The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing on Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. EDT, regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's issuance of its type certificate (TC) granted to Eclipse Aviation Corp. for its Eclipse 500 very light jet (VLJ). The event can be viewed live at http://transportation.house.gov.
The committee, chaired by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., ordered the Department of Transportation’s inspector general’s office to investigate whether the FAA should’ve issued the TC on Sept. 30, 2006, after an unprecedented grievance was filed on behalf of FAA-employed engineers and test pilots, who were responsible for validating compliance of the Eclipse VLJ. According to the grievance, FAA management awarded Eclipse Aviation with the TC for its airplane without allowing aircraft certification engineers and flight test pilots to properly complete their assigned certification/safety responsibilities. According to media reports, former Eclipse personnel will testify before the committee, validating that the VLJ was not safe to fly at the time of certification.
The engineers and test pilots’ concerns were partially vindicated on June 5, 2008, when an Eclipse 500 landing at Chicago's Midway Airport experienced uncontrollable, maximum power on both engines during the approach to land. Skillful piloting saved the lives of the four on board, after the plane’s computer that controls the engines experienced a condition it was not programmed to handle—uncontrolled maximum engine thrust on landing, and one engine rolling back to idle position, after the pilot-in-command and copilot got the plane back up in the air, as they were running out of runway.
In a move to obscure the thrust of Oberstar's investigation, the FAA last month initiated a 30-day review of the Eclipse 500. While a complete investigation of the Eclipse certification process would take a year, this investigation was limited to specific areas related to known problems brought forth by Eclipse operators since the aircraft entered service. The team looked at whether these issues were raised during the certification process, and if any of the issues are currently a safety threat.
Despite the narrow scope and brief time allocated for this investigation, on Sept. 12, Robert A. Sturgell, acting FAA administrator, issued a statement: "The team found that the airplane was certificated in accordance with safety regulations…” Further, her said, “This review tells us that while we made the right call in certifying this aircraft, the process we used could and should have been better coordinated."
However, the DOT’s IG’s office began its investigation after the FAA refused to hear the grievance formally, choosing to ignore documented safety issues.
In a related effort to influence the hearing, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson traveled to Washington on Sept. 3 to meet with Oberstar. Richardson's office issued the following statement: "We will emphasize the state of New Mexico's commitment to Eclipse Aviation and highlight the pivotal role that Eclipse has played in our efforts to create high-wage jobs. As a former congressman, I know how important it is to hear directly from communities that benefit from the presence of companies like Eclipse."
Richardson failed to address the safety issues. He failed to mention the alleged breakdown of protocols within the FAA of allowing unfettered hands-on experienced professionals to determine whether a new design was safe or met the intent of FAA regulations. He also failed to mention whether he had a hand in influencing the FAA to accelerate its issuance of the TC to Eclipse.
Meanwhile, Eclipse has admitted to being a cash-strapped company that recently laid off nearly 40 percent of its work force, halted aircraft production, refuses to return position holders' deposits, albeit lawsuits mounting, and is betting on the recent "FAA special review team audit" to clear its name, so it can continue its 10-year history of broken promises—delivering non-completed aircraft. Currently, the company is seeking additional funding to continue operation and open an additional production facility in Russia. Eclipse has burned through more than $1 billion; however, the company is seeking an additional $200 million to $300 million so it can produce aircraft.
Contacts
Eclipse Aviation Critic NG
http://EclipseCriticng.blogspot.com
E-mail: eclipsecriticng@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
466 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 466 Newer› Newest»"This is hearsay and selectively choosing a single pilot to push the agenda of changing the Single Pilot certification of the Eclipse 500."
Even though the pilot in the Midway accident said that having an experienced copilot with him was the main factor in preventing them from rolling the aircraft into a ball? Gotta love the Eclipse spin machine. It's awesome.
ohhh yes ... airsafety ...!
to the point that it's a bit weird all this stuff about FAA ...!
it's a very good thing (if they go until they find the truth , whatever it is ...) to be able to ask nasty questions to potential culprit ...
but what is the point especially about Eclipse-spin-machine and EA500 ...
as whatever is the outcome , it'll leaves such a stain ...
to buy one will look like being a complete schmuck or someone who has slept in a cave for the last XX months !
for FAA , it matter really much ...
will such a fiasco ever happen again ?
"..there is an agreed to line of sight to receive EASA certification, without restrictions within the next 60 days."
Or we will have the EASA certification team pulled and replaced with any Euro-hacks we can find!
Baron:
You are probably correct when you state:
"Just don't try to imply that the difference is because of the different certification standards. It is not."
I made the same mistake - but I can tell you why... and it should raise other concerns.
The FAA has stated because of what they learned from dealing with EAC and the VLJ cert, PART 23 NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN.
So, one would conclude, PART 23 has inherent problems that need fixing.
By your reasoning, I think, Part 25 also needs rewriting - IF WE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THE CITED SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO THE E500/CERT.
See how this LCD thing works?
See CWMR comments on "normal working relationships" with the FAA and OEMs... and how EAC's behavior may have resulted in all of these propblems, NOT the FARS.
In this case, we change EAC, not the FARS... Part 23 and or part 25 , as you correctly point out.
TB,
The statements by Eclipse are business as usual. On Tuesday we will ______ (fill the blank). Remember that these guys need some serious long term funding. EASA cert hingings on survival. Most investors know that fact. As described heavily here, NO EASA, it's checkmate...game over.
turn&burnt :
i make you this offer :
we take an appointment in front of EASA HQ ...
we go to see some and ask some questions (one condition : you've got to have a valid ID with you )
and we will see ... (but we have to bet something ...)
how can you come this what you said founding it "tunneled" from Eac-Infos-Channel ?
you see as long as EASA ITSELF is
releasing a proper document ...
what is said about EA500 E.Cert. sound like a monkey pissing in a violin to make music , even if it is said by FAA ...
i do it again (open your eyes , take a deep breath and try to use what you are supposed to have between your two ears !)
I SPECULATED IN WRITING THIS !
partial infos will get you NOWHERE !
taking out of context a part of someone else writing , won't get you too far , as well ...
but if you have more knowledge , please : share your vast knowledge with us ....
BAron.. I reconsidered "I think the FAA should have its own employees at every new OEM" based on your recommendation, and I still cannot find a better way to resolve the situation that lead to the conclusion "we need to rewrite FAR pat 23..." becasue of EAC.
As someone here pointed out, until EAC, the system WAS as I suggested - that no OEM could sign off on aircraft (no ODAR) until they had years of experience IIRC.
This system seemed to work - at least it avoided the current kind of mess, until EAC was given ODAR status before they produced a plane. Bilson corrected this (their own PR BS about obtaining ODAR), that it was just for a few systems... but in any case...
I'll be charitable - chalk this up to a learning curve regarding the ODAR process... bottom line, they were given mile and tried to grab the whole earth, IMO.
I'm still wondering, what was in it for the higher ups at the FAA???
Right now, you have finger pointing... EAC/FAA...
At least if there was a clear process where FAA employees were responsible, there could be less confusion over who is ultimately responsible, and how to fix these problems?
Perhaps you have another solution... trusting the people obviously does not work any longer - this we now know. The FAR needs to be rewritten, remember?
flightguy :
i disagree ...!
it is game-over in many more cases ...!
with all publicity made around , who could be stupid enough to buy a plane , it didn't sell before ... now ???
or who could be stupid enough to buy or a cent , when so many testified that quality was a "weird concept" , "customer's service" a joke , regulations documents : something to be used when going to toilets ...
TB,
How do you know Fred is wrong?
How many time has EAC stated something was coming in a few weeks... its typically 6 months, then revised to 6 weeks away - then it comes a year later.
See the mods
See the avionics
See FIKI
See EASA
WHoever wrote the EAS would be a one-off token cert, if it happens is really smart, IMO.
Anyhow, I also wonder, how EAC knows the 6 week number? I guess there's no way there's a snag between now and 6 weeks from now?
Fred,
its true, the spolight is temporarily shifted to quality and safety - these will not save the company... they could have only accelerated the inevitable.
airtaxi :
#Perhaps you have another solution... trusting the people obviously does not work any longer - this we now know. The FAR needs to be rewritten, remember?#
yes , unfortunately , all systems based on trust are doomed for failures !
the best example being Democracy :
it always starts with the best intentions but always end-up in the same way :
instead of saying what peoples NEED to know ...
politics always end-up saying what PLEASE voters ...
on this respect , no difference in being USA , France , Germany , etc ...
yes , EASA coming in a "few" weeks ... , .-))
only 52 weeks in a year ...
so we are saved !
turn&burnt :
i just checked with a friend :
can you come to Moscow ?
The visa-works will be handled for you ( you'll just have to pay the fees and your plane ticket )
then you will be able to MEET DIRECTLY ,EYES IN EYES someone who can make sure your faith in EAC/Etirc vanished in a split of second ...
how about that ?
Fred just post the intel best you can, its interesting... who is the ocntact - position, not name etc... why do you have som much faith in them?
For the sake of argument let us assume that all Eclipse needs to get EASA certification is to put a patch on Avio 1.5 (given the Special Condition it sounds like more than that would be required, but just for the sake of discussion forget about all the issues raised in the Special Condition). What good does that do for all the aircraft that are running on Avio 1.0? Just look at FIKI where Eclipse getting FIKI doesn't do any good to those with Avio 1.0 because Eclipse is refusing to do retrofits, so if you're stuck with an aircraft with Avio 1.0 you don't get FIKI now and you wouldn't get EASA either.
airtaxi :
i am sorry i cannot post name in the open like this ...
i trust them because i work with them , that is the finance part and/or Russia ...
as for cert. , because the very one who told me stuff is the same one who prevented me to get in the trap ...
don't know about you , but i tend to trust with my life peoples who saved my ass (in any way) , already !
dave :
YES !
it doesn't change things a iota ...
in my view (little footnote for T&Bt : It is a personal opinion ! don't believe too much what you see on newspaper or TV , either !)
it is only a stunt to get a reason to wait for money(still raising hopes) / or preparing for a new failure ( if ONLY easa would have moved its bum a bit faster...)
no w the situation is becoming totally absurd !
they get EASA ( for the sake of argument, T&Bt !!)...
they retrofit old planes = they run out of money by doing so ...
they get EASa (still the same remark !) , they don't retrofit , so potential new customers are going to be scared to death to be dumped like previous customers ...
they don't get EASA = easy way to blame some others in an other part of the world (which somehow was the main task of the Russian part = Have the US-first type of reaction playing a role in the drama ...!)
off-course nothing was because of EAC ...
they never blamed anybody , before for a mistake they did themselves !
AT Said ... So, one would conclude, PART 23 has inherent problems that need fixing.
AT, Part 23 is just a baseline set of rules. Every recently certified plane has a certification plan agreed upon with the FAA with a number of "equivalent" items and special conditions.
The system works well so long as there are reasonable folks on both sides (OEM and FAA) working out the certification MOU and special conditions.
We can either spend endless efforts trying to come up with a part 23 that covers everything from a large commuter turboprop to a single engine jet to an electric plane - which is futile. Or we can have a baseline and on a plane by plane basis set up a meaningful set of special conditions, which has worked well.
And it is not inherent to part 23 either. Boeing has a number os special conditions on its 787 certification plan with the FAA and EASA.
You have to realize that both the FAA and the OEM have the same interest - to produce a safe design/plane. Sometimes you talk as if you believe that the OEM is trying to get away with an unsafe design and it is only the FAA that is preventing them from doing so. That is just not true. It is the OEM that will pay the price if the design is unsafe.
It is only occasionally that you have an organization (and Eclipse may be one of them) that tries to cut corners or slide a fast one through the system.
So yes, part 23 is very obsolete in the areas of propulsion and avionics - for exemple it does not list any standards for SW certification, but it tells you exactly how to track an aluminum screw back to the mine where the ore was extracted.
Update in general, but treat each project on a case by case basis with relevant special conditions.
And be on the lookout whenver Vern tries to certify something. ;)
A few thoughts about EAC certification politics after yesterday's very interesting hearing.
1. The EAC plan to build a lower priced jet that could arguably get some of the benefits of corporate aviaton into the hands of the broader public, really resonated with the FAA, for its own purposes
2. Moreover, Dayjet's plan to deploy this "game changing" affordable jet into an even more affordable "per seat taxi service" reinforced the "democratization of private jet service" theme, helped to activate the NASA SATS vision and supported various "NexGen" logic
3. Outside of these two developments (EAC and DayJet), what real "next big thing" could the FAA point to? The airlines were/are upside down and represent an ongoing source of tension between Congress, the airline industry, the FAA and consumer/taxpayers; the "VLJ Phenomenon" was a bright prospect for the FAA to use for leverage; these two projects gave them some lobbying ammo vis-a-vis FAA reauthorization as well.
4. Reauthorization was one of Blakey's biggest challenges and the Trust Fund was being raided to pay operating expenses as the airline sector continued to destabilize the broader industry
5. EAC was in many ways a "tool" of the FAA to support its reauth and to create some pressure on Congress to release funding for NexGen (more pressure on the NAS).
6. It also acted in ways to force open the "user fee" debate to rationalize ATO costs and provide potential relief to the airlines (Blakey was playing both sides of course)
Seen in this way, the EAC project was arguably as much a political project as it was an industrial one and it helps explain many of the unusual behaviors in the certification process that are being exposed.
But it also shows the dysfunctional relationship between Congress and FAA; in their defense, it is very difficult to run a professional regulatory and ATO organization with constant financial pressure and uncertainty, as Congress holds back the checkbook for control purposes (not all of which is bad).
What motivated AIR-1 to intervene for a start-up in NM?
If you are Pieper, and you have to save the company, once you finish sailing, do you show your respect for the US congress by bailing early from the hearing?
We bloggers have no clue, we just lie and make up inuendo to smear a great institution, but what motivated Ms Broyles to stand up in front of a Congressional sub-committe and make up such stories?
baron :
YES !
(am i agreeing with you ??? i must be sick ...! ;-))) )
EAC and EA500 is (may be ) the exception in a system that should have been prevented from failing !
it is probably because some knew how to work-out the system ...
if not coming from higher rank , i am quite confident the FAA staff tried their best ...
as for higher brass , they should have stop the process , and rewrite regulations , then certify (or not) ...
it was their duty to make sure regulations followed accurately reality of progress , not the other way ...!
Eclipse is now saying EASA will issue the TC within a few weeks.
I have full confidence that this promise will be kept? Eclipse has a strong track record of reliable forecasting.
Seeing as EASA raised a public CRI for their concerns with regards to the Eclipse, it will be interesting to see the CRD. So far none has been issued.
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/c_consultation_crd.php
So yes, part 23 is very obsolete in the areas of propulsion and avionics - for exemple it does not list any standards for SW certification, but it tells you exactly how to track an aluminum screw back to the mine where the ore was extracted.
I think the SW part needs to be looked into very carefully. Even the military has had problems with SW and it is something that is just so complex. Saying "We didn't know what we didn't know" shouldn't be a valid excuse because that could be used to explain away anything that wasn't thorough enough. SW is highly complex and as such it should take time to thoroughly go through the code. Frankly the whole defense of the FAA bothers me where by saying "we didn't know" would seem to encourage going less than one inch deep because anything you don't find you have an excuse for. Just as you can reasonably estimate what will happen with a mechanical apperatus, you should be able to reach the same level with SW...if you can't, then the SW shouldn't get a pass. You shouldn't be able to use your ignorance as a shield.
freedom :
#do you show your respect for the US congress by bailing early from the hearing? #
this is where the simple fact of not being a US citizen may play a role ...
for a foreigner (roel) who stated that he wants to take the production under some other skies , what US congress is ??
when a US firm open a new plant in Tijuana , is the CEO going to show respect in Mexico-city ?
dave :
i agree with you ...
last time i tried the "i didn't know " kind of excuse ...
the one in charge of auditing told me "what are you being paid for , then ?"
Baron,
yes, I think you get my point... I certainly get yours.
rewriting the FARS because of EAC's behavior is not the answer IMO... but somehow, this is what is being proposed.
Sad
freedom :
i am quite used to UE intricacy way of doing anything ... mainly because i am european and may be as well because i used to work there ...
honestly , to reach the decision to publish a CRD , have it decided into a correct wording and published ...
well , i am not sure 6 weeks can be enough !!
(sorry for the believers , EAC may be the subject of a joke of the toilet wall , but not really anything close to some abnormal interest, as it is said in french "they have some other cats to boil first "...)
could it be that Roel is the CEO now because he knows people who can help with EASA cert? i'm sure that he is at a level where he gets to sail, socialize, etc. with friends of friends that have some connection to EASA.
second, does anyone know details about Hickey's professional credentials? how did he get this gig at the FAA? seems like an empty-suit like Brownie with FEMA. another Bush cronie?
E.D.T
"hi there...i am from the govt and i am here to help!"
Did any one notice that not a single former employee of Eclipse was there? Someone like that would punch holes into both the FAA and Eclipse stories since they could offer a perspective from the "company" side. Eclipse can't sue them under the NDA since the testimony was compelled.
Strange.
Baron95 You have to realize that both the FAA and the OEM have the same interest - to produce a safe design/plane. Sometimes you talk as if you believe that the OEM is trying to get away with an unsafe design and it is only the FAA that is preventing them from doing so. That is just not true. It is the OEM that will pay the price if the design is unsafe.
You are absolutely correct with most of your post Baron. It is in the companies interest to have safe reliable plane. It is them that suffers when this target is missed.
But you are completly off track to state that: Sometimes you talk as if you believe that the OEM is trying to get away with an unsafe design and it is only the FAA that is preventing them from doing so. That is just not true.
Organisations often lose sight of their goal.
They may well know that installing hucks with a cherry tools nose is by definition "unsafe", but do it anyway because there is no stable culture of compliance, no individual responsiblity (from the CEO down), and massive pressure to produce.
They may well know that they have to write in the AFM system description about the mode whereby the FADEC may decide to follow the offside throttle command, but the pressure to get the AFM out the door to get certified means that little helpful information gets swept under the carpet.
You are probably correct in that you don't get a management committee setting the goal to build an unsafe/unreliable design.
Instead you get a corporate culture of unrealistic timetables based incompetant managerial input, which is intolerant of slips caused by the neccessary work which, leads to corner cutting by the lap dogs of those same incompetant managers. The result is the same.
(Any similarity with the Bush administration is purely coincidental :)
I would venture that the established western automotive manufacturers largely fulfil that internal quality standard, self certification ideal you imply in this and many other posts.
This is probably because their errors are magnified over production runs in the millions, and the errors come to light faster. On top of this the production volumes mean that extensive quality systems are tiny per unit cost which can quickly and visibly pay for themselves.
Aviation struggles with these issues as the large overhead of strong quality systems is highly visible as a cost, whereas the tiny production volumes make it appear as though problems can be solved by firing the idiot.
edt :
the problem with EASA (or UE things) :
it is a weird mix of different cultures , background , political orientation , etc ...etc...
( think of the transport commission + add to it 20+ different languages + potential to have 27 different nationalities ; on top of the "traditional Rep/Dem confrontation with a big slice of all the political spectrum in EU ... : then you have an idea of what is a UE thing ! ;-)) )
roel playing with EASA : plausible , but unlikely as some other may be too tempted to report to parliament who would be just too happy to sack on sight ...!
(to get the job , to push their country , any reasons ...)
the consensus has to be 27 times bigger than it would be in USA !
thanks fred for the explanation.
and crap lands on my face with this partial 'extraction' of the Journal story yesterday:
FOR THE RECORD: The Journal cited an incorrect translation of a Dutch newspaper report that said Eclipse Aviation planned to lay off half of its remaining 1,100 employees.
Eclipse says it has no current plans for additional layoffs.
The Journal based its story on information published Aug. 28 by De Telegraaf, the major daily newspaper in Amsterdam, in the wake of Eclipse's Aug. 22 layoff of 650 workers. The newspaper links to programs that translate their Dutch stories into English. The program accurately translated the article as saying one out of every three jobs at Eclipse was cut on Aug. 22. Then it inaccurately said, "half of (every) two current jobs will be deleted."
After Eclipse issed a statement Wednesday saying the translation was incorrect, the Journal contacted Steve Murray, of Albuquerque, a translator in five European languages including Dutch, who confirmed the Eclipse translation.
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/171019585156newsmetro09-17-08.htm
Eclipse can't sue them under the NDA since the testimony was compelled.
IANAL, but I don't think it matters whether it was compelled or not. I don't believe NDAs can legally prevent anyone from talking to govenment entities. Separate action might be able to be taken for making a false claim, but not for violating the NDA.
edt :
no need to thank , you're welcome !
to be clear (on Socializing friends who may help Roel)
i do believe that if he could have this size of relation , he would have absolutely NO problem to raise money ...
don't forget Etirc is a firm from Luxembourg , it is the richest country of UE (in term of "per capita") Lux. is part of of UE ...
it is as well the European Country which holds the most Russian money in the UE (in banks) ...
so something tell me "where is a rock blocking the path"
it doesn't make sens , if he would have this kind of
Big-Money-Peoples in his pocket (taking consideration , he would meet them in same "social events" than his political friends ) Etirc wouldn't be starving for cash
Welcome back Turn-and-Burn, or should I say Ken, henceforth you shall be known as Ken-and-Vern when using this latest nome-du-plum.
You can put lipstick on a pig....
Please avoid posting ANN comment on this blog, in whole or in part.
It adds nothing, and annoys Captain Zoom.
Or should that read 'adds Captain Zoom and annoys everyone'?
Either way, even from those of you who use such content to support the FPJ, he does not want anything from that site posted here.
Thanks
Shane
coldwet. :
#nome-du-plum #
make it : Nom de plume
and i may hold the pig while you put the lipstick ! ;-))
Just wanted to say thank you to Rep. Oberstar for providing a venue to hear these issues, and a special thank you to Ms. Boyles, Mr. Downey, Mr. Lauer, and Mr. Wallace.
These people have risked their careers to put the lie to all of Eclipse's BS and that of their apologists here and in the glorified blog from Florida.
Most of the major issues and accusations leveled here by outsiders as well as former employees have been vindicated, in sowrn testimony, before the Congree of the United States.
Where is CessnaFacts.com? Or CirrusFacts.com? Or DiamondFacts.com?
The mature thing to do is to say "Many issues have been brought to our intention at this hearing and while we may not agree on all of the details, the message is clear. We thank Rep. Oberstar for the opportunity to hear these concerns - and we look forward to working in concert with the FAA to ensure that we develop, design and deliver safe and efficient aircraft."
Putting up a new refutation of select minor issues while ignoring the 800 lb Gorilla in the room shows that it is really SSDD back in the 505, and that indicates that the culture of blamestorming and refusal to accept responsibility remains fully and wholly in place - THAT should be troubling to Rep. Oberstar, the FAA, and any person who may own one of these abominations or fly on one assuming it is safe.
Mes excuses Fred, mon Français sont autodidactes.
15.09.08 On Decisions Made by Vnesheconombank’s Supervisory Board
A meeting of State Corporation ‘Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank)’ Supervisory Board chaired by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was held at the Russian Federation Government House today, on September 15.
The meeting approved the Bank’s participation in financing the following major investment projects:
Construction of a factory in the Ulyanovsk region to manufacture and assemble super- light jets Eclipse 500 as well as provide after-sales services. The factory’s projected capacity will amount to 800 jets per year. Vnesheconombank is expected to finance the project in full the total value of which is 205 million US dollars, moreover Vnesheconombank and the Ulyanovsk region Administration will be among the shareholders of the enterprise.
I'm suprised that GoogleDave didn't post this one (or I missed it when he did).
I've watched the entire hearing, and I have to say I'm shocked, even though I've followed this blog the beginning.
Just to mention my hobby horse, I've questioned the lack of backup attitude instruments here and directly to Vern at Oshkosh in 2002. It turns out according to sworn testimony that all the screens have frozen at times during testing. It's not impossible after all.
In my opinion many of the 'critics' hear may well have understated the safety problems with the EA-500.
Perhaps Roel left the hearing because he was having problems with Skio NG:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.zibb.nl/10236715/Eigen-zaak/Eigen-zaak-nieuws/Eigen-zaak-nieuwsbericht/Ski-jack-kost-Pieper-en-ONeill-geld.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnavjacket%2Band%2Bpieper%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den
http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.telegraaf.nl/1942398/__Ski-jack_niet_aan_de_praat__.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnavjacket%2Band%2Bpieper%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den&usg=ALkJrhjbhJ0NTcPFJqOEELjY1YtzU01lWQ
This news happened yesterday. Up until yesterday I hadn't even heard that Roel was working on an integrated ski jacket complete with a GPS navigation system.
turn&burnt :
wow , Mr Putin has to be the New Captain Zoom (ouuppps ! sorry shane ;-) ) Captain Flash !
as He is currently in Sochi , krasnodar Kray (some 2000+ Kms away from capital)
i just wonder HOW he can be in two different places at the same time ???
Wait a second ... it is dated of the 15/09 ??
sorry , Mr Putin was already in Sochi ...
so that is the first part !
the second is almost better :
i am usually in charge of evaluating the need or coherence of such project ...
what i notice : the sum keeps changing all the times ! once it was 650 M$ , on an other iteration , it was 300M$ , an other time :it was part of a mega project where Etirc was supposed to invest several Billions $ ...
so as someone used to review project , i would say "please get your numbers straight once and for all !"
ps: by the way , the normal person to held such charge is Mr Kudrin ... but the one who spread this probably didn't know ...;-))
T&Bt :
i just had a phone talk with the one i was referring ...
his comments :
(roughly translated !)
W.T.F. ?
;-))
fred
“how did you do before electricity was invented???”
Actually, back then, we knew about electricity, but were too poor to use electrons. We had to substitute “neutrons”, since they have no charge.
gadfly
(Our first TV ran on benzene, with an "LCD" [Lighted Candle Display].)
so as someone used to review project , i would say "please get your numbers straight once and for all !"
I want to know -
A) Can the russian plant produce 800 units per year considering the production rates in ABQ?
B) Who will buy 800 units a year worlwide?
C) If there is a positive answer to A and B, what happens to ABQ?
Mr Gad :
what ??? you used Neutrons ??
now i understand WHY you never bowed in front of his highness Vern , despite being from ABQ ! ;-))
i like your humor ! if your advanced age allow you to travel , i would be please to have you in a nice place for some vacations ...!
dave :
as an answer to your question :
can you shave an egg ?
Here's the VEB website on it:
http://www.veb.ru/en/about/press/news/index.php?id32=4621
It looks like they are trying to copy ABQ with state ownership in addition to factory design. I guess Russia saw how well ABQ has done with profitability and meeting production rates, so the russians want to participate in cash arson.
What is going on in China with the melamine poisoning is why I'm wary of letting any company regardless of how well-established they are be allowed exemptions from outside regulators. What has been discussed on here is companies that have a positive track record being allowed to self-monitor, but that is what was allowed in China where companies with a track record were exempted from external monitoring and now thousands are sick and some have died. There is no perfect solution, but you have to avoid conflicts as much as possible. My comment isn't specific to Eclipse or for that matter even aviation.
With self regulation,
"Pigs get fat and Hogs get slaughtered."
Its about time to make sausage out of Eclipse.
dave :
on the Russian plant , you're just taking the matter the wrong way !
it is not the plant which is important ...
but the question : What for ?
may be i wrote it before , one of the Qualities i love in Russian mentality is Pragmatism !
so , if the few planes made in ABQ , aren't selling (controller.com is stuck with same numbers for ages ...) what is the need for a plant which would make the few last years production (i am being kind) X by 3 or 4 , every year ???
=No Reason because NO NEED !
Then they have to deal with Customs duties ( with the situation of relation now , how a Nato Member sending jet-engine to a potential foe ?? )
Just TOO MANY ISSUES
what do they have at this precise time ? (EAC)
A plane not finished (i wonder if it will be one day ...)
a terrible counter-advertising in the form of a Congress-hearing (the plane is shit , the production is shit , the quality is shit , etc ...)
a need (urgent ) for 200$ for saving what can be saved (still the same question : what for ?)
the Press start to unfold the story (even if they were praying it , before ...)
and miraculously , a foreign state offer a loan of 205M$ (they asked 200 but you know russian always all or nothing ! ;-)) )
i am not talking about staff (trained by who ? US engineers ? who speak russkyi ? who accept to take wife and kid in a lost spot ? etc... ) time to set-up , time to build the factory . etc ...
strange , they need 200M$ to save ABQ ... and they get 205M$ to build a plant on other side of earth ...???
anyone believe in Santa-Claus ??
in any successful project , one can always see ad equation between offers and need ...!
Not a very comforting title for this article:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/unsafe-aircraft-jet-eclipse-500.html
Fred,
I see the Russian plant as harmful to Eclipse's long-term success. Just for the sake of argument I'm taking it for granted that it will be built and so I'm putting out there that even if it does get built, it isn't a good thing for Eclipse obtaining and maintaining profitability. Though Turn-And-Burn put up a post about it, all TAB did was copy and paste rather than offer any commentary on the matter. I believe the last time there was any discussions on this board about a Russian plant being a good thing, the most that was said that having a second regional factory could be good for companies in general, but it wasn't good for Eclipse...particularly given how the production rate is supposed to be 800 units per year rather than 8 or 80 units per year. With or without ABQ, I'm waiting to hear this is a good thing for Eclipse that will allow it to achieve profitability even if you take everything for granted and concede they will be building 800 units per year.
ECLIPSE HAS ENDED THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE PRESS BLACKOUT! ABQ Journal spoke to Roel:
Eclipse CEO Roel Pieper told the Journal in an interview that his company's planes are safe and that Wednesday's hearing was motivated at least partly by presidential politics. The certification was done under the Bush administration, but New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a prominent figure in Democratic presidential politics, has been a vocal defender of the company and supported investing millions of state money in Eclipse...
Pieper, in an interview with the Journal outside the hearing, questioned the timing of the hearing, headed by Jerry Costello, an Illinois Democrat. The harshest criticism of the FAA inspection process and Eclipse generally came from Democrats on the panel.
"I'm surprised this is coming up now right before the elections, because this is an issue that's been around for three years," Pieper said. "If this was so superurgent, why wasn't this discussed three years ago. Why now?"
He also said no one has proved the plane isn't safe.
"The world's best experts have reviewed the aircraft, Number One, to be compliant in 2006, and to be safe today," Pieper said. "That's the most important thing that came out of this today." Pieper said Eclipse is willing to work with FAA officials to re-examine the production certificate for the new jet.
He also questioned why Scovel never talked to Eclipse.
"The IG report doesn't mention they've never talked to us never, ever," he said. "The inspector general makes conclusions and statements that we will correct."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1560010/eclipse_jet_faa_approval_probed/
The more things change the more they stay the same.
In light of Roel taking time away from the sailboat to respond to Rep. Oberstar's Committee Hearing I repeat my earlier point.
The mature thing to do is to say "Many issues have been brought to our intention at this hearing and while we may not agree on all of the details, the message is clear. We thank Rep. Oberstar for the opportunity to hear these concerns - and we look forward to working in concert with the FAA to ensure that we develop, design and deliver safe and efficient aircraft."
Putting up a new refutation of select minor issues while ignoring the 800 lb Gorilla in the room shows that it is really SSDD back in the 505, and that indicates that the culture of blamestorming and refusal to accept responsibility remains fully and wholly in place - THAT should be troubling to Rep. Oberstar, the FAA, and any person who may own one of these abominations or fly on one assuming it is safe.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I really am surprised by this that Roel is saying the same thing as Vern said. I kinda understood when Roel was doing this in foreign language papers not expecting it to get back to the United States, but saying this only came about because of the Presidential election is not at all helpful. Even those in the FAA defending the certification said the Avio software was faulty and that things have to be changed.
I thought the one big difference between Roel and Vern was that Roel wasn't combative, but even with that, it seems like Roel and Vern are virtually clones of one another.
it seems like Roel and Vern are virtually clones of one another
More likely is that Roel doesn't have a clue what to say in these circumstances that could improve EAC's posture, so he falls back on the last thing he heard. He obviously doesn't understand US politics when he says this has to do with the elections due to the coincidental timing, and of course he wants to obfuscate that all of this was prompted by the combination of the grievance action and Midway.
Another point I was surprised didn't see the light of day yesterday: customer deposits.
Wasn't the TC of the plane a 'trigger' event in the contract all position holders had to honnor by adding to their deposits??? I don't remember the percentage, but I'm dead certain that both TC and PC were significant milestone events for EAC to get more $$$$, even if the plane wasn't completely ready. Yes, no?
Someone earlier asked why FAA would be so motivated to help EAC. I have learned in my short tenure in this industry ...that it is very incestuous. The manager that **hired** me at EAC in 2006 is right now working for the FAA. One guy at the hearing mentioned that he was so troubled by this experience, he left the FAA to work for Bell Helicopter/Textron as their VP of Safety. In 2006, the EAC Director of Quality was Glenn Presley, who was from - yes - you guessed it, Bell Helicopter.
This is a very strange industy for sure. Tensions exist between the FAA and Congress and between the FAA and OEMs ...and even between the FAA and its own employees. I don't understand how they can be relentless with American Airlines and Southwest in regards to the recent fines but lax with EAC. IMO, money has to be a factor **if** some FAA people believed there was a job for them at EAC ...back in the day when Vern was speculating they'd have a $500 per share stock value.
Does the IG have the authority to look at Mr. Hickey's net worth? I for one wonder how much $$$ he had in his hands, or in accounts that he controlled, in October 2006?
E.D.T.
This is an interview with the Ulyanovsk governor and one of the items mentioned is Eclipse:
The projects include development of the logistics infrastructure, with total investment of 4.4 billion rubles ($178 million), repair and maintenance projects (3.2 billion rubles, or approximately $130 million), construction of a plant to assemble Eclipse-500 jets, in which the European Technology and Investment Research Center (ETIRC) plans to invest 5.1 billion rubles (over $206 million), and other projects.
http://mnweekly.ru/interview/20080918/55346996.html
While there is this here saying that with the VEB financing the project is fully funded:
Vnesheconombank (VEB) will provide up to $ 330 million for the project construction in the Ulyanovsk region factory for the production, assembly and after-sales service of lightweight Eclipse 500 jet aircraft, the report said the bank. Thus, it is anticipated that Vneshekonombank fully finance the project.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.kapital-rus.ru/region_news/detail.php%3FID%3D6652&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=7&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Detirc%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26as_qdr%3Dd
Now we also learn that despite the many denials from Eclipse, Eclipse is offshoring production. Roel himself has now said so:
Dutch investfond ETIRC, acquired in early 2008 a major stake in Eclipse Aviation, said that plans to transfer part of assembly operations in Russia.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.rncit.ru/news.php%3Ford%3D1114&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Detirc%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26as_qdr%3Dd
So remind me again why Richardson flew to DC. This would seem to raise a whole host of questions. The first one that comes to mind was that Roel claimed to be looking for $200M and now he's supposedly got it from the Russian government, does that mean UBS seeking funds is no longer necessary? If not, how much is Roel looking for in addition to the hundreds of millions from Russia? Many questions...
Here's the second BBB complaint:
Complaint Description - Posted 7/28/2008
Summary - Eclipse aviation voided our contract when they raised the price of their aircraft and now after 6 weeks I still don't have my refund, and no date set.
Initial Complaint
Eclipse aviation agrees I'm due a refund and initially I was told 2 to 3 week, then a month, then 6 weeks and now indefinitly. I can understand their desire to drag out returning my, and many other depositers , money since it will be in the tens of millions of dollars. For the past 6 weeks I've either been sent to various voice mails that don't return messages or to individuals that aren't sure what the status of my refund is. I"m just one of possibly hundreds of defenseless customers that is tired of Eclipse Aviations unfair business practices and I would greatly appreciate any help from the BBB.
Resolution Sought
Return my refund NOW!
Additional Information
Date Problem First Occurred: 6/11/2008
Product or Service: Produces small jet aircraft
Model Name or Number:
Date Purchased: 5/19/2004
Order Number:
Amount Paid: $150,000.00
http://www.newmexicoandsouthwestcolorado.bbb.org/ComplaintReadOnly.aspx?ComplaintID=F47TOnQnvc0VOSftoXbYwA==
Please avoid posting ANN comment on this blog, in whole or in part.
It adds nothing, and annoys Captain Zoom.
Or should that read 'adds Captain Zoom and annoys everyone'?
Either way, even from those of you who use such content to support the FPJ, he does not want anything from that site posted here.
Thanks
Shane
Ok. I won't. How about this link:
http://tinyurl.com/3whxq3
For those that may not be familiar with Zoom's History this provides some very good insight. It is suggest reading for anyone not familiar with Zoom.
She went on to find fault with the FAA inspectors assigned to certify the aircraft. "We believe that the FAA did not initially have the people with the appropriate knowledge and experience assigned," to the task, she said.
Unlike Vern, she didn't blame us "dumb 'ol" mechanics this time.
I wonder if anyone would offer say 5-10 cents on the dollar for the EAC deposit refund IOUs?
3 cents?
OK, bad joke.
I wonder if anyone would offer say 5-10 cents on the dollar for the EAC deposit refund IOUs?
3 cents?
OK, bad joke.
Eclipse supposedly has the $200M they said they wanted, so now lets see how quick Eclipse gives their contractually obligated refunds.
Some would say that “Zeke”* was a contemporary of the “gadfly” . . . and at times it may seem true. But “Zeke” wrote down things long ago which applies to the discussion in progress. It all has to do with warning those who are not informed of certain dangers. “Zeke” talks about the watchman . . . who warns the innocent of imminent danger . . . and that watchman is innocent when those warned do not take action. Then he speaks of “another watchman”, who sees the danger, yet does not warn those in his charge.
The “critics’ blog” has given ample warning to those that sleep . . . about the dangers yet coming with the little jet. Many have accused the critics of ulterior motives . . . whatever they are I have not yet figured out. But, regardless, the warnings have been given.
The “gadfly” has never been much concerned with the monetary side . . . wealth comes and goes . . . but true riches are not determined by “money”, but other things that cannot be discussed here.
Old “Zeke” (who faced a much greater danger, about 2,600 years ago) spoke up . . . and folks did not listen to his warnings. On a small scale, we “critics” warn others, who may for a time fly the little bird, with a certain amount of excitement, and think, “So what’s the big deal! . . . So far, so good!
It’s amazing that, for “some”, aircraft safety is put into the hands of a bunch of politicians who have difficulty telling the difference between an airplane and a fly swatter. And we have been treated to a discussion among these geniuses, of late.
Well, the word is out . . . and as they say, “Ignorance is no excuse!” Hopefully, the “diehards” will take a good long look at the dangers, and consider the “others” that might put trust in empty logic, and take a ride in this thing. Such folks may be their own family members.
gadfly
*Ezekiel 33 . . . and following.
DAve,
where did you see they got the money?
where did you see they got the money?
Here's the VEB website on it:
http://www.veb.ru/en/about/press/news/index.php?id32=4621
So now that Eclipse has the amount they said they were seeking, Eclipse should immediately start paying off the depositors and paying off the lawsuits.
"So now that Eclipse has the amount they said they were seeking, Eclipse should immediately start paying off the depositors and paying off the lawsuits."
No so fast! It says the $205mm is for building the factory and service organization in Russia. If the Russians are at all smart, they wont let EAC touch this money directly, to be pixxed away just like the other $1+ billion. There will (should) be very tight control on how the funds are used.
There will (should) be very tight control on how the funds are used.
Eclipse got what they wanted and they said they'd pay their depositors. Roel has no excuse for sitting on $200 million dollars while giving depositors the finger.
"Vnesheconombank is EXPECTED to finance the project in full the total value of which is 205 million US dollars,"
This is after the item detailing an alpine ski resort to be built in "Krasnaya Polyana" for 1.375 billion US dollars.
In other words zip for now (kind of like being a deposit holder who wants his money back), but we'll get back to you.
Dave,
None of those articles you linked or your own extracts from them said anything about Eclipse getting any funding. They talked about ETIRC putting up funds for a Russian assembly plant, and the Russians approving funds for the same thing. None of that goes to EAC, unless you've seen something that you didn't post.
The funds for a Russian assembly plant, if real, don't help EAC stay in business in the US or fund their losses, retrofits, etc.
Or are we all missing something?
Or are we all missing something?
An explanation from Roel other than Roel saying that he's transfering some assembly from ABQ to Russia. Not only does Roel owe an explanation to depositors, but he also owes an explanation to Eclipse employees. Eclipse afterall can't claim they're operating under an english-language media blackout any more as Peg Billson has talked to reporters and Roel just yesterday gave an interview to the ABQ Journal.
Another bit of bad/good news from AVWeb...
Federal investigators are on their way to Douglass, Kansas to investigate the crash of a Cessna Skycatcher LSA prototype Thursday. The pilot of the test aircraft was able to parachute to safety and was reportedly taken to hospital with minor injuries.
Cessna media relations personnel were unable to immediately respond to AVweb's request for more detailed information, but KAKE Television is reporting the aircraft crashed into a treeline near the boundary of Butler and Cowley Counties. The television station is quoting witnesses as saying they heard a loud pop and then saw sparks and the plane spiraling down. The pilot landed in a field about 400 yards from the aircraft. The TV station quoted a Cessna spokesman as saying the crash aircraft had about 150 hours on it.
coldwet ...
your french is good !
ability to speak foreign languages always start with the first word anyone try to say ...
so , for me , this said ability is mostly about trying , before saying it is too difficult or it is of no use ...
as well as what is more important ? to speak enough to make your thoughts understandable in the different places you may need to go ?
or to be perfect in one but stay in a lost spot itself lost in the middle of arkansas because other may not understand your way of saying your thinkings ?
french is a difficult language , but don't worry , most frenchs (starting by me) don't speak in a perfect manner !
so i understood you ,after you tried = just perfect !
Does anything ever come out of Senate subcommittee hearings?
dave :
i think we need a bit of clarification ...
the plant in Russia is of no use , no debate on this ...
but the loan is NOT to be taken the way it seems to be presented ...
i explain : (for the sake of argument , let's consider they get the said loan)
they get the loan , it means that ETIRC HAS to put on the table their part of investment !
ok , so let's pretend they have this kind of money ...
why don't they refund the deposits to holders who decided to bail-out ?
result = even if it would be very difficult (read : next to impossible ) for the US justice apparatus to reach any cents of the deposits with the structure of Etirc (in Luxembourg , one of the only way to get the money back is to prove that what you claim to be CAN be punished in Lux. very tricky as it needs to adapt to local laws and to have a lawyer in the place) it still give such a stain on the reputation of company : NEW customers ( they are VITAL )are rushing for exit faster than they come in ... = Project is a fiasco ! (a little bit more than now !if possible)
NOW , let's pretend they DON'T have this part of NEEDED investment :
the Russians grant the money needed to build the plant ,ETIRC/EAC HAS to fulfill its part of the contract by actually DOING something with it !!
so , this is to be considered as A MONEY DRAIN ! nothing else ...
it seems to me that the whole argument about this Russian Loan (which sounds VERY doubtful to me )
is presented as a way of saving ABQ , first and EAC , second ...
sorry , i don't see this with the same angle :
what about a company that has designed something , this thing remaining unfinished , despite this state :it has already been sold and used with the promise of "finishing it when it can be done !"
this company has a tremendous way of burning cash ...
even if it changes the way of burning cash in one spot (reducing costs and staff)
it still need an urgent 200M$ to survive ... (KEEP in perspective that surviving IS the best way to have to pay all unpaid bills)
the 1+ Billion question is = Would you consider a good move , a firm that CANNOT face its own obligations in the first spot , to have a second one built (even for free !) then to have an obligation to staff it , run it , and in order to do so , they once again NEED more money ....???
all of this to manufacture a product that DOESN'T SELL !
do you really believe that a Russian bank is going to put 205M$ on a table and say "please Mr Roel and Mr Vern , help yourself ..."
but if they do NOT do it , EAC /ABQ is dead ...
what are the chances the Congress is going to see that as a good joke , after all what did happen ?
in my belief = NONE ! (what about FAA cert. then ? leaving apart the EASA cert. which they DO NOT HAVE a single good reason to grant it on the same way than FAA did seems to have done it : the product IS NOT European and both factories are out of European land , but will just add some more complexity into relations with both US and Russians partners ....!)
what is the CORE-CUSTOMERS target place ? USA !
what are the chances (let's forget about economics difficulties which are going to scrap 80%+ of potential customers for EA500 , remember? most are around because it is cheap !) the product will sell better after screwing so much the previous target-customers ? = NONE !
what are the chances that the product could be made in Russia and sell there ?
it could have been good , but look at multiples sources of infos : Russians DID NOT WAIT on EA500 , the market is actually being filled-up real fast ...
which brings back , inevitably to the point that the plane is NOT finished ...
to finish it , they need money and time ...
time that they don't have because the market in Russia is NOT waiting on this item ...
money they DON'T have to train , staff and develop the plant built for them , while they would need the very same money to finish the plane and save ABQ ...
you can take the story in any way (i tried so many times , i even give the subject to study to a few colleagues taking out ALL names and context out, they all came to same conclusion , TOO LATE !)
= IT DOESN'T WORK ! it is a wonderful vicious circle ...
so apart a dream or wish for some to actually being able to "show-off" in their little toy or more simply to be able "to throw the baby with the water of his bath" (selling it)
or a simple wish to be able to say " i told you so !"
frankly , i don't see the point ... too late , too small , too little (finished) ...!
so as for a foreign state "burning" any cash for something from a country which is not even friendly ... to get a gift in the form of something not even finished but already with so many encumbrance that it jeopardize the whole thing : let me have my own doubts about it !!!
whytech :
#No so fast! It says the $205mm is for building the factory and service organization in Russia. If the Russians are at all smart, they wont let EAC touch this money directly, to be pixxed away just like the other $1+ billion. There will (should) be very tight control on how the funds are used.#
YES ; EXACTLY !!!
in fact , this is sort of side-work for peoples of my kind ...
when it need to be done , some are dispatched to the surrounding of the place needing "some checking..." most of us are foreigners (it leave a sword on our throat = do your job without fear or partial view, be very well rewarded for this service or you'll get kicked-out from the country ...if not worse!)
i don't want to recall how many "red inked statements" i personally did ...
only one thing can be said "if you screw the Russian Govt , they won't come in very nice !!! "
This is what I see:
The FAA was once said to be "the gold standard".
Fort Worth MIO Aviation Safety Inspector Marietta Broyles.
San Antonio MIDO Manager Ford Lauer.
Former Directorate Manager Dave Downey
ACO Engineer and NATCA Representative Tomaso DiPaolo, and
ACO Engineer Dennis Wallace
And Department of Transportation Inspector General Calvin Scoval III.
all agree that in this case, "the gold standard" did not exist.
AIR-1, Mr. Hickey, found fault with each one of these people. The tentimony also included that prior to Ms. Broyles, three other MIDO Inspectors worked on site, and were releieved of their duites, and AIR-1 former #2, Ron Wojanr, had to be sent in to personally fix things.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his Directorate Manager, Dave Downey, and releived him.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his MIO Manager, Jerry Stretz, and relieved him.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his ACO Software Specialist, Mr. Wallace, and relieved him.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his MIO staff specialists, and releived them.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his San Antonio MIDO office manager, and relieved him.
The head of AIR did not trust the work of his three San Antonio MIDO ASI Inspectors, and relieved them.
All because a company, headed by Vern, was on the phone to Wahsington, demanding that he get his certificate immediately.
And now, from among the 140 Manufacturing ASI's within the country, not a single one will apply to fill the job of Aviaiton Safety Inspector, Manufacturing, located in Albuquerque, which has remained vacant since being announced in May, and then reannounced against in July. Not a single qualified applicant from within the FAA..
Not a one.
No FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Manufacturing, in any office, is willing to be the on the receiving end of such leadership.
The FAA's Aircraft Certification Service was once "the gold standard".
Employees in every AIR office, from coast to coast, have lost all trust and confidence in the leadership of AIR-1, and demend that Mr. Sturgell remove the head of AIR immediately.
WE vote "no confidence in AIR-1".
This isn't "the gold standard" anymore.
"She went on to find fault with the FAA inspectors assigned to certify the aircraft. "We believe that the FAA did not initially have the people with the appropriate knowledge and experience assigned," to the task, she said."
This condesending arrogance from someone who can't even refund costomers' deposits? Add to that Roel bailing out of the Congressional hearing and then echoing the same sentiments and attacking the FAA Inspector General and worker-bees, and you have an truly surreal situation.
Here's an article about the Eclipse Faithful:
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2008/09/22/story2.html?b=1222056000%5E1702497
thanks for the link , dave ...
it'll never stop to amaze me !
why do some peoples want to build more of something that didn't sale when Economics were good ?
so the firm has a backlog of "old" orders on which the money to build the very same planes is gone , long time ago ...
it doesn't take a Nobel prize to understand that if new customers do not come (in mass ?) old orders won't be fulfilled !
please , someone to explain them !
so , whatever are the issue about safety , quality or cert. are meaningless if , ultimately , planes cannot be delivered ...
and if some planes can be made , it sounds very much like Concord , a wonderful bird that was just amazing , but never sold ...
please , someone to explain them ... ;-))
ps : reading the news , i see that we have a winner to the contest "who's the biggest sucker ?" ...
it is the guy who stated "i never believed Vern BS !"
oh , yeah ? why did you gave him your money , then ?
Good digging Dave,
That article has a couple of nuggets:
It laid off 840 employees in August, or nearly 40 percent of the work force
Wasn't Eclipse claiming 650 people? Maybe 190 people are a rounding error for Pieper.
OurPlane has received only one Eclipse jet to date, although it has ordered 21 more with a $1 million deposit.
As many on this blog have long suspected, Eclipse was not consistant in requiring deposits. Here is a company which had to put down less than $50K per order vrs $150K.
Obviously it makes good business sense to be flexible with a big customer, but these companies like Oneplane, DayJet, Alpha Airways, JetSet Air etc were all start up paper companies. Any real manufacturer would differiate between a price rebate for a solid established company, and a price rebate for a vapour ware, unproven start up who is drinking your own Kool aid!
I wonder how little deposit DayJet/Alpha Airways/JetSet Air etc paid. There was obvious not enough financial incentive to stop Dayjet walking away from their last 1378 orders (which is the whole reason for a non-refundable deposit).
Obviously it makes good business sense to be flexible with a big customer, but these companies like Oneplane, DayJet, Alpha Airways, JetSet Air etc were all start up paper companies. Any real manufacturer would differiate between a price rebate for a solid established company, and a price rebate for a vapour ware, unproven start up who is drinking your own Kool aid!
I don't so much take issue with that so much as Eclipse treating orders from high risk start-ups as ironclad sales for the full value...Eclipse's whole thing of claiming thousands of orders and billions of dollars in sales.
I wonder how little deposit DayJet/Alpha Airways/JetSet Air etc paid.
DayJet's initial deposit for their 1400 jets was around $10 million.
yes , freedom ...
the plot start to unveil slowly !
start-up without great cash abilities , building-up some would be big airline-venture ...
everything was supposed to be cashed out by IPO at a later stage ...
but Eclipse failed to deliver a good enough product (quality and numbers )
so the whole pyramid is smashed down ...!
i recall that once , i wrote "vern is a left-over of the dot.com era , who got high on some bad acid trip and never came back ..."
definitely sounds like good old dot.com era ... (where billions were invested in companies which had nothing to sell , nothing to create , nothing to do but selling their own vision of "how to roast a turkey !" )
Am I understanding this right that Eclipse needs hundreds of millions more than the $200 million they claimed to need? It sounds like Eclipse needs more than the hundreds of millions of they got from the VEB to get the Russian plant going plus they needs hundreds of millions to pay their existing bills and for the ABQ factory (which Roel has now said he's transfering part of the assembly from ABQ to Russia). How many hundreds of millions does Eclipse need???
dave :
TOO many !
Roel is going to find out how difficult it is to fight on 2 different front at one time ...
even if the Russky build the plant , it will still remain Etirc task to do something with it ...
Game-over very soon , unless some more Millions are pumped-in , but not the Russian money , they are not this stupid ...
i think they do not need 200M$ in one spot ...
but in BOTH spot ...
the trick is to maintain the confusion !
the Russian M$ are for Russia !
as for ABQ , they still need an other 200 ...
Am I the only one that finds it interesting that the SCR report the FAA posted for public consumption has portions blacked out? (Presumably to protect confidential and or proprietary information)
http://www.faa.gov/news/media/eclipse%20scr%20redacted.pdf
Though I clearly understand the need to protect confidential and or proprietary information, do the following sections (which are blacked out in the report) really constitute confidential and or proprietary information?
Appendix B — Review of Eclipse Flight Standardization Board Evaluations .....................................B–1
Appendix C — Anomalies and Failures During Initial Function & Reliability Testing (Summary).......C–1
-Burner
re: SCR blacked out copy. A little birdie told me that if you highlight and copy the blacked out portions and then paste it into a text/word document that you can view this "secret" copy.
Yes, the stooge at the FAA that edited the report for public consumption failed to lock the .pdf file.
Maybe Eclipse Aviation should open an investment or banking division and sell CDO's paying 10% p.a. backed by IOU's and future sales.
At least then they might qualify to be bailed out by the Feds.
“The cost gap between the Eclipse 500 and the Mustang is shrinking,” Burr said. “We’re closely monitoring that.”
Yeah, you do that. Monitor away.
Any bets on how many Eclipses have been sold at $2.15 million?
From the blacked out portion of the SCR:
APPENDIX B — REVIEW OF ECLIPSE FLIGHT STANDARDIZATION BOARD
EVALUATIONS
Background
The Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) reportedly sent a letter to the president of Eclipse, Vern Rayburn, on September 7, 2006, advising that the AEG did not believe the Eclipse was ready for the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) evaluation. All flight test plans, F&R, and minimum crew determination had not been completed, making the FSB premature at that date. F&R and minimum crew determination were not completed until September 29, 2006. The AEG reported that an FSB normally takes approximately 2 weeks to conduct, however, because of problems encountered on the initial Eclipse evaluations, the FSB ended up being conducted in three phases spanning 4 months from September 23, 2006, through January 26, 2007.
Summary of FSB Activities
Phase I
Phase I of the FSB started September 23, 2006, and ended October 6, 2006. Three airplane were flown by the FSB during Phase I: Test 109, Production 2, and Test 106 (F&R airplane). All of the airplanes experienced some problems during the evaluation. Test 106 did not enter the FSB flight program until after the TC issuance date. Phase I of the FSB ended without completion on October 6, 2008. The company was outbriefed on the issues on that date. Problems encountered on the three airplanes during the FSB flights include the following:
• Takeoff configuration warnings during takeoff (Test 109, Production 2)
• Stall warnings on final approach with normal flap setting (Test 109)
• Screen blanking in flight (single screen in flight) (Test 109)
• Elevator trim extreme nose down (Production 2)
• Large aileron trim inputs to hold wings level (Production 2)
• Loud humming noise and vibration above 195 knots (Production 2)
• Stall warnings during abnormal flap approaches (Production 2)
• Oxygen masks falling from holders in flight (Production 2)
• Fold down exit stairs inoperative (Production 2)
• Pilot crew seat can’t be adjusted (Production 2)
• Right PFD blanking (Production 2)
• Inaccurate fuel quantity readings (Production 2)
• Electrical and air conditioning problems (cabin temperature over 100 degrees F) (Test 109)
•Loss of communications equipment on the ground (Test 106)
• MFD blanking with loss of all data on the ground (Test 106)
• Heading bug movement steered airplane off course with autopilot engaged (Test 106)
Phase II
Phase II of the FSB started December 6, 2006, and ended December 13, 2006, with all flights conducted on Test 106 airplane. This conforming airplane was the test airplane used in the F&R program. Problems encountered during the Phase II evaluation include the following:
• Stall warnings on short final with landing flaps, apparently similar to those encountered during the F&R program.
• During the Phase II evaluation, all maneuvering speeds were increased by 10 knots for each flap setting. This reportedly eliminated stall warnings in these configurations.
• Numerous flap failure CAS messages were encountered; essentially the same as were encountered during F&R where the CAS message cleared on flap handle movement. However, in one case the flaps were fixed in a position between flaps up and flaps takeoff. Flights were suspended until the issue was resolved.
• Four more flap fail CAS messages occurred during company tests. The FSB advised the company that they would not conduct their evaluations with these issues. The FSB believed that during the Phase I and Phase II evaluations the airplanes exhibited possible safety-related issues and refused to fly (unofficially grounded) two of the test airplanes at different times during the Phase I program:
• FSB had concerns about the airplane entering the National Airspace System with these problems.
• Concerns with non-full functioning autopilot — basically a wings leveler with altitude and heading hold.
• FSB discussed a two-pilot crew requirement until workload went down with updated systems. Eclipse protested a two-pilot rating to FAA Headquarters.
Phase III
Phase III of the FSB started January 16, 2007, and was completed January 26, 2007, on the Production 2 airplane. The configuration of the airplane included system improvements and updates to address the issues encountered in the earlier FSB evaluations, including a wing change to correct roll trim problems. The FSB was satisfactorily completed on Production 2 airplane with a minimal number of problems encountered during the evaluation:
• Loud humming sound and airplane vibration above 195 knots (later resolved with aerodynamic fairing changes).
• One takeoff configuration warning that was eliminated with a manual temperature reset per AFM procedures.
• One right PFD screen failure, which automatically reset in 13 seconds.
• One L/R ENG control fail CAS message that briefly occurred and cleared automatically.
SCR Team Conclusions on the FSB Evaluation Program
1. During Phase I and Phase II of the FSB, the AEG/FSB directly coordinated all activities with Eclipse training personnel only. Eclipse engineering and FAA ACO personnel were not involved in the coordination process. Lack of coordination and communication between all involved parties definitely contributed to the FSB issues.
2. Phase I of the FSB evaluation started exactly 1 week before the September 30, 2006, TC issuance. The FSB was conducted concurrent with the completion of final type certification activities, the F&R program, the minimum crew workload determination, and European Aviation Safety Agency meetings with Eclipse. Scheduling these activities concurrently resulted in lack of focus on conducting a successful FSB.
3. The two test airplanes used in Phase I of the F&R program before type certification were not in conformity and were not maintained to the required standards for a test airplane being used in the type certification process.
4. The AFM Landing With Flap Malfunction Emergency Procedure approved on the initial TC provided approach speeds that were low by approximately 10 knots. The requirement to increase the approach speeds in abnormal landing flap configurations was not identified as an issue (on Test 106) during the F&R program. The stall warnings encountered during landing approaches in abnormal landing flap configurations during the Phase I FSB evaluation, which concluded October 6, 2006, were identified during ACO flight tests of updated software on November 3, 2006. These anomalies were addressed by Eclipse only after Phase II of the FSB started December 7, 2006.
5. Flap fail messages that had been categorized as nuisance failures in the F&R program continued to occur during the Phase II FSB evaluation. One of the flap failures involved an actual shutdown of the flaps. AFM Normal and Emergency procedures were developed before type certification that addressed these flap issues in a manner found acceptable for the initial type certification. The FSB apparently did not recognize these procedures and terminated the Phase II evaluation before completion.
6. The Phase III FSB was more closely coordinated with the AEG, ACO, and Eclipse. Technical issues were resolved with appropriate changes to the airplane. Phase III was successfully completed on Production 2 test airplane on January 26, 2007.
FSB discussed a two-pilot crew requirement until workload went down with updated systems. Eclipse protested a two-pilot rating to FAA Headquarters.
Yet Eclipse is always the first ones out to blame the pilots.
Forward Observer said ...
WE vote "no confidence in AIR-1".
FO - I have much less knowledge of the inner workings of the FAA than you. But, from where I stand, your post perfectly summurizes the situation.
I think Shane should put your post up as a summary of the hearing/situation.
Once you politicise a safety function, no one will have confidence in the outcome anymore.
holly smoke , guys ...!
i wonder how many of you should be granted a FAA payroll ?
don't know about your part of world , but here (and some other places) when a high-profile civil servant is not doing anything to justify his wages :
he is sent to a nice locker , out of public view with the "big" responsibility of choosing new color painting for the toilets !
how about firing some butts ?
if aircraft regulation top brass are looking for some , may be we should hint them to have a look ...
"From the blacked out portion of the SCR:"
WOW! And the FAA considers this acft to be certifiable and safe? Amazing to say the least!
Dipaolo's testimony document in now on the House website Here. It is much more detailed than what DiPaolo actually said in the hearing.
A must read.
• The FAA committed to “optimal delegation” to the “maximum extent practicable,”
handing over much of their oversight and testing responsibilities to the company itself, a
dangerous decision for such a new aircraft design.
• Implications that Eclipse would have sole decision-making power over who would be the
Administrative Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs). The PSP also assigned
that the key representative for the Administrative DER position would be from the
Williams Engine Company.
In the fall of 2001, it was announced that the former FAA project officer overseeing Eclipse
project, Mr. Randy Griffith, had left the FAA and was now the Eclipse Aviation Airworthiness
Coordinator. Mr. Griffith thus became the principal point of contact to the FAA on behalf of
Eclipse. This appears to be in violation of FAA ethics standards. According to the FAA ethics
training manual for 2006 a former agency employee who accepts a job may “have some
limitations in communicating with his former agency on his company’s behalf” and one cannot,
for a period of two years, represent his or her new employer before their former agency.”
Because the design of Very Light Jets (VLJs) differed so significantly from conventional jets,
Federal Aviation Regulation number 23 proved ill adapted for Eclipse certification. It was
brought up to me, well after the filing of the grievance, that the Small Airplane Directorate
(SAD) had issued an “unofficial Part 23 Jet Certification Guide” to address the application of
new safety conditions to various classes of light jets. It is my understanding that the document
was not applied in total to the Eclipse 500 Jet due to the objections of the Eclipse company and
due to the PSP/PSCP goals and procedural limitations.
Brave conclusion to say the plane was certified and safe at the time of TC, when the compliance flight testing was not done to an acceptable standard till nearly seven months after TC, a month after the first "production" aircraft was "delivered".
I would have called that lying under oath, but I guess he didn't have sex with that woman.
You can see that the FSB was astounded to be given a plane where the company F&R testing had identified repetitive flap fails and stall warnings on approach, and had obviously not recognised these as problems, and done nothing to correct them!
Lame!!!
When you look at the list of failures which the FSB logged during the limited number of flights they conducted, you can see that Eclipse was
We bloggers have been way to easy on Eclipse. We need to pull up our standards.
Give this report, it will be interesting to see how far EASA is willing to follow existing TVP procedures , automatically accepting FAA compliance findings, and how far they perform their own compliance verification.
Fat lady is getting ready to sing. Bombshell news to come.
Give this report, it will be interesting to see how far EASA is willing to follow existing TVP procedures , automatically accepting FAA compliance findings, and how far they perform their own compliance verification.
I expect EASA will say that Eclipse has to redesign Eclipse in any number of ways and then once EASA puts out their list, Eclipse will say they're certified and then never actually retrofit aircraft to meet EASA. Eclipse is acting like all it is taking for EASA is a software patch for Avio 1.5, but first off Eclipse isn't even retrofiting customers to get Avio 1.5 and second off, I think EASA will require more than just a software patch given what was said in the Special Condition (a software patch wouldn't address everything). Just like at Eclipse touting how they've got FIKI-certified but are refusing to retrofit their aircraft to FIKI.
From Diapaulo's testimony:
For example, Eclipse
personnel informed FAA engineers that they would need to do research and development for
aircraft flight testing in only 7days then present the aircraft immediately to the FAA for type
inspection authorization (TIA) certification flight testing.
The FAA flight test certification team must have have just about wet themselves laughing when this start-up presented this idiocy.
I would bet that Cessna's R&D and internal compliance checking flight test program for the Sky catcher is probably at least four months.
AIG underwrites insurance for Eclipse:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=3&id=668
Also here's a profile of Graham Casson and ONEPlane:
http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=199909&s=mmagazine
Diapaulo' testimony was weakened by it use of generalisations rather than specific facts. But is it is a damning document.
Are the faithful reading these testimonies? How do they make you feel about the Partial Eclipse you fly your friends and loved one around in? Please put some positive spin on these for us.
FO and all :
before "roasted&upsidedown" is trying to sing the song where no one knows anybody apart him...
i can tell you only one thing :
i made sure some of the documents cited here ARE well received by the few important ones in EASA ...!
just in case (who knows ? a warned person is worth 2)
The European Commissioner of Transport , overseeing the work of EASA will receive it no later than monday morning ...
i know : it's a bit unkind ... what did you expect from me ? i have a reputation to keep ...!
i forgot ...
over the week-end , my secretary is going to translate few of the said documents ...
and i am going to slip them to the chairman of VEB bank , to make good measure as well to Mr Kudrin , who is only the Finance Minister of The Russian Federation ...
damn me , i forgot ...
Etirc has so high connections ...may be i should call God himself ;-)))
Did you send them to roger.hardy@easa.europa.int? He was listed on the EASA Eclipse CRI.
DAY JET CEASES OPERATIONS - 19SEP08
Does that mean they aren't buying if the other 137x EA500's after all? But they were orders backed by non refundable deposits.
Does that mean they aren't buying if the other 137x EA500's after all? But they were orders backed by non refundable deposits.
But Roel just said how strong the order book was and how that was the reason for the second factory.
Well if Roel said it, it must be true.
Moller is back and he has Russian financing, well maybe not...
You know how those Russian financing deals go...
It's a Car! It's a Plane!
It's a Plug-in hybrid SkyCar...
Moller's flying Ferrari, if it comes to fruition, could carry you 75 miles in the air and 150 miles on the ground, with 40 miles of that coming from the batteries. Moller says the Autovolantor will work just like a plug-in hybrid until you get sick of sitting in traffic, at which point you can take off vertically and fly at speeds reaching 150 mph -- 55 mph slower than an unmolested 599 is capable -- for as long as 15 minutes.
I guess that would explain why the FAA report wasn't an issue for DayJet:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/19/bz-dayjet-says-faa-report-on-planes-not-an-issue/
Just in from AIN:
DayJet Parks VLJ Fleet For‘Economic Reasons’
freedom :
very good try ...!
roger is actually working in the GA division , but i aim a "bit" higher ...!
and no , i don't send stuff using E-mail (what a disgrace !)
Moller is the aviation snake oil salesman of our generation.
Vern may have burnt more dumb, rich peoples dough, but Moller has far more staying power. Great to see he has jumped onto the Hybrid bandwagon. This guy knows no shame.
DAY JET CEASES OPERATIONS 19SEP08
According to an FAA spokesman, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based company “parked” its entire Eclipse 500 fleet at noon today for “economic reasons.”
Some bank must be thrilled to have just become the proud operator of 28 of the lowest spec half finished VLJ ever "completed"(TM eclipse).
New article up on Avweb:
Fresh Hell for Eclipse: A Poster Child for FAA Mismanagement
A must read.
DayJet Parks VLJ Fleet For ‘Economic Reasons’
The fate of per-seat, on-demand air-taxi firm DayJet is up in the air, and its aircraft are not. According to an FAA spokesman, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based company “parked” its entire Eclipse 500 fleet at noon today for “economic reasons.” However, flight-tracking provider FlightAware shows that the DayJet fleet has been moved over the past 18 hours to Gainesville (Fla.) Airport, where 16 of the company’s 28 Eclipse 500s were parked in early May following the revelation that DayJet was unable to secure another $40 million of operating capital to proceed with its aggressive expansion plans. Instead, DayJet was forced to scale back operations at the time and lay off about 100 employees. By press time, AIN was unable to determine if today’s actions mean that DayJet has been shut down for good, or how many employees remain at the company. DayJet’s latest troubles come almost exactly a year after it started very light jet air-taxi service in Florida and then gradually expanded service to cover much of the Southeast. Just last week DayJet said it was expanding the service to allow weekend operations. Several phone numbers for DayJet officials have been disconnected, though AIN was able to contact vice president of strategic operations Traver Gruen-Kennedy via his cellphone. However, he declined to comment on the current situation at DayJet. The company’s public relations department did not return AIN’s calls seeking comment. Eclipse Aviation also couldn’t be reached for comment on the status of DayJet’s remaining orders for approximately 1,400 Eclipse 500s.
AINalerts is a publication of The Convention News Co., Inc., 214 Franklin Avenue, Midland Park, NJ 07432. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
flightcenter :
thanks for the link , not being of anglo-saxon culture , i was wondering what was the "moller" some kept talking about ...
i thought such lunatics didn't exist anywhere else than ABQ ... ;-))
(No Mr Gad , it is not aimed at you ... this is an effect of age , for some it's called "whatever" for elders it's called "wisdom" .-)) )
i would like to see the contract about Russky-financing (the funny bit : i will probably ...)
but if it exist ; the terms must be so F***G binding that i wouldn't wish it to anyone ...
I think that Governor Richardson has a lot of explaining to do given his recent trip to DC on Eclipse's behalf:
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/press/2008/sept/090308_01.pdf
And his funding Eclipse based on the DayJet order:
Mr. Denker discussed the market. He said Eclipse is now beginning to receive orders in the fractional marketplace and expects to receive an order for ten corporate aircraft by the end of this year. He stated that their largest customer, Day Jet, has ordered 1,400 aircraft and plans to initiate an air taxi service in the Southeastern U.S.
Mr. Davis commented that the PEIAC was very impressed with the status of the business, but did have a lengthy discussion in order to overcome initial concerns about pricing because Eclipse technically has no revenue coming in, although certainly it has orders and it looks like the product is coming soon.
Mr. Birk said Fort Washington also had an “animated discussion” on the varying share prices but at the same time took into consideration the progress of the Eclipse program and where they are today vis-Ã -vis certification, and became comfortable with that. In addition, he said, Eclipse has instituted full ratchet anti-dilution price protection, which is extremely rare and is essentially “an audacious way of saying, we’re betting that we will never have a down round on the share price.” Under this scenario, if Eclipse has another round after this one and the shares are, say, half the price at $47.50, every person who bought shares at $95 will immediately have their shares doubled so there is no dilution.
Mr. Birk also stated that Fort Washington modeled out some of the potential returns for a $95 share price through 2010, “and our assessment is that if Eclipse achieves plan, it is probably a 3X to 4X return for shareholders coming in at a $95 per share price. That would likely be realized in two to three years, and that is actually a reasonable return given how far along the certification program is at this point…. From everything our due diligence uncovered, it indicates that the program is really progressing along quite nicely.”
Governor Richardson commented on the impressive number of orders Eclipse has written up to date (2,260+) and spoke to New Mexico’s pursuit of more aircraft presence through legislative tax initiatives and the fact that Eclipse is well known in Europe and Japan.
Responding to questioning from Commissioner Lyons, Mr. Denker stated that Eclipse is 40% done with its FAA certification reports, which is on target, and they expect full approval in March 2006.
Mr. Davis commented that Mr. Denker did mention a 60-day slippage window, however, and the Committee was willing to accept that as reasonable.
Mr. Denker responded, “There is risk to March 2006. It’s not a large risk and it’s certainly not anything in excess of 30 to 45 days.”
Mr. Denker said that, once Eclipse is in full production with 1,000 aircraft per year, they expect to process an order in less than ten days from start to finish, including customer delivery.
Governor Richardson moved approval of a recommendation to commit monies from the New Mexico Private Equity program to purchase $3,000,005 of an Eclipse Aviation Series F Preferred Stock, subject to negotiation of final terms and conditions and completion of appropriate paperwork. Mr. Bland seconded the motion and it passed 9-0 by voice vote.
http://www.sic.state.nm.us/PDF%20files/SIC%20minutes%208-23-05.pdf
freedom :
#This guy knows no shame. #
they have run out of shame , in ABQ , some ten years ago ... or what ???
there is an agreed to line of sight to receive EASA certification
This has to be one of the most bizarre statements yet from Eclipse.
Agreed to by whom? Does this agreement involve anyone in authority at EASA?
What exactly does 'line of sight' mean in this context?
It seems to imply that Eclipse has something other than the standard certification process in mind.
It is certainly one for the new Vernacular dictionary.
The EASA Certification Organigramm is here:
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/g_org_main.php#
Roger Hardy is listed as the General Aviation Product certification manager.
Above him are the Executive Director (Patrick Goudou)
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/g_edir.php
The Certification Director (N. Lohl)
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/g_cdir.php
and the manager of Products (A.Leroy).
suddenly i wonder if controller.com is charging some money for the planes they sell ???
they must be happy about DayJet ...!
ps: silly me ! it is some more anchors that won't sell ...
freedom :
Lohl is called Norbert ...
Leroy is called André (this one i am not sure !)
Eclipse Aviation also couldn’t be reached for comment on the status of DayJet’s remaining orders for approximately 1,400 Eclipse 500s.
That quote is priceless.
Not a good news week in ABQ.
sorry , they are not "called" , it is their first name ...! sorry
and it is a bit better to call someone by first name , no ?
I believe he is Alain Leroy.
What exactly does 'line of sight' mean in this context?
It's the old joke, I thought I saw the light at the end of the tunnel, but it was my boss with a torch bringing more work!
may be ...! i never met him ...
but when i see the statement of EAC , it look like they believe they can do the same trick that in FAA ...
they are in for delusion , big time !
i just wonder how Roel is going to tout about Mega-orders ??
guess he is thinking now :
" if only i did not fire Vern ...!"
DayJet says it will still be using one jet for their own use:
The company - which flies mainly business customers on a "per-seat, on-demand" basis between at least 57 airports across five Southeastern states - told the Federal Aviation Administration it would ground 27 of its aircraft, FAA spokesman Les Dorr said. One plane would continue operating for "use by executives," he said.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-0919dayjet,0,4598990.story
Well, it would appear that the “Great Flight Hope” is down for the count!
And the dinosaurs are not yet extinct.
gadfly
(And this confirms “1,400" back-orders [that were once] on the books . . . re: “AIN alerts”)
Mr Gad :
dinosaurs are not extinct yet ...
you are still around !
(ok , very bad joke !! i owe you a good bottle of wine ! any preference ?)
So first Roel spends the previous week sailing and then he ducks out of the Congressional hearings and now this. When is Roel going to decide it is time for him to act like the CEO of Eclipse?
CEO ...
what is this , again ???
My Cousin works for "DayJet" In Florida, and he was released today as a result of the company ending proceedings!
http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3086&PID=22371#22371
FYI, guys, from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
DayJet parks all planes but one for "economic reasons"
by Jaclyn Giovis
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
September 19, 2008
DayJet Corp., the Boca Raton based air taxi service, informed federal aviation authorities Friday afternoon of plans to park practically all of its aircraft for "economic reasons."
The company - which flies mainly business customers on a "per-seat, on-demand" basis between at least 57 airports across five Southeastern states - told the Federal Aviation Administration it would ground 27 of its aircraft, FAA spokesman Les Dorr said. One plane would continue operating for "use by executives," he said.
Dayjet officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
The company laid off 100 of its 260 employees in May, citing it had to scale back expansion plans because it could not get the $40 million in financing that 2008 business plan called for.
Dayjet is the largest single user of the Eclipse model 500 "very light jets," which recently have come under federal review for design and manufacturing problems that could impact safety.
DayJet filed 93 "service difficulty reports" to the FAA since the aircraft was certified in 2006, Congressional testimony shows. DayJet configures the $2.2 million jets to seat up to three passengers and two pilots.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-0919dayjet,0,4598990.story
guys, get serious - no one said anything about Dayjet cancelling its orders for 1400 more E500s.
Let's be fair.
DayJet is the last company I'm worried about.
- Vern Raburn
a silly question :
is this grounding thing related with the 93 sdr filled by DayJet and reported in hearing ?
a kind of :
Roel: ed , you fucked-up with those SDR !
Ed: you just had to bring quality , not quantity ...
Roel: don't you know Vern is gone , your finance deal on planes can be voided any time ...
Ed: ok , shut-up , i ground all !
Eclipse executives were on hand to update participants about efforts to reorganize the company and increase jet production...Still, Eclipse executives are making concerted efforts to keep buyers informed of company developments. That reinforces confidence among customers, many of whom praise Pieper’s personal financial commitment to Eclipse and his extensive business experience.
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2008/09/22/story2.html?b=1222056000%5E1702497
Were the Faithful told Eclipse's order book was going to evaporate in a very major way this week?
dave :
# Pieper’s personal financial commitment to Eclipse and his extensive business experience #
it is kind of weird , but someone in Luxembourg told me that Pieper is more known for failures than success !
The way this is headed, Roel can add another failure to his resume!
yes , it's going to look good :
Philipps = he got sacked (with a sweet deal)
Tandy (tandem Computer)= Bankruptcy !
L&H = fraudulent bankruptcy ...
EAC = ???
wondering if:
- it became too obvious the economics cannot work
- the congressional report that says the FAA certification of the e500 was rushed got the attention of the lenders and/or insurers
- recognition of the 93 SDRs got the attention of the lenders and insurers
Curious timing. Maybe a coincidence, but somehow, there's always more to the story than we know.
So, I guess they are out of business? Even that's not clear.
Excerpt (as above from comments made by Gov. Richardson in SIC meeting):
"Governor Richardson commented on the impressive number of orders Eclipse has written up to date (2,260+) and spoke to New Mexico’s pursuit of more aircraft presence through legislative tax initiatives and the fact that Eclipse is well known in Europe and Japan."
The above is a great example of a politician "speaking out of both sides of his mouth."
A few years ago multiple aircraft companies tried to move to NM and provide jobs in aviation. Partly because publicly Richardson said they were catering to aviation companies.
One company and a community about an hour away from Albuquerque wanted to make a deal. The community economic folks had meetings with Richardson. He told them that he would support the project and the state would "make it happen." Later, the deal was killed quietly by political maneuvers instigated by Richardson. An individual, known only to act on marching orders from Richardson, scuttled it; that way Richardson could keep his hands clean. This whole affair is known to those in the state and the SIC.
Another example: Adam Aircraft had announced a deal to move to Albuquerque. They worried about how EAC would react. They actually sent Company reps to meet with EAC and ask if they [EAC] would have any problems if Adam moved to NM. Of course, you know the answer that EAC gave! That deal fell apart, thereafter. Who knows, maybe Adam would have fared better if this deal would have gone through, maybe not .... we'll never know. At least some more employees would have had jobs in Albuquerque for a while.
EAC indicated to those in the state that these other companies would take employees from EAC [and of course be competition].
As you can see, typical politics, Richardson could tell the public and his own community economic dev. folks that the state was trying really hard to recruit aviation and more jobs. While at the same time he was having his "henchmen" work to quietly kill possible deals.
This type of game, blocking competition on behalf of one company, can be a dangerous one. Especially, if you deal with unethical individuals.
[If any have an interest in the name of the individual actually doing the dirty work....that can be provided.]
airtaxi :
when such kind of firm publicly state going out of business ...
the day after , creditors are queuing at entrance ...!
Something to keep in mind with Roel and his other shady dealings since Computer Associates wasn't mentioned. Roel was personal friends with Charles Wang at Comptuer Associates and got Wang to invest in Roel's fund while Roel was on the board at CA:
http//www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2001/nf2001094_634.htm
Then once a real board investigated, we find this out about Roel's friend and investing partner:
http://www.cio.com/article/104054/CA_to_Pursue_Cofounder_Wang_for_Fraud?contentId=104054&slug=&
Roel totally abused the CA shareholders for his own self-enrichment by having Wang (the person he's supposed to be watching over) buy into his fund. It was a complete conflict of interest and Wang was a fraud.
So, I guess they are out of business? Even that's not clear.
It sounds like they aren't doing revenue flights, but it also doesn't sound like they are in BK either. I guess it depends on what your definition of "out of business" is as to whether or not that would apply to them.
dave : the guy who told me about RP said that they had suspicions he is/was what we call in french "homme de paille" (rough trans. : dummy)
someone hired at end of shady-business to deflect the blame ...
This type of game, blocking competition on behalf of one company, can be a dangerous one. Especially, if you deal with unethical individuals.
I understand politicians blocking competition from outside their juridictions, but not inside their jurisdictions. Having more companies means more jobs and a better economy. Chasing "competition" from operating in one's jurisdiction only hurts the economy of your jurisdiction. Even if it is outside your jurisdiction, preventing competition is dangerous, as you say.
someone hired at end of shady-business to deflect the blame...
Although I don't think Roel is the sharpest tool in the shed, I don't think he is totally dull either. I think he turns a blind eye to things like how Wang putting money into Roel's fund while Roel was on the board at CA made Roel be less than diligent or critical of Wang.
DayJet:
How would you like to be an investor, lender or ex-employee of DayJet and read "one jet will be kept for the use of executives".
I'd take some kind of action to prevent this and make sure that their golden parachutes had a few malfunctions.
The continuing gall- and I'm sure that Roel will keep these orders on the books too.
Just got my "Twin & Turbine" with a Vern interview post firing. I'll post his memorable insults to pilots, vendors and everyone in a little while.
Turboprop_pilot
From Stan's blog on the subject of DayJet Eclipse Critic Archive April, 2007
Game. Set. Match. Predicted 17 months ago.
We do know that the vast majority of Eclipse's orders come from the air taxi market. 2 years ago, Vern told me that his estimate of the percent of orders that were coming from the air taxi market was about 80%. At the time, there were about 500 orders from individuals. So that meant that about 2,000 of his orders were attributed to the air taxi market.
We do know that the air taxi market will only succeed if someone is willing to finance all those planes. The facts are that it has been extremely difficult for DayJet, Pogo and other air taxi companies to secure the financing for the aircraft they need. We do know that DayJet has recently secured financing on the order of $50M. Clearly not enough to buy thousands of airplanes.
We do know that the air taxi market will succeed only if customers love the service. Customers are not going to love a service where DayJet lands to pick up another customer while I’m on the plane waiting to get to my destination. I wouldn’t share a cab on the way home from the airport if the service was free. Why do you think no one car pools to work? You want to leave when you want to leave. The whole DayJet model of not committing to the customer when he’s going to be flying until the last possible moment, in order to aggregate other customers on to that flight, is not going to be a winner. Trust me.
We do know that the whole air taxi market concept was based on Vern’s promise of a direct operating cost of $0.52 per mile. (not $0.52 per passenger mile, but $0.52 per aircraft mile). The idea was, if air taxi companies could make 50% gross margin, and charge $1 per mile, there would be unlimited demand for air taxi service and huge profits. And you know what? They would have been right!
However, those projected costs are history. It is looking a lot more likely that air taxi services are going to need to charge closer to $6 per aircraft mile to make the profit needed for a sustainable business. This translates to much lower demand.
We do know that the Eclipse air taxi order book does not include a firm commitment to buy more than a few hundreds of aircraft. The rest are options, with very little deposit money backing them. The fact is, if the customers aren’t delighted, and the financiers aren’t willing to put up $4B (2,000 orders times $2M per airplane) to finance the air taxi companies, those options are going to be worthless paper to Eclipse.
So what does that mean?
Anyone who is building a business plan that requires the establishment of a large, high growth air taxi market for success, is building a house of cards.
fred, et al,
A word of explanation in defense of New Mexico for your consideration:
New Mexico is an ancient land and society . . . easy “prey” for new schemes. The old customs do not change quickly . . . even now, many of the ways have barely entered the twentieth century (let alone the “twenty-first”). Good people will honor the ancient traditions . . . and treat the locals with respect. But all too often, others will take unfair advantage of the naivete of the society, “using” the local people, and the “not-so-good-locals” for selfish gains. You can fill in all the blanks.
Almost all of the characters in this scenario are outsiders, including our governor, using his “Hispanic heritage” as a ploy. (‘Ever hear of Bill Richardson taking a ride in the little jet? . . . Hardly! Interesting “his” trust in something in which he invested countless tax money to promote.) And yes, even the “gadfly” is not a native . . . although I’ve lived here for over half of my life (a native of “Southern California”).
The Spanish found “easy pickings” a few centuries ago . . . and others discovered “easy pickings” more recently. But in time, the locals have a way of winning the day. The Richardsons’ and Raburns’, looking for personal gain, end up ultimately paying the price . . . but life goes on in the “Land of Enchantment”.
Corruption in New Mexico will continue as long as humans live here . . . but when the books are closed, all accounts will balance . . . to the penney.
gadfly
(“Land of Enchantment” is the state motto . . . and the state bird is the “Road Runner”.)
(fred . . . you is a funny man . . . and even if you are French, me thinks we could be good friends. Sooner or later, we’ll cross paths . . . and enjoy something from California.)
(Re: Bill Richardson . . . reminds me of a senator a few years back that got caught with his hands in the cooky jar . . . Joseph Manuel Montoya, as I recall . . . interesting study in “come uppins’”.)
If I know Dayjet...
- they will try to get some gov't money to do something to remain in business... perhaps just the NexGen thing.
- bold move would be to try to use their political influence to actually obtain some financing to provide a VLJ transportation solution within say Florida - the FDOT has always been supportive... seems like they even promoted Dayjet as a convenient way for lobbyists etc... to get to Tallahassee.
-Maybe they will sell their software as a service - sorta per-seat on demand reservation system for air taxi companies.
- Its all a little far-fetched, IMO.
I just caught this discrepancy on Peg's written testimony to Congress:
Eclipse has analyzed the 93 SDRs submitted by DayJet and has concluded that only one
meets the requirements of an SDR. It is our assessment that DayJet went beyond the
required reporting requirements of significant difficulties and chose to report through the
SDR process additional maintenance events and other issues. We believe DayJet did so
out of an overabundance of caution and a certain amount of inexperience with the SDR
process in an effort to build robust communications with its FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO) in Washington D.C.
Eclipse, as required, has a very robust process in place to review, disposition and act
upon all SDRs. Our SDR review process is performed on an ongoing basis by a crossfunctional
group familiar with the design of the Eclipse 500. This group includes
engineers, aircraft system leads, and Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs).
The group makes individual recommendations for dispositions of the SDRs to the FAA.
To date, 59 of the 94 SDRs have been recommended for closure to the FAA.
http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20080917/Billson.pdf
So if Eclipse's group had already made that determination regarding all 93 of DayJet's SDRs, why has Eclipse only submitted 59 recommendations for closure to the FAA? Also this does bring up the issue of the Eclipse-paid DER...
"Anyone who is building a business plan that requires the establishment of a large, high growth air taxi market for success, is building a house of cards."
I disagree... unless by air taxi, you mean VLJ based per-seat charter service.
There are thousands of planes providing air taxi service accross the US all day every day. Most are props. Almost all are props, for the VLJ mission.
I predict that one day, the economics of "air taxi" will be such that millions more customers can afford it. Same happend with the airlines - it went from a luxury to a commodity.
Problem is, people are no allergic to props for very short trips. Especially not the clients who would squeeze into a tiny VLJ... these guys will easily go by prop.
They are not going to pay $1000 per seat when they can pay $500 for the whole plane.
They will not even save any time using a Dayjet type model...
So jets are for longer trips... props are for shorter trips.
One day, I predict longer haul affordable jet service, and SATSair-type connectivity for short trips, using props.
Its obvious the economics are the biggest driver in this market, if you want to dramatically expand.
E500 fails to meet the market, and will get crushed by the props. This does not mean that one day, someone will devise a network of air taxis, for real jet trips.
IMO
"If [DayJet] is going to cease operations, they really need to tell us that," said Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman in Washington. "It is incumbent on them to tell us they are stopping flying."
Dorr said a DayJet representative called the FAA's flight standards district office in Washington about noon today. He said he does not know whether there was an exchange of paperwork.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/19/191649/dayjet-will-cease-operations-faa-spokesman-says/
Now here's another article that reveals an interesting tidbit:
On a visit to DayJet in late August, Flight International was told that the company was able to complete all of its daily trips with between three and seven aircraft. DayJet president and CEO Ed Iacobucci said at the time that he was seeking additional financing, but that the company had enough cash to operate for the remainder of the year. Iacobucci said 28 aircraft had represented “close to the theoretical break-even point” for the operation, though 30-35 aircraft was the number he said he used when speaking with investors.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/19/316273/faa-dayjet-parks-fleet.html
E500 fails to meet the market, and will get crushed by the props. This does not mean that one day, someone will devise a network of air taxis, for real jet trips.
I think the key phrase used in what was said was "high growth." It will probably happen, but incrimentally. Ed acted like everyone else was in the Stone Age compared to him and as such there was a hidden market for hundreds and hundreds of air taxis run by just DayJet. The EA500 (along with DayJet's ASTRO) could at best be called evolutionary rather than revolutionary, but both Ed and Vern treated their markets like revolutions when at best they were evolutions. There are already lots of [prop] air taxis and when the conditions are right there will be lots of jet air taxis, but just as it took prop decades to develop, so to applies to jet air taxis.
DayJet's website makes no mention that their aircraft are all parked.
They are still collecting $99 membership fees.
They are still quoting prices.
$1279 one way from BCT to JAX if you want to arrive in time for a 9AM meeting.
The last press release on the site states that they have just opened new DayPorts in Orlando & St. Pete.
DayJet's website makes no mention that their aircraft are all parked.
They are still collecting $99 membership fees.
They are still quoting prices.
$1279 one way from BCT to JAX if you want to arrive in time for a 9AM meeting.
I would hope for their customers' sake that everyone who booked a flight receives immediate notification that their flight has been cancelled and that the website doesn't allow people to book new flights. It would be a shame if you were expected at a business meeting and had booked your flight only to find out the morning of your meeting that your flight had been cancelled.
I haven't read it yet, but wanted to post it first:
DayJet Discontinues Passenger Operations
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080919005875&newsLang=en
NOW DayJet is criticizing Eclipse:
The company’s operations have also suffered as a result of Eclipse Aviation’s failure to install missing equipment or functionality or repair agreed technical discrepancies in accordance with the terms of DayJet’s aircraft purchase contract.
Also Ed is no longer CEO:
Iacobucci has stepped down as DayJet President and CEO but continues to serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors. John Staten has been named interim CEO with responsibility for managing the affairs of the company during the next phase of operations. Staten has served as DayJet CFO and Senior Vice President of Operations for the past six years.
Carl Hiaasen
I happen to be reading "Sick Puppy" by Carl right now and think that the DayJet business would be a great start for his next book. He is a columnist for the Miami Herald and invents bizarre crooks, politicians, lobbyists and contractors in a totally corrupt Florida.
ATM's quote:
"- bold move would be to try to use their political influence to actually obtain some financing to provide a VLJ transportation solution within say Florida - the FDOT has always been supportive... seems like they even promoted Dayjet as a convenient way for lobbyists etc... to get to Tallahassee."
and Gad's descriptions of Richardson would be good starting points.
Turboprop_pilot
Is Eclipse lying to the court given ETIRC's ownership of Eclipse?:
Defendant, Eclipse Aviation Corporation, by counsel, and for its Corporate and Business Entity Disclosure Statement, states as follows:
1.
Eclipse Aviation Corporation has no parent corporations.
2.
No publicly-held company or investment fund holds a 10% or more ownership interest in Eclipse Aviation Corporation.
This was filed only last month.
DayJet site now shows that company ceased ops
http://www.dayjet.com/
Dayjet shutdown:
Is the betting pool on Eclipse date for shutting their doors too much shooting fish in a barrel now?
Bet the prices on Controller will float down a little.
Would Ken please contribute his views on how this is OK and won't affect him at all?
Turboprop_pilot
Now this is a VERY INTERESTING part of the FAQ DayJet just put out:
I have a reservation that I’ve already paid for on a future DayJet flight; how can
I get a refund?
Customers who have an unused DayJet ticket that was paid for by credit card should
file a claim with their credit card company. Call your credit card company to find out
what information they require. If you write your credit card company, be sure to state
your account number and enclose a photocopy of your reservation confirmation.
Explain that DayJet has discontinued operations, that you will not receive the
services charged to your account and that you are requesting a credit pursuant to
the Fair Credit Billing Act.
http://www.dayjet.com/FAQ_09192008.pdf
However, if you go to the FTC and see what they say about the Fair Credit Billing Act:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre16.shtm
It sounds like if you do what DayJet says to do that the credit card companies wouldn't credit you the cost of your flight because you didn't send DayJet a certified letter.
AFAIK DayJet isn't in BK, so they've got no reason to tell people to use the FCBA to get a refund, so they should just give refunds themselves. Frankly the "tell your credit card company" thing seems like a delaying tactic at best and outright dishonest at worst (if DayJet is intentionally giving the wrong legal advice on how to apply the FCBA to the cost of DayJet on customer's credit cards).
"DayJet, the pioneering air taxi operator that is Eclipse Aviation's largest customer has suspended operations and apparently vacated its Boca Raton headquarters"
from Avweb...
It is fairly simple to credit someones credit card, or just refund their money to them.
This is pretty nasty treatment...
I wonder how they have enough cash on hand to keep th one e500 flying around with their execs, and they have no money to refund flights. Afterall, how many flights could it really be?
Snippets from Twin & Turbine interview with his majesty, Vern Raburn:
T&T: I’ve heard $1.3 billion for total investment.
VR No…to develop the airplane realistically took around $600 million .. about half of which was wasted on Williams, Avidyne, British Aerospace.. The Williams debacle cost us roughly $60 million
T&T In service the airplane has some issues. We’ve heard the autopilot being hinky
VR: The customers who have the airplane love it. .. S-TEC did a phenomenally stupid thing… every numb-nut engineer thinks …
T&T: And then there’s the matter of the tires and brakes showing inordinate wear.
VR: The biggest problem that we have with this wear and the tire liability issue is stupid pilot tricks…
He then smacks pilots for +10 kts VR “particularly because you don’t have thrust reversers” and than smacks ‘em for slamming on the brakes “…On an airplane like this one, you learn very early on that the brakes come on at the end of the landing roll.” TP: Which will be really long since you do not have thrust reversers, anti lock brakes or any aerodynamic drag except for flaps that don’t always work.
Vern is one sick little puppy- he screws nearly every part of starting and running a business and it is everyone’s fault but his. As Gunner says “Vern, you f*^&ing tool”
Turboprop_pilot
This is not to say that a bus is the best way to travel, but it’s worth a thought.
A long time ago, I could make my way to SFO on Friday afternoon . . . get on a plane . . . travel to Burbank or LAX . . . get a ride back home . . . repeating the process in reverse a couple days later . . . depending on all sorts of connecting travel . . . and return exhausted on Monday morning. It wouldn’t have mattered that it wasn’t a jet . . . traveling “piston” in those days. The killer was connections. I learned to take the “Greyhound” bus, sleep for a few hours, and walk up a couple blocks home in time for breakfast Saturday morning. “Time” does not depend on how fast you go, but how you use it.
On a flight from LAX to SFO on a Convair 340, I watched with curiosity as ten foot blue flames popped out of the “starboard” (right) engine every few seconds . . . knowing that the left engine could get us safely back, chewing through the air with its four blades . . . and almost fell asleep . . . watching “blue backfires” for an hour or so gets rather boring.
Not long after, a few trips across the Pacific . . . to Honolulu or Tokyo, and back . . . the sound of four big P&W’s . . . chewing through the atmosphere is a most comforting sound . . . actually more comforting than even the GE’s pushing a 747, 757, or Lockheed L1011 a third the distance. (The only time I felt concerned was on those “Airbuses” . . . not the most excellent horses in the stall.)
Bottom line here is that “paddles” can get you there , safe and secure . . . and a lot cheaper and faster than some little “semi” hotrod jet. And anyone that does any amount of serious flying is either going to be most comfortable, with a couple twirly things outside the windows . . . or if he really just has to have a turbine (only), then he’ll pay the price for a “real” jet.
No matter how you slice it, this little bird is far short of original promises . . . and you can only “hype” a novelty just so long. Sooner or later, the folks that have the bucks will get a clue . . . count the risk factors against the adrenalin rush and bow out.
gadfly
(Bottom line is that I know far too much about basic aircraft manufacturing and life-cycle testing, to ever place any “loved one” or even myself aboard one of these toys. I’d rather fly cross country in a “J3 Cub” than even take a local joy ride in the E500 . . . “and that’s the truth!”)
TP,
I thought your T&T post was satire... not kidding.
Did he really say these things?
What am I saying....
ATM:
No satire- from VR's mouth- big mouth- really big mouth
T&T, September 2008 starting on page 30
TP
ATM,
"Anyone who is building a business plan that requires the establishment of a large, high growth air-taxi market for success, is building a house of cards."
That quote was referencing the fact that the Eclipse business plan required 2,000 air taxi orders in order for their business model to succeed.
The facts seem to indicate that the air taxi market will support between 4 to 8 E500s per major market. (Based on data from the Northeast, Southeast, & Chicago areas...)
If you are very, very generous and assert that Eclipse could have somehow secured air taxi orders in 25 major markets around the world, that would give you a total E500 air taxi market of perhaps 100 - 200 aircraft.
That is at least an order of magnitude off from what Eclipse needed to succeed.
September 19, 2008
Fresh Hell for Eclipse: A Poster Child for FAA Mismanagement
By Paul Bertorelli
This is a great recap... here's the bottom line:
"...But Eclipse was in a hurry. Vern Raburn and company came out of private industry and had lavish capital to work with. They were on a mission to disrupt technology and had neither the time nor the patience to suffer through some FAA apparatchik digging in over a line of software code or questioning some mechanical design decision. So they exerted pressure from the top and got their way, at least in the short run. Now that these chickens are coming home to roost for Eclipse, the flock is going to find a home at other manufacturers, too.
“This is really going to hurt us. A lot,” one executive told me this week. Raburn may enjoy a reputation as a visionary in some quarters, but where the coal is eked out of the certification seam, he’s seen as anything but, in my view. None of this is a good thing for Eclipse, which is trying to dig itself out of the post-Raburn era to emerge as a profitable company."
"...Unfortunately, that means things don’t get done or they take longer and cost more money. And we all know who eventually pays for that."
Sad
FC, I know, and your numbers seem to be right on... but, this supposes a VLJ or e500 air taxi.
There are 10,000 props providing conventional charter in the US, plus 2,000 jets.
There IS a vibrant personal air travel market - just not a stupid one using the worng plane - a VLJ to do a prop mission.
That's my point - yours, is well taken.
I think there's tremendous room for lowering the cost of private jet service, and providing it to many more people... just not in a VLJ, especially not in an e500.
TP,
Best way to fail is never see your faults, blame everyone else, never see a reason for you to improve, AND BRAG ABOUT IT.
Is this what's really neede to rasie $1.x billion?
Flight Aware show DJ craft still in the sky going home to KGNV from KBCT. I may wait until Sunday for a "final" tally-- to determine the tail number of the "executive" craft.
The current unwinding of DayJet and its implications to the credibility of EAC's order book; the technical insolvency of EAC, and the revelations as a result of Congressional hearings this week concerning certification discrepencies, all point to a mandatory inquiry or subpoena, to:
-Vern Raburn, Founder EAC
-Ed Iaccobucci, Founder and CEO, DayJet
-Roel Pieper, Acting CEO EAC and CEO, ETIRC
-Marion Blakey, former Administrator, FAA; current Head, ATA
-Bobby Sturgell, Former Deputy Admin, FAA and Acting Admin, FAA
-Howard "Red" Polling, Former CEO, Ford Motor Corporation and Director, EAC
-Kent Kresa, Chairman Emeritus, Northrup Grumman and Director, EAC
-Alfred Mann, CEO, MannKind Corporation and Director, EAC
-Alan Young, GM, Vought Aircraft and Director, EAC
-Brian Barents, Former CEO, Galaxy Aerospace and Former Director, EAC
These are the individuals responsible for EAC's past and current actions; the FAA's past and current actions and the future resolution of and responsibility for, this affair.
DB,
please explain, I am at a loss as to why you think an inquiry is needed, now?
Companies fail all the time...
I am not joking... what is your point?
Thanks
I guess the DAYJET grounding has a *lot* more to do with the fleet insurance underwriter reading the accounts of the House hearing. I think the insurance underwriter told DayJet to ground the planes for hire immediately.
This has wider implications than DJ just running out of cash.
x
where do you get this from?
I guess the DAYJET grounding has a *lot* more to do with the fleet insurance underwriter reading the accounts of the House hearing. I think the insurance underwriter told DayJet to ground the planes for hire immediately.
I think AIG is trying to get out of risky stuff like this and having the plane they are insuring be questioned in a congressional hearing didn't help, but I do think financing had a lot to do with it. Maybe Ed only had access to certain funds as long as things were good with his insurance. If DayJet wasn't in serious financial trouble, I don't think DayJet would be such jerks to their customers in not providing refunds.
Blame the DayJet closure on CFIT - Controlled Flight Into Truth.
Warning - Statement to the press from Vern ahead - Total BS Alert - Proceed with caution.
T&T: I’ve heard $1.3 billion for total investment.
VR No…to develop the airplane realistically took around $600 million .. about half of which was wasted on Williams, Avidyne, British Aerospace.. The Williams debacle cost us roughly $60 million
If you are to believe Vern, they spent $300M on Williams, Avidyne and BAe of which $60M was spent on Williams. If you believe that, then Vern would have you believe that Eclipse spent $240M on Avidyne and BAe. What a crock! They signed BAe in 2000 and terminated them in 2002. Not much there in the overall scheme of things. That leaves $220 - 230M for Avidyne? It just doesn't pass any sort of sniff test. It would be very surprising if Eclipse could have spent more than $40 - 50M between both BAe and Avidyne by the time Eclipse received their TC.
Vern's answer should have been -
Yeah... we raised about $1.3B and spent about $600M developing the airplane, another $100M was used to service debt, another $100M was used to develop FSW, another $50M was used to develop Phosterx. The rest was wasted on marketing and lobbying for political favors.
Well, that about wraps it up for the VLJ air taxi model.
Would you invest in a company who’s primary “retailer” just shut-down because there is no market for the product/service you are offering?
At least Eclipse will have some pre-canned wording for their web-page when they close their doors – pretty much just change the logo and they're all set. Save a little cash there I guess.
So, how long before the shipping containers destined for Russia are pulled into the parking lot?
CFIT - Love it.
Post a Comment