@-up the lives of tens of thousands of passengers, because the FAA needed to look tough in front of congress?
I wonder how many lives were saved there."
How about the AD notes on the Southwest 737 fuselage skins? If you can't read an AD note and comply then get out of the business.
ColdWet,
Did you not receive the email today from EAC? ALL MODS ARE INDEFINITELY SHUT DOWN.
I give this company 3 weeks before bankruptcy is voluntary or involuntarily filed.
A dentist from the small town of Chester, Ca lists S/N 755 for sale .
I am an innocent bystander gettingready, my only skin in the game is my dedication to an industry I have given my adult life to.
EAC does not send me e-mails.
I did read the stuff that you and some others recently forwarded, but that is the end of it.
You may be right that things go tango-uniform within the next several weeks. What appears to be better decision making may very well be too little too late.
ColdWet,
Reposting for your benefit:
Dear Bagholder:
Eclipse Aviation held its annual customer breakfast this morning at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis. During the presentations, Vern Raburn's departure and the plans for the remainder of 2008 were discussed with the customers in attendance.
Mike McConnell offered an overview of the four main areas of focus for the second half of 2008: Financial health, the fleet's continued airworthiness, Avio NG 1.6, and EASA certification.
In keeping with those goals, I then communicated the plan for performance and Avio NG modifications. To date, 13 percent of 37 scheduled performance modifications and 24 percent of 72 scheduled Avio NG modifications are complete. The latest Avio NG modifications were completed in an average of 25 days.
Eclipse remains committed to modifying all customer airplanes as we promised. However, we must balance our financial health with our modification schedules over the next few months. Therefore, we are announcing the following modification plans:
Avio NG and performance modifications will be postponed up to an additional six months.
Flight Into Known Icing (FIKI) upgrades will begin on September 1, 2008 on aircraft with Avio NG. We expect all FIKI modifications to be completed by Q1 2009.
Since Avio NG is required for FIKI approval, those customers awaiting the NG mod may be delayed in receiving FIKI.
We are in discussions with several third party service provides to increase our modification capacity. These providers will be announced as they are finalized, and will be in the following general locations:
Albuquerque, NM;
Atlanta, GA; and
Chicago, IL.
Today we announced the first of these third party providers, Harbour Air in Vancouver, British Columbia. Harbour Air will provide overall service center capabilities for customers in western Canada and FIKI modifications for North American customers.
In addition, Eclipse will hold a conference call with customers on Tuesday, August 5, 2008. The call will include an introduction from acting CEO Roel Pieper, an update on the modification plan, and a question and answer session. The one-hour call will begin 11:00 a.m. Mountain Time. Customers in the United States and Canada can dial 888-827-3224. International customers can dial 706-643-9405. The conference code for Tuesday's call is # 58793920. An e-mail reminder will be sent to all customers on Monday.
Sincerely,
John Ricciardelli
Vice President of Customer Support
Eclipse Aviation
gettingready,
I already read those, I am talking about the real meat and potatoes stuff, not simple letters.
Does your nome-de-plume indicate you are one of the said bagholders?
Yup, that's why I received the email.
They are clearly focused on doing ONLY things that cause checks to be WRITTEN to EAC by the customers. EAC writing checks (so to speak) has been outlawed.
Post a Comment