Sunday, September 21, 2008

Where was Perry Mason?

The hearing lacked the sharp edge of a Perry Mason trial. The transcript for DOT's Inspector General Calvin Scovel's findings (and presumably the other witnesses as well) was available days in advance of the hearing. This allowed the FAA to be prepared to respond to the charges being leveled at them which in fairness, kept the hearing focused on the issues at hand.

For instance, when Ron Wojnar, the FAA manager who gave the go ahead to grant Eclipse the Production Certificate was asked about the 13 open items at the time of the issuance of the PC, he was able to blunt the inquiry by saying, "well a couple of the items were related to FAA action items, things that the FAA needed to do, like schedule an 18 month quality audit."

But where was Perry Mason to ask, "What about the other 11 items? How many of those were flight safety critical?"

Or John Hickey, Director, FAA Certification, justifying the date set for the Eclipse type certificate on September 30 because an agency goal was to certify a Very Light Jet during that fiscal year.

Where was Perry Mason to ask, "John, at the end of September your agency goal was to have a Very Light Jet certified. Why push the Eclipse program? You already had a Very Light Jet certified, and probably with no IOU's, the Cessna Mustang three weeks earlier."

Both sides made their points largely unchallenged. Nicholas Sabatini, FAA Associate Administrator for Safety under oath could say:

"I believe the Aircraft was properly certified. I believe that the aircraft meets FAA safety standards and I have the results of a Special Certification Review Team to back me up on that."

Of course the Special Review Team did not review the complete certification, they only spot checked certain areas during their 30-day rush to judgment but nobody reminded Sabatini of that fact.

Or when John Hickey testified:

"On the date of September 30, the FAA team made two determinations. They determined the Eclipse 500 had complied to all appropriate regulations and it was in a condition for safe operation."

Nobody asked him about IOU's that even Vern Raburn acknowledged existed at the time of the original TC.

OK, so it wasn't a trial - it was a hearing. Both sides made their case with little or no cross examination and it matters little as to what was said in the hearing. It was only a small window as to the discovery obtained during the months of investigation by Scovel.

Only a few witnesses testified. Scovel talked to many more as did the staff from Oberstar's committee. And what they heard painted a very ugly picture, not only of the FAA's transgressions but of the operation of Eclipse which was not part of the inquiry.

It was little wonder then when the presiding chairman of the subcommittee Congressman Jerry Costello opened the hearing with a serious indictment:

"I am extremely disappointed that the FAA again lacks the ability to oversee its programs, in this case its certification programs. Unfortunately, this hearing will expose an agency that is as interested in promoting aviation and befriending manufacturers as it is in carrying out its number one responsibility of protecting safety and the flying public.

It is inexcusable and unacceptable to ignore rules, regulations and standard practices to accommodate those you have a responsibility to regulate -- when you have people's lives in your hands! This Subcommittee, the Congress and the American people entrust the FAA to uphold the highest level of safety. Unfortunately, the FAA conduct regarding the certification of the EA-500 makes one lose confidence in the agency."

Or Chairman Oberstar's written transcript:

"In the Eclipse case, it appears that when design deficiencies were identified that appeared to be non-compliant with FAA certification requirements, senior FAA management became personally involved, overruled lower-level engineers and inspectors, worked diligently to find "work-arounds," to find "alternative approvals and rationales and techniques." and to accept IOU's for later compliance. In many ways, the certification process in this case was conducted "backwards" from the clear intent and requirements of FAA certification regulations. Instead of certifying on the basis of safety alone, FAA senior management appeared to be highly motivated to find ways to explain why design deficiencies identified by FAA engineers and inspectors as "unsafe" were indeed "flawed" but they were still "acceptable for certification" by simply changing the approval criteria."

Both chairs had heard enough in advance to convince them to hold the hearing and get the evidence into a public forum. The written statements by the Inspector General, DiPaola and the four safety inspectors from Ft Worth contain far more detail and disturbing accusations then what they could state in their brief oral summaries. Fortunately, their written transcripts are on record for everyone to see.

Since there was no trial, there was no verdict. Had there been one, John Hickey would have been terminated on the spot and Nicholas Sabatini certainly sent on to early retirement. But that is not the way Washington works. Congressman Oberstar has been around Washington a few years. He knows where all the levers are, how to pull them and when. As one who controls the FAA's budget his influence is enormous.

Sabatini too, has been around long enough to read the tea leaves and will probably depart on his own. When? Soon, but not too soon to look guilty. Shortly thereafter, Hickey might feel that fatherly arm of Congressman Oberstar around his shoulder and hear Oberstar's soothing words, all while being escorted to the door. "Goodbye John, you did a heck of a job."

A good friend put this together for me, this past week. Clearly, DayJet's effective closure is another matter which merits a full headline, but this is the Eclipse Aviation Critic blog, so I thought the DOT IG hearing merited more focus.

I was otherwise engaged. I have been in very brief contact with some of you, who know why. My father, Brian Price, died suddenly while on holiday in France last Monday morning, the 15th of September. To quote the final paragraph of what I said at his funeral yesterday:-

"Let us all remember Brian in our hearts and our prayers. He was a rare individual, a loving husband, a kind and caring father, an intelligent and skilful lawyer and a great friend to us all.

May he rest in peace."

Shane

625 comments:

1 – 200 of 625   Newer›   Newest»
Dave said...

I'm sorry to hear about your father

Shane Price said...

As you can imagine, the inbox is full with interesting snippets.

One in particular caught my eye. Seems that EAC are working with a well known supplier of avionics on the E400, rather than continuing to evolve AvioNG.

Hmmmm, I thinks, does this mean what I think it does? All those FPJ's out there with various 'flavors' of Avio will be orphaned if EAC goes truly COTS.

The thought that this information might reach the customers for the FPJ is causing EAC sleepless nights, as they appear to be planning to replace AvioNG with this new product they call 'NG23'.

Now, whatever you do, don't tell Peg I know this, as she is likely to be rather annoyed.

Especially since the blog has been calling on EAC to do the right thing, and deploy the...

Garmin G1000, which it will be, in all but name.

Oh, and don't tell IS&S that they are next for the usual EAC 'under the bus' treatment.

Shane

Dave said...

The thought that this information might reach the customers for the FPJ is causing EAC sleepless nights, as they appear to be planning to replace AvioNG with this new product they call 'NG23'.

I remember how Eclipse had a timeline with many customers on Avio NG 1.0 and FIKI being achieved with Avio 1.5. Next up was supposed to be Avio NG 2.0.

Oh, and don't tell IS&S that they are next for the usual EAC 'under the bus' treatment.

Even if that is done where Eclipse gets the de facto G1000, it seems many days late and Eclipse being many dollars short given their present financial condition. Not that I think it would work out, but is Roel working on spending all Eclipse's money to get Eclipse to default, close ABQ and hand over everything to ETIRC and the russian plant? All the Eclipse execs would get their golden parachutes to ETIRC while everyone else in ABQ would get the pink slip. Right now with Eclipse not building many aircraft and aren't doing the needed retrofits, it wouldn't seem to matter what deals they make as they aren't really getting anything done from a practical sense except in how that might help ETIRC once Eclipse goes under.

eclipso said...

Shane,

My deepest condolences to you and your family

Dave said...

Here's an article from earlier this year talking about Avio 1.5 and Avio 1.6:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=3&id=1393

Here it is from earlier this month Eclipse saying they're really close to EASA certification and all they have to do is fix a bug with Avio 1.5:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/09/17/316115/eclipse-european-certification-hangs-on-interference-fix.html

Here's a blog thread from last year talking about the various Avio versions:
http://eclipseaviationcritic.blogspot.com/2007/11/dear-customer-as-we-near-this-weeks.html

Whatever Eclipse does, it should be interesting to see what new chaos they create.

MetalGuy said...

WHAT?? Throw IS&S under the bus. That would be absurd. No way.

It truly sounds like the E500 is now fully obsolete and they are using the companies infrastructure and sub-set of components to build a not-quite-so-revolutionary E400.

Apparently after having gone through it once, developing their own custom avionics package does not sound like such a hot idea anymore. Sorry IS&S, sounds like you are out. Hope you can make your money back on those handful of units yet to be shipped.

By massively scaling back the E500 production, the NEW IMPROVED business model can be entirely focused on the E400. This allows an excuse for the massive fund-raising exercise. It’s probably nearly impossible to justify sinking ANY additional funds into the E500 – it will never return a dime given how botched the execution has been.
If I were an investor, I would be very very worried about two things:

1) Time to market. Eclipse has used their one political card very early in their business cycle. Colonoscopy will be the new working relationship between Eclipse and the FAA. I can see the E400 stuck in the certification cycle for years and years and years.

2) The cash burning behavior that Vern engrained in the company. Once this behavior is embedded in the fabric of the company, it is very hard to reverse. Eclipse never worked in the “scrappy” startup mode, and I don’t believe they ever will be able to do so.


If true, the E400 will be another massive failure, which I’m sure will be due entirely to the “current global financial crisis” and nothing to do with the failures of Vern or Eclipse.

Dave said...

By massively scaling back the E500 production, the NEW IMPROVED business model can be entirely focused on the E400. This allows an excuse for the massive fund-raising exercise. It’s probably nearly impossible to justify sinking ANY additional funds into the E500

The thing is that the price of the Eclipse 400 was based on the cost savings of using parts for the Eclipse 500:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/09/224477/eclipse-nears-triple-digit-orders-for-eclipse-400-personal.html
However, the plans for the Eclipse 400 was that it was to build the way Eclipses in Russia are going to be built ("kit type"). If Eclipse scales back the Eclipse 500, that means price increases would be on the way for the Eclipse 400 right off the bat (where have we seen that before?). Eclipse tossing the FPJ for the Frankenjet doesn't really accomplish anything, but rather creates more problems and defeats the cost benefits that were supposed to be so good about the Frankenjet.

20yearmechanic said...

I am sorry to hear of your loss Shane, I too lost my Dad this year and it makes you feel all alone at times. Like you Shane, I credit my father for making me the man that I am today. Most here on the blog can recognize that you are a first class individual with allot of integrity and love for those around you. I trust that your Father as well as your Mum played a roll in that.

God Bless you and your family Shane.

20YM

airsafetyman said...

Very sorry to hear of you losing your father.

Dave Ivedorne said...

Shane,

Please accept my condolences on the loss of your father. Rough week, indeed.

DI

fred said...

Monsieur Shane , je me permets de vous présenter mes plus sincères condoléances .

il n'y a pas grand chose que l'on puisse dire à la perte d'un être cher ... juste se rappeler des bons moments ensemble !

fred said...

airtaxi :
(sorry a little post from previous thread !)

the inflation is Russia is multiform !
a real nightmare to be calculated , as still lots of russkis don't pay for Gaz , electricty , telephone , heating , etc...

so on the same standard than western countries , the inflation would be about what you stated , depending on location (Moscow real-estate became absolutely ridiculous in the last few years ...my flat there is worth millions now , i bought it for a handful of cash , even if it had lots of renovation , it is still totally ridiculous !!!)

don't forget as well that wages are constantly reevaluated , i think that last year average earning went up in excess of 40% in Moscow

so it is quite of a nightmare to calculate rate of inflation ...
what i gave was the "official " rate , even if it doesn't really mean anything , you've got to have some basis to work on ...

Dave Ivedorne said...

An interesting passage from The Tampa Tribune's "Sun Sets On DayJet":

If DayJet is "going to cease operations, they really need to tell us that," Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Les Dorr said earlier Friday. "It is incumbent on them to tell us they are stopping flying."

Dorr said a DayJet representative called the FAA in Washington about noon Friday. He said he did not know whether there was an exchange of paperwork.

"Typically, if they are going to close their doors, they surrender their air carrier certificate," Dorr said.


Surrender your funds at the first window,
DI

x said...

Shane,
Please accept my condolences on the recent, sudden loss of your father. In empathy, I also experienced my father's passing recently, it does hurt and is a loss.

airtaximan said...

I am bringin this forward from the previous post - inside scoop is always worth reading...

ExperiencedAviationProfessional said...
Well,

Since the August mass bootings of employees, the dust has mostly settled, here in KABQ. Someone recently asked about the current state of EAC, so I’ll pass along a few observations, and a few questions...

The firings were a bit stressful for the blindly faithful. After cleaning out her office, one distraught middle manager drove off, leaving her two grocery bags of personal belongings sitting in the parking lot. Another, a long time EAC employee, who took large amounts of Eclipse stock in lieu of salary, was walking around looking pretty shell-shocked. I know he was wondering how he will explain to his teenage daughter that her college fund is now worthless. Many newly-fired folks were asking around about jobs, but there are few local aviation opportunities for the guys who performed basic assembly work. Also, there appears to be a stigma against hiring Eclipse employees, at least in the minds of a few local aviation managers. Vern’s comment that hiring “experienced aviation professionals” was a mistake, seems to have made quite an impact. Having EAC on your managerial resume is probably a career limiting factor today.

Clark-Carr Loop is slowly returning back to its pre-EAC days. Dozens of open parking spaces, whereas a month ago, the nearest open space was often 1/4 mile away. So, how many EAC employees in ABQ? About two weeks ago, a three day count averaged 21 cars in front of the main assembly and paint buildings. I’d guess at least five were security/janitorial folks. The service center averaged 12 cars. The main headquarters building averaged 101 vehicles. I seriously doubt there are more than 200 EAC people in Albuquerque today. I find it hard to believe there are1100 people still working for EAC.


KABQ is awash with E500s. Most available hangar space is stuffed with them, and usually 8-10 are parked behind the paint building. Some are looking for buyers, some are awaiting maintenance at a service center barely bigger than your local pharmacy, others are awaiting fixes at EAC’s expense. The few dozen aircraft sitting outside got hammered pretty good by a hailstorm a while ago. Time for new control surfaces, plus sanding, bondo and repaint the aircraft. Ouch! This is one company that can’t catch a break.


None of the local aviation folks I socialize with, were surprised by the Eclipse implosion, and they do NOT read this blog. EAC was never really taken seriously to begin with. The endless string of design failures made them a bit of a joke. Despite the NDAs, people talked. Most local KABQ folks knew the engines self-destructed on the first flight, within 24 hrs of the landing. And when puzzled EAC folks asked our experienced aviation professionals for help on failed nosewheels, toasted engines and cracked windshields, most of us just rolled our eyes and walked away. Today, a casual glance at a nearby E500 shows a large number of #6 mechanical rivets on the empennage, and that .050" thick paint is probably covering more than a few structural “oops”. I hope those #6s aren’t oversized and don’t fret, because the next bigger fastener is a 1/4" bolt, and there probably isn’t sufficient edge distance. Besides, all those bolt heads sticking out would really cement the nickname “frankenjet”. It is interesting that three different E500s have visibly different construction techniques on their empennage. A wide variety of solid rivets, blind rivets, and Hi-Lock fasteners.


I feel a bit sorry for the early buyers. Two owners derisively refer to their aircraft as Edsels, and another calls his a Corvair, because of the brakes. However, the guys who bought in the past year, well, these guys are total idiots. I have a hard time keeping a straight face when they start talking about their new 500 or 400. I am sooooo tempted to offer them Arizona beachfront property. How do people this stupid, manage to acquire funds to purchase a personal jet?


Our troubled neighbor tried to outsource some work a while ago. But the proposal’s terms merely garnered a lot of heavy laughter. It was sent round the manager’s circuit, for entertainment value. I’ll bet there is a company motto at headquarters that says “SCREW EVERYONE, as HARD as possible, as LONG as possible”. Managers from a business failure as monumental as EAC, should not attempt to tell decades-old successful businesses, how to make a buck. The arrogance is still overwhelming.


Who is going to maintain these aircraft? Owners are asking around. I know of a few shops that are politely steering clear of them (sorry, we’re just too busy). Anyone want the liability of having your company name in the logbooks of a partially completed, unproven jet with known design flaws? If any E500 owner thinks an FBO will work on his aircraft and bill EAC for warranty work, they probably need to check themselves into rehab.

Why would any FBO shell out 10s of thousands of dollars for training and tools, just to service a few aircraft, for maybe 1-2 years? Eclipse still wants $6,000.00 for the one week training seminar. That’s 2-3 times more expensive than comparable Beech/Cessna schools. Plus, they want $16,000 for a maintenance laptop that probably cost them $800.

Is Eclipse still pushing that nonsense about voiding the warranty if a non-EAC “certified” mechanic touches the aircraft? Blow a tire in BFE and the nearest “certified” mech is 1000 miles away? I know how that problem will get solved. Maybe the E500 flyaway kit should include rubber patches, glue, and a bicycle pump, or perhaps strap a mechanic and two spare wheel/tire assemblies into the passenger seats.


I won’t be surprised to see a few E500 airframes sitting down at the junkyards on Broadway Blvd, next to the mockup of the Century jet. I wonder if some owners are going to scrap their forever AOG’d aircraft to get some $$ out of it. Maybe sell components off them to EAC or other owners (for astronomical prices I’ll wager). EAC is probably running out of parts as well as suppliers by now. Someone should really investigate to see if the total value of low-time salable parts is close to the purchase price of the early jets. An owner might be able to get most of his money out of his investment.


Here’s a question about the possible Russian factory. Aren’t those E500 engines still restricted in their use, as highly controlled military technology? EAC, but mostly Pratt, made a huge scene a few years ago, saying they were usable in cruise missiles and could not be exported, all data was strictly controlled, and anyone allowing the technology to fall into Russian/Chinese hands would be punished severely by the federal govt.

Oh, and a loooooong-time, currently-employed, senior EAC employee just stopped by, looking for a job. He believes another mass booting of employees is coming soon.

September 21, 2008 12:04 AM

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Shane,

Please accept my deepest condolences for your loss. You and your family will be in my prayers.

Dave Ivedorne said...

Ed's mantra about the business model refuses to die:

Even as the company discontinued operations Friday, Iacobucci asserted the company had "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt" that DayJet's business model "works."

Let's just lay that baby to rest. DayJet burned through somewhere between $60 and $200 million in the past year or so. They flew 9000 flight segments totaling over a million miles - let's just say 1.2 million miles, for the sake of argument.

At the low end, that's $50 per mile, and at the high end over $160/mile. They were charging between $2 and $8 per mile? Nice business model - pity the Global Financial Markets didn't stick around long enough to dump more cash into that pretty bonfire...

Would you like marshmallows for that?
DI

Dave Ivedorne said...

For those travellers directly affected by DayJet's shutdown, Jerry Chandler at Cheapflights offers this advice:

The cardinal rule in booking travel is always pay with a credit card. If you booked a DayJet flight with plastic, file a claim with your credit card company. Be sure to give them a photocopy of your reservation confirmation, tell them the carrier has stopped flying, and that you won't be getting the services charged to your account. If there are any problems, tell the credit card company that you are requesting a credit pursuant to the Fair Credit Billing Act.

Paper or plastic?
DI

airtaximan said...

A long time ago, this blog basically said:

1- the e400 was designed to try to replace the e500... becasue the e500 was such a mess, and did not sell enough to justify the price. Every e500 represented a per unit loss, and EAC needed to get out from under these economics. If enough people switched to the e400, they could do away with the e500.

2- EAC would sell the e400 based on low price and commonality, but with only around 100 sold, almost ALL to previous e500 position-holders, this attempt to save the company with a new vibrant product, FAILED. It just cannibalized the E500... not enough to cancel the e500. Also, many, many people have asked for refunds based on EAC raising the price of the e500 to $2.15M, when the began offering the e400.

3- shutting down the e500, and just offering the e400, could be better if done in some far off land - with fresh capital for a factory, a good "Story" for low cost labor, and the legacy investments/debt/equity/retrofits/avionics debacle/fiki/support liabilities associated with the e500, flushed. I think Roel can try to do this with his license agreement, in a low friction transaction/transition ... except for the apparent conflict of interest.

So especially with the last nail in the Dayjet coffin, the e500 is DOA.

I think the skids are greased for a move to Russia - I know Fred, its BS, but shutting down the e500 is alomst a forgone conclusion, at this point - and IF they want to continue in business... they will have to find another "reason" to raise money...

PS. I think the e400 is DOA as well - compared with the other offerings from the other companies, this plane will not do well. Also, it will be later, and it will be priced once again in no man's land... not cheap enough to make a real difference, and not better than the competition in any big way. Its not like you can do a lot more with this plane, than the other offerings at around the same ballpark price. At this end of the market, saving a few hundred thousand will not drive huge demand -

I just cannot see what they will do - especially give the brand which now stands for:
- safety is secondary at best
- we cut corners wherever possible
- we do not live up to our promises, not by a long shot
- we cannot design a plane with lasting value
- we will gladly spend your money first and worry about delivering something to you later, if you are lucky
- we will be dishonest with you about everything that matters: quality, schedule, price, functionality, performance, training, suppliers, the FAA, etc...

So who in their right mind would ever consider buying something from these people?

airtaximan said...

Dave:

intersting little predicament: Dayjet does not confirm until the night before... and they have not officially shut down forever... so what does a credit card company say when you say: I booked, provided a credit card, and I am supposed to fly in a month?

It would be easier if Dayjet would process refunds... why they don't have someone do this, is beyond me - it would take one persona day to process hundreds and hundreds of these, no problem...

airtaximan said...

DI,

I like your calc better than mine... from the previous string... BUT,

I would try to look at the per-flight economics, because your numbers include a lot of development costs, and perhaps one time non-recurring expenses.

I like to think about it very simply.

They flew 1 million miles. Some non revenue - say 25% which is low. So they flew 750,000 revenue miles.

At best they had 1.5 passengers paying probably $3 each per mile. Thats $4.50 per mile, per plane, and 750,000 total revenue miles. That's $3,375,000 in gross revenue from say 20 planes (average for one year where they ended up with 28 planes in the fleet). That's $168,000 in GROSS income per plane per annum.

GROSS INCOME. No pilots, no debt service, no maintenance, no fuel, no insurance, no G&A, no marketing, no rent, no etc... GROSS.

-the debt service alone on these planes is around $120,000 per year...

Another metric is hours -
750,000 miles /200 MPH block = 3750 / 20 planes - 187.5 hours per plane per year.

If they could do it with 10 planes that's 375 hours per YEAR per plane for 10 planes.

I am sorry, but I fail to see what "worked" in this model.

Someone check my simple math, but it looks like a complete failure.

I would like to see the models/systems they developed for $20M over 5 years, becasue there's probably a lot of "lessons to be learned" in them there computers.

Dave said...

Anyone want to speculate the cost of the Frankenjet if the FPJ either ceases to be manufactured or is cut down to around 50 per year?

We know the $1.35M price is based on Eclipse also manufacturing the FPJ for a breakeven at $2.15M, which we know now isn't happening, so under the current breakeven production rates versus the forecast, we know that Eclipse would lose money (or at least not do as well) with the current Frankenjet price.

Now if Eclipse basically scraps the FPJ, that would only further put pricing preasure on the Frankenjet. Looking at what has happened with the pricing of the FPJ where it has nearly tripled from its original price and Eclipse is still losing money on each one, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the Frankenjet to significantly go up in price from the current $1.35M. Just imagine Eclipse sometime in the future setting the new price of the Frankenjet to right around the current price of the FPJ.

I expect that Roel is figuring out how he can screw people over who have worked with Eclipse and then take everything over with ETIRC in Russia, but despite this, I think it will be a big failure.

airtaximan said...

Dave:

It was a business plan premise that you could get economies of scale, never before seen in GA, IF EAC could sell enough planes.

They needed a real shift value - all they did was forward price.

The plane is a failure, from a value and economics standpoint.

Its at best an academic project, where most of its goals have been missed, all of the technology has failed to materialize any benefits.

The market has determined that EAC lacks the talent, vision and competency to design and develop products which can be sold at a profit.

Including, for the reasons you cite, the E400.

** aviation is a funny industry - its been around a fairly long time (compared to tech), and the reality is, first to market is almost never sustainable - and I bet, that's what Vern was banking on. Funny thing, the slow moving established companies ate his lunch. His product was garbage, and they planned to compete with it, as if it was going to be successful. Imagine how EAC competes now?

The e400 will fail, just as you predict. The basis for EAC being in business is not there... forward pricing a product to sell a lot, and then losing money on every delivery is not even a business.

julius said...

Shane,


Please accept my condolences on the recent loss of your father.

Dave Ivedorne said...

My nomination for an American Comedy Award goes to Ed Iacobucci for this absolute howler:

"In a different economic time, we'd be rockin' and rollin' right now,"

Would you like some Kool-aid with that?
DI

Dave said...

Thinking about this further I think Roel would drop the FPJ for the Frankenjet for the same reason that Vern did the Frankenjet in the first place...with all the years and dollars that would be spent on certification, it would give an excuse to continue to lose money for years to come. Just as how Vern was trying to sucker the board into giving him an excuse for not breaking even, now that Roel is CEO and looking for money, he'd be doing the same thing to give investors an excuse for Eclipse to continue to lose money. However, if this is Roel's plan, it is DOA regardless of how much Roel tries to screw over current depositors of suppliers. It is amazing how much Roel laughs at them...like gosh, going sailing for a week when his company is on the brink of BK! Skipping out on the hearings when the company's FAA certification is going before congress! Yet apparently people still make excuses for him.

fred said...

dave :

#I expect that Roel is figuring out how he can screw people over who have worked with Eclipse and then take everything over with ETIRC in Russia, but despite this, I think it will be a big failure.#

have you tried to screw a moujik lately ?

Roel is gonna love their reaction ! ;-))

Dave Ivedorne said...

ATM -

It's true that I ignore development & startup costs, but it's also worthwhile to look at overall results. Ed could've taken $200 million and hired a G550 for a million miles, and had lots of cash to spare.

Likewise, for the $1 billion wasted on Eclipse, Vern could have simply ordered 250 Mustangs and he'd have more than a quarter billion left to play with. Considering that it looks like Roel will require another $300 million to get through the next 100 airframes, the Cessn-omics hold up pretty well.

Would you like to try our Fantasy Feast?
DI

fred said...

airtaxi :

YES , for me Russia is only a red rag agitated in front of the US bull type of reaction !

as for your math , DI or you are correct !

they (DJ) had no plan of making any income from activity ...!

so WTF they did it ?

screw!

Deep Blue said...

Dayjet:

Dayjet Services LLC is the entity that ceased operations; there are other "Dayjet" entities (technology for example) and assets/IP that EI is attempting to capitalize. Most of the losses are contained in DS LLC so a BK could be contained there, most likely.

EAC:

As for the description made by a blogger concerning the number of aircraft sitting in ABQ and especially,his observations concerning rivets, etc, I am again troubled by those observations and the statements made to me from EAC management concerning sub-standard fasterns/rivets; I suspect the E500airframe has a very limited life and at any rate, I could not imagine trusting the strucutral integrity at high altitude/pressurized, let alone in mod/severe turb.

Dave said...

I suspect the E500airframe has a very limited life and at any rate, I could not imagine trusting the strucutral integrity at high altitude/pressurized, let alone in mod/severe turb.

A lot of people jumped on me at the time because Stan had done this type of work for others, but Eclipse has shown that they'll abuse the trust given them by having 3rd parties do FAA certification:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=1&id=905

Eclipse has gone on to make hay about the static testing:
The Eclipse 500 exceeded FAA requirements during FAA Static Testing in 2005. A distributed load was applied to the airframe to validate that the aircraft meets the FAA requirements for structural integrity. Eclipse 500 static tests included limit loads, which are the highest loads the aircraft would ever expect to experience, as well as ultimate loads, which represent 1.5 times the limit loads. The airframe accomplished all test points on the first pass, testament to the structural integrity of the airframe.
http://eclipsefacts.com/

airtaximan said...

I'd bet the 2005 variant conforms little to what has been shipped.

This is a joke, right?

Dave Ivedorne said...

In "Night Falls for DayJet", Alec Rosekrans at Halogen Guides asks the musical question:
Are we witnessing the death of the VLJ dream? Sound off in the comments and share your opinion.

Would you like to Super Size it?
DI

airtaximan said...

I wonder why the could not morph the business into something workable?

- this makes me think that it was so way off, that nothing could have saved them.

they went to per plane, they multiplied the number of destinations a lot, they started weekends...

They could have changed equipment... IF that was the problem.

Perhaps, they really just couldn't get passed the computer system, and THIS was not providing any real advantages?

Anyone?

baron95 said...

Shane, I'm sorry to hear about your father passing, but glad you had a chance to celebrate his life with your famiy and loved ones.

I'll sincerelly keep good thoughts for you and your family.

forward-observer said...

Shane-

My sympathies upon you on your loss.

FO.

forward-observer said...

Read the detailed testimony of Ford Lauer.

If I read this correctly, it appears Mr. Wojnar ordered a 21.2 (falseficaiton of government records) violation investigation terminated.

That, my friends, is a big deal.

One cannot order a suboridinate FAA Inspector to intentionally close out an investigation, without Legal buying into it. In short- that is not within the legal authority of the FAA Senior Executive (Mr. Hickey), nor the legal authority of Mr. Wojnar.

This one needs further investigation by law enforcement personnel:

A senior FAA Executive, discussion with a sent-in program manager- to have the two of them decide to order the case closed?

Ordering a regulatory invertigation closed- is an attemped to impede a duly authorized regulatory safety officer in the performance of his duties.

That's a six year felony. It's called consipircy to impede an officer.

See 18 USC section 372.

eclipse_deep_throat said...

Shane,

My deepest condolances regarding your loss. The only parent that I was close to, my mum, died from lung cancer in 2004. No matter the circumstances, it is always hard....

E.D.T.

Shadow said...

Shane, I'd like to express my sympathies, too.

airtaximan said...

Everyone should click on the link above, and read the detailed testimony of For Lauer.

It will make you sick.

People will go to jail... and if anyone is flying these planes, they should be aware of how EAC conducted themselves, the quality and compaliance failures ( a hundred on delivery 2), and the cover up.

Total disregard for compliance, and quality/safety...

Yes folks, looks to me like EAC and higher ups at the FAA have been involved in a cover up.

It pretty clear. Its very sickening.

Dave said...

Total disregard for compliance, and quality/safety...

How can Mike Press live with himself? I wonder if he'll show unsuspecting customers these reports...

just zis guy, ya know? said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
baron95 said...

If you allow me a side comment...

A couple of weeks back some of you took exception when I compared Roel Pieper/Eclipse inflated projections with Niall Olver/Grob Aerospace.

As proof that Grob was no where as messed up by Olver's takeover investment and inflated projections, you pointed to their contracts with Bombardier to build Lear 85 bits...

Well, here is the rest of the story...

Bombardier terminates Learjet 85 deal with insolvent Grob

Similarly to Vern/Pieper, Olver tried to do a financial/volume play with a previously stately nich family company. Results were predictable.

airtaximan said...

Baron,

You are wrong on this buddy - its a $7-8M USD 8 passenger light jet, that they claim sold around 75 units...

How in heavens sake is this anywhere comparable to a guy who:
- claimed to be selling a $1.2M jet
- claimed all kinds of fancy new avionics, manufacturing and engine tech
- claimed to have 2700 orders

???

Sorry, one failure does not equal the other.

Funny thing is, EAC is still not closed down, and Grob is under insolvency - BUT, I bet in 5 years from now, Grob is delivering planes, and EAC is not.

Anyone who knows the characters, companies, histories will agree...

There's a high probability Grob will make it, and a high probability EAC won't.

PS. there's probably a lot more to the Bombardier story that you can know - Olver's Execujet is the major worldwide distributor for Bombardier. I just think they bit off more than they could chew, for now.

If the material technology is being transferred to Bombardier, this is a big deal... a nice relationship between the companies, and a practical way to limit Lear schedule risk... something that benefits both companies.

Grob needs to remain focused on certifying their plane.

Without an Eclipse-FAA-like cover up, its not that easy!

;)

Dave Ivedorne said...

Everyone should click on the link above, and read the detailed testimony of Ford Lauer.

If you are using an older version of Acrobat Reader, the documents will give an error message ( I was on version 5, and they're currently up to ver. 9 - DON'T I EVER DO UPDATES??? ). Save them anyway, and download a more recent version of Acrobat to read them.

( looks at the floor and whistles )

I think I'll go check and make sure all my sectionals are current now...

DI

Dave said...

Here's something about Linear Air:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/BUSINESS/309219955/-1/business

WhyTech said...

"It pretty clear. Its very sickening."

The stunning revelations just keep on coming! The fat lady is singing her heart out.

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

"I think I'll go check and make sure all my sectionals are current now..."

My guess would be that the newest one is dated 1997. Perhaps too much time flipping burgers.

airtaximan said...

Amazing how these articles about air taxi services (Dayjet-RIP, or Linear) compare the VLJs to jets... as opposed to props.

If these guys knew what they were writing about, they would say Linera charges $1800 per hour, or $5000 round trip, which compares to athe same trip ina similarly apppointd prop plane for less than half.

I like the Nashua airport guy who reports a few air taxi trips PER MONTH.

Carry on.

Dave said...

The dangers of blown tires:
http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/09/21/2008-09-21_blown_tire_may_have_caused_crash_that_ki.html

chickasaw said...

Shane,

My prayers are with you and your family.

mountainhigh said...

Shane, my condolences to you and your family. A sudden loss is very difficult. I lost my father many years ago, suddenly.

Dave Ivedorne said...

"I think I'll go check and make sure all my sectionals are current now..."

My guess would be that the newest one is dated 1997.


Hahaha, Whytech! Let's see about that...
Sectional A - current,
Sectional B - current,
Sectional C - current,
Sectional D - oops! Well, at least the decade is right,
Terminal Control Area E - Hmmm. I should probably just burn that one before anybody finds out...

Perhaps too much time flipping burgers.

Yah, right - I should be so lucky...
Despite my mastery of computer science and physics, they haven't let me near the grill ever since I burned my knuckles in the bun steamer incident. Nosiree, it's the high-rolling world of customer fulfillment for me - provided, of course, that I remember which end of the paper hat is supposed to go up.

Would you like to try our Cone of Silence?
DI

airsafetyman said...

The Linear web site does not mention "Eclipse" by name or the "EA-500" aircraft designation. No clue as to what aircraft you are chartering. Like picking up your rental car at Hertz and finding out that it is a 1972 Ford Pinto. Sad.

Dave Ivedorne said...

Looks like somebody worked this weekend:

"ATLANTA, Sep 21, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Air Taxi Association (ATXA) companies announced full support to DayJet customers and communities following DayJet's discontinuation of passenger operations. SATSair, ImagineAir, and North American Jet provide on-demand air transportation to all 60 of the affected communities. The carriers feature a combined fleet of over 30 Cirrus SR-22 and Eclipse 500 aircraft and work alongside a number of additional Air Taxi Association companies across the United States..."

Niner Zulu said...

Shane,
My condolences on the loss of your father. You and your family will be in our thoughts and in our prayers.
9Z

Dave Ivedorne said...

Mark Fava of the Airtaxilaw blog briefly chronicles DayJet's Full Stop

His conclusion?

I am not sure if the economy and "credit crisis" can get much worse, but I suspect it will and the freeze in the investment market surely hurts. Other air taxi operations here and abroad will cease. Some will survive. And others will enter the market this year and next benefiting from the lessons learned of those who did not make it.

Very readable.

Flight Test said...

As a former military pilot and aerospace engineer in both hardware/software for the past 25+ years, I have enjoyed reading this blog. When I was in college, the computer science department (aka software) was a subset to the aerospace engineering department. Software was a tool used by engineers. Today software has become its own kingdom where many “clans” in companies believe that all you have to do is follow a process and the product will pop out. Of course, this doesn’t work. You have to have the right people in the process and the right people to lead the process. If you guys ever get together to build anything, please provide an email to send resumes to.

FlightCenter said...

Shane,

You have my deepest sympathy on the loss of your father.

We will also keep you and your family in our thoughts and prayers.

FC

gadfly said...

Flight Test is correct. With my own long list of successful designs, and using high-end CAD and CAM software, and leading edge CNC equipment, plus many successful patents, I can verify that not a single thing was designed and/or built by a computer . . . they only provided a “fast track” to get my ideas from my own mind into accurate and reliable hardware. Computers can count from zero to one . . . extremely fast, and display my imagination on a monitor . . . and feed those ideas into machines.

Again it must be emphasized that engineers of all stripes must get their hands dirty, with grease under their fingernails . . . and “make chips” (the hot metal type from a lathe or mill . . . or the hot molten spatter from a welding rod, etc.) . . . or know what it’s like to get a couple hundred “jolts” from a power supply. Only then will they begin to understand the theory, and how to put working products into the hands of the customer . . . with or without a computer software program.

Computers are here to stay, but they are no substitute for technical and practical ability. Most of what we call modern technology began with pencil, paper, and a human mind, trained in simple practical manual work.

gadfly

(Want a good place to learn “3D CAD”? . . . pick up a bar of “Ivory” laundry soap, and carve something from a “2D” drawing . . . and get good at it. Then, begin working on your computer. You’ll be amazed with your new understanding of the process.)

agroth said...

Shane,

Sorry to hear about your dad! Thoughts and prayers from here, as well.

Thanks again for all that you do!

fred said...

Mr Gad :

stop spreading your valuable wisdom !

they would not even understand the concept of what you wrote ...

to me , it always looked that EAC was trying to run before even knowing how to walk ...

how "disruptive" ! ;-)

fred said...

an other infos from the Russian front :
(i know Airtaxi , we both believe it is complete BS ... ;-) )

anyone to remember that 2 EA500 was supposed to be exposed at Sochi Economic forum (closed yesterday ...)

it was THE place to be if willing to do anything in Russia in the next few years ...

all regions were represented by (either ) Governors or presidents (in the case of independent republics)

together with all European ambassadors , all major Firms of EU , all majors EU banks dealing in Russia , all Major RU Banks (both investments and dev.)

lots of firms , ranging from airport builders and organizers to poultry products , from diamond mines to hotels builders ...

the whole lot !

unfortunately , Etirc was not among the participant ...
i didn't see the 2 Fpj on exposure .. funny for a firm that want to invest a Billion+ ...

was it because a Square-meter of exhibition was rented 354€ (515$) , so 2 time what the planes would have been taking would have been too expensive ???

julius said...

Fred,

Mahlzeit!

EAC/EIRC are in money conservation mode or money back-to-the-master-mode!

I do not know the mentality of the Russians who have 2+ M$ for bigger toys (not a diamond, Ferrari , but also not a C1j+...)!
If the Sochi Forum intends to be a little serious, is there place for a duct-taped mini jet?

Furthermore winter is coming - when will EAC deliver the first FPJ with FIKI? First let us watch the americans/FAA testing the FPJ in severe winter conditions.
There are other jets... some cheaper Mustangs thanks FM/FM et alteri...
And then at the end of 2009 there will be/should be/may be 50 real,
not duct-taped jets from Ulyanowsk or any other news...

I think the russian bear must not swim!

Julius

fred said...

julius ...

i think i wrote it before ...

with Russians , it is all or nothing !

so in real life , they are quite simple to understand :


they don't have too much money , so it is back to lada-car , eventually a good German car (funny as we are still referenced as "Reliable") and the flat given by the state in past
(it's personally the type i prefer : no fuss , no pretentious stuff)


they have money = Nothing is expensive enough ... where you would think a year or two to buy a 1Ct diamond to your wife ; they go to the shop and ask straight away for the biggest ! What ? it is only 5Cts ? are we in a supermarket or what ? ;-))

the result = if the Fpj could be flown by the son who is 10/12'ish , it would be a very nice toy offered on Christmas ... as for the parents , they would feel being foolishly played getting into one ...! ;-))

off-course , NOT taking in consideration Safety-Issues ...
(the middle-class is still not a big deal of peoples , and most are already trapped between lack of big-money and wish to show-off)

as for OTHER jets ...

one friend told me that the Mustang is very good seller , in Russia ! once again , not because of its own qualities , more because it is NOT for everyone ...

price is not really a matter , it took me about 1 and a half year to have my neighbor to accept the "french" concept that the most expensive bottle of wine is not Always the best ...

but it is more a question Quality/Expectations VS price ...

all of an education ...! ;-))

Formerly known as "Just zis guy, you know?" said...

Grob has always been a toy company owned by a rich guy (family money is from machine tools). The SPn was a bet the company on becoming a real airplane company move made by people who had never done much besides a few little piston trainers and a LOT of one offs and prototypes. There are a lot of nice people there and some good engineers, but it's not surprising to see them go down. Sad, but not surprising.

airtaximan said...

From Avweb:

"In its release, Eclipse did not address allegations by DayJet that its
demise was partly the "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." Eclipse did not respond to AVweb's email request
for comment on that allegation."

Shoe is on other foot...

julius said...

Fred,

yes , I rembered what you posted.

I wasn't sure of

"the result = if the Fpj could be flown by the son who is 10/12'ish , it would be a very nice toy offered on Christmas ... as for the parents , they would feel being foolishly played getting into one ...! ;-))"

I thouhgt: add a little bit and then there is a not duct-taped toy.

But perhaps it's more sexy to fly a more agile, stressy mini jet than a normal Mustang.

Julius

P. S.: After the hearing in Washington polite russian technicians might offer rivets or glue to the FPJ-pilots - just in case of problems ...

WhyTech said...

"provided, of course, that I remember which end of the paper hat is supposed to go up."

Seems to me that this is expecting too much for $7/hour.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Lauer wrote
In late January, Eclipse presented the second production airplane for FAA inspection and airworthiness certification. Eclipse had submitted signed FAA forms containing certifying statements that the airplane had been inspected by Eclipse, was found to be airworthy, conformed to its type certificate, and was in condition for safe operation. The FAA inspector’s inspection of the airplane indicated that Eclipse had neglected to adequately inspect the airplane before making application for an airworthiness certificate,and thus possibly violated FAA regulations by making an apparent false statement on the FAA forms. I consulted with the Rotorcraft Directorate Manufacturing Inspection Office Manager in Fort Worth, and it was determined that an investigation should be initiated for a possible violation of federal regulations. An investigation case was initiated in accordance with FAA policy.

Upon inspection, the FAA inspector found that the airplane pitot static functional test procedure failed; the airplane weight and balance report contained numerous errors; unqualified parts tags found on installed AHORS units; numerous improperly installed HiLok and Huck fasteners; production flight test not signed off in airplane log; and the keyboard for pilot data entry was labeled “EXPERIMENTAL ONLY.” Both flap actuators were found identified as “EXPERIMENTAL ONLY” as well as several other numerous other nonconforming characteristics.


Wonder who is the proud owner of S/N 2 today?

Where is Ken when you need him. You need a true believer to put positive spin on these Testimonies.

fred said...

julius :

#polite russian technicians #

in your phrase , there is a word too much (or very often out of context)

i let decide which one ...! ;-))

(yes , it is not what they have best ....)

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Remember, these are only the non-conformances the FAA inspector found in the limited time he inspected that plane.

What about the systems, wiring, structures which he could no longer see or were not sampled as part of his inspection....

Deep Blue said...

Gadfly:

Your comment about the practice of engineering vs. computing was brilliant. It was one of the best postings you've made, in my view.

My wife and I both read it and applauded. I assume you teach? If not, you should be.

Regards.

fred said...

freedom :
you are being naughty with this "poor" kennyboy ...! ;-))

out of the believers , he is probably the one with the better prospects ...

in S.A. they make very good and beautiful things (toys , ashtray , coins handler , etc...) with recycled aluminium (yes , shane , i put a I at the right place in your honor ...) like in most places in Africa ...

so you see , he has something to do in a few months ...

Dave said...

Ice Blue Air (the foreign depositors who sued Eclipse) have filed a motion for a Partial Summary Judgment and in it they attach lots of documents with communications between Eclipse and IBAL. Also today there's a hearing in the subpoena of Eclipse by Daniel Asher.

Ken Meyer said...

"Where is Ken when you need him?"

Flying :)

Flying at Mmo at FL350

Take a peek. 369 KTAS, getting more than 6.25 statute MPG, in quiet, smooth comfort, above the weather.

A surprising number of people, many of them right here, somehow thought that an "Aha!" moment would come out of the hearing like a Perry Mason show and the plane would wind up grounded. Of course nothing like that transpired. Some people vented, some people sweated, and the Congressmen bellowed. But at the end of the day, all that really happened was two loud Congressmen told the FAA they didn't like how the Eclipse certification was handled, and the FAA said, "That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant."

Meanwhile, those of us lucky enough to fly this nice plane are cruising along fast and happy.

Gotta run; maybe I'll say hello sometime down the road. Until then, blue skies and tailwinds to you all!

Ken

fred said...

#Meanwhile, those of us lucky enough to fly this nice plane are cruising along fast and happy. #

Lucky enough ???

please , give us a valid definition !

smooth comfort ? are you alone ? ;-)

fred said...

julius :

the word too much was : polite !

at the beginning , i was in Moscow , it took me only a very few days to find out :

what are posh and deadly expensive shop ...

what are the standard kind of shop ...

very simple : if they greet you with a POLITE welcome at the entrance (funnily enough it works the same for shop-staff , if your tongue fall on the floor or your eyes pops out from your head just looking at the girl wishing you welcome ...)

expect to pay a real lot !

Afterburner said...

Nice Air Data split in Ken's picture...

Shadow said...

A short poem for our South AfriKen:

Oh, poor Ken Meyer.
Yes, he was a flier,
until that one fateful day
when things went terribly astray.
Rivets popped and his Eclipse came apart
and suddenly his ship became a lawn dart.
He once thought his Eclipse 500 was a dream,
but as it fell down from FL350, oh, did he scream.

fred said...

ken ...

my African brother ...

# "That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant." #

bit strange for me ...

it sound more or less what a certain Rudolph Höss said at the end of war ...

his job was to be the commandant of Konzentrationslager Auschwitz ...

(we had orders , it is not our fault , we made only our best to carry them out ...!)

Shane Price said...

One of our 'working pilots' was let go last week, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who he worked for. Anyway, he sent me this, which I've lightly edited for brevity.

"Long ago I learned that People with Harvard MBA's or others who think that they have the world by the ass, shouldn't be in Aviation. There is no room for ego's. Arrogance and complacency kills, unlike the rest of the business world, aviation requires downright honesty, and constant attention to detail, all of the time.

Any company that stops short of excellence and relies on compromise to function, will not succeed. Disaster prevails when the attitude of mediocrity is abundant.

I have it on good authority, that EAC tried to install parts and equipment that were known to be defective on the aircraft they produce. When these parts were discovered by the acceptance pilots, they were removed and then put on planes that were still on the assembly line. EAC routinely attempted to "Shop for Acceptance Pilots" who would sign the planes off.

This is just a small example of the corrosive culture that still exists at EAC. This is also one of the reasons why Ed asked us to park our entire fleet outside the EAC hangar in Gainesville. Part of what killed us, were the broken promise's that were fed to us by EAC. We needed WX radar to function on each and every plane which was equipped with it. Nobody bothered to certify it, and make it functional. The AvioNG's radar was certified and functional.

This is why EAC shouldn't remain in business, just like the financial institutions that are failing now. Fortunately, nobody has been injured flying an FPJ to date.

I don't think that this plane is ready for public consumption. We never knew what would go wrong next. On most other planes, something would break, and that's it. On the FPJ, one thing breaks, then another, then yet another.

EAC is stupid, not just ignorant. And it should be shut down by the DOT immediately. There is something lurking about in this plane, that will kill someone.

I feel bad for all of the fine people that were under the employ of EAC that tried to make a quality aircraft that we can all be proud of. I hope that the others who tried to "cut and paste", thus compromising quality and safety, will find their places in hell."


Pretty strong medicine, I think you'll agree.

And thanks for dropping in Ken. I just have one little question. Why were you only at FL350?

I thought the FPJ is even more efficient at FL410...

Shane

WhyTech said...

"But at the end of the day, all that really happened was two loud Congressmen told the FAA they didn't like how the Eclipse certification was handled, and the FAA said, "That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant."

Ken would not say shxt if he had a mouthful of it!

Dave said...

Statement 1: The Eclipse 500 was designed for use on “soft fields” and certified tires not designed for hard, paved runways.
Reality 1: The Eclipse 500 was not designed or approved for unpaved fields, nor was that capability ever sought in certification. The tires delivered on the Eclipse 500 are not meeting their promised durability from the supplier and a change in tire type is in FAA certification testing now.


Eclipse however said otherwise:
The Michelin-made radial tires provide more mass, durability, safety and heat resistance than bias tires and will be capable of use on unpaved runways. Only 15 percent of the world's aircraft are currently equipped with radial tires.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/news/news.php?c=1&id=159

Michelin Aircraft Tire Corporation provides radial tires for the Eclipse 500 jet. These radial tires are suitable for use on unimproved runways and provide more mass, durability, safety, and heat resistance than bias tires. They are a standard feature on the Eclipse 500. Currently, only 15 percent of the world’s aircraft are equipped with radial tires.
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/company/about/partners.php

Niner Zulu said...

Ken,

You see what you want to see - Ken & family cruising along 369 kts at FL350 in pressurized comfort.

I see a somewhat different picture. I see Ken in a jet on it's last legs, from a company about ready to go the way of the dodo bird. Just A matter of a few more flight hours before something breaks and the aircraft is AOG, like so many other E500's.

The instrument panel, at least the part that isn't INOP, is already rather dated. Navigating by using a handheld GPS - a bit embarassing - and really only safe in a range from baby-IFR to perfect-VFR conditions.

Your dream = my nightmare!

But hey, welcome back! The faithful are always welcome here, and you can say anything you like without fear of getting subpoenaed, unlike us!

;-)

airtaximan said...

"The tires delivered on the Eclipse 500 are not meeting their promised durability from the supplier and a change in tire type is in FAA certification testing now."

promised durability...

THAT'S WHAT TESTING IS FOR.
What a crock of BS.

So, why continue delivering planes with unsuitable tires?
BECAUSE eac DOES NOT CARE - period, end of discussion.

PS. the whole plane does not meet its promised durability... or functionality.

I'm sure if they could have, they would have tagged the tires INOP... and promised to fix them later via IOU.

Shameful

gadfly said...

Deep Blue

Thank you for you kind words. Teaching is not my “vocation”, but it is something I love to do. Whether thirty students, or just one . . . it has been my pleasure to teach simply for the joy of helping others understand “how to learn”, and “understand” a subject.

Any one can cram facts into their brain . . . but facts have a way of leaking back out. But help someone to understand a subject, and they can always obtain the facts. Understanding grows . . . while facts sometimes get stale.

Here in my office (which is quite large), I have a white board, a couple big tables, chairs, plenty of legal tablets . . . even a Yamaha piano, just for the fun of it. (How many machine shops have a piano?) At times I have taught basic electronics, NC machine programming, and other subjects related to design and manufacturing.

A good student is the one that asks lots of questions, seeking to understand what’s behind the facts. That’s when it gets “fun” for the teacher. The good teacher puts himself in the position of the student . . . attempting to see the thing through the eyes of the student. And the teacher always takes more away than the student.

The motto of the school, where I got my pilot and A&P training is II Timothy 2:15.

gadfly

(There are many intelligent people on this blogsite . . . and they, too, should be taking the time to teach others . . . passing on to another generation their skills, abilities, and understanding.)

airtaximan said...

Please refrain from any remarks regarding Ken's demise - bad KArma...

Ken, you should really not promote this plane anymore - its really bad Karma.

If you want to fly it, OK. If you disregard all the damning safety testimonsy, and the obvious cover up that wan needed to certify this POS plane, OK... that's your decision. Encouraging anyone else to buy or fly this thing is just being a complete A-hole.

sparky said...

Shane,

My deapest sympathies for the passing of your father.

airtaximan said...

Ken takes solice in the following:

"That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant."

So, the FAA failed to admit there was a cover up... this came out in Lauer's testimony... and you quote THAT ars your justification for flying this thing?

Are you insane? If I were you, I would read everyone's testimony, word for word... they basically say you have a non-co0nforming airplane, with many safety issues, many reliability and durability problems, and was passed off by EAC in a manner which promted an intenral investigation for fraudulently falsifying documents.
Someone higher up at the FAA stopped the investigation.

Perhaps you missed this testimony? Perhaps you missed EAC neglecting to do anything regarding 100 non-confomances?

You should stop flying this plane, but even if you don't have the sense to stop... you should not sugar coat the reality of the plane - it was only certified becasue of a lot of pressure to skirt many KNOWN safety and RELIABILIY issues with the plane, and EAC's disregard for quality and conformity.

fred said...

Mr Gad :

#A good student is the one that asks lots of questions, seeking to understand what’s behind the facts. That’s when it gets “fun” for the teacher. The good teacher puts himself in the position of the student . . . attempting to see the thing through the eyes of the student. And the teacher always takes more away than the student.#



PLEASE consider doing something like "Wisdom in a Can" ...

really ... no kidding !

it's really needed in the Today-World ...!

if you would do it , i wouldn't be surprised that in a while , peoples wouldn't say :

He is wise !

but instead : he is gad like !

fred said...

airtaxi :

do not harass too much Kennyboy ...
it takes a lot (sometimes) to acknowledge this :

"i've been done , big time !"

on other subject , if you ask Michelin about tires , they answer with a " we delivered what they asked for ..."

go wonder ...

Joe Patroni said...

".....large number of #6 mechanical rivets...."

For educational purposes to John Q. Flying Public.....a simplified explaination.

Mistakes due happen at the other OEMs (oversize holes, damage during assembly). When this happens, engineering comes over, devises a repair plan, which is then implemented, and the repair bought off by quality control. All documentation for the repair (enginnering plan with it's buy-offs, then the actual repair with it's signoff sheet andbuyoffs) goes into that specific aircraft's production record, which goes into storage with all the other production records, signoffs etc. for that particular airframe.

From my experience, when an oversize fastener needed to be installed, the engineering guys always spec'd out a fastener that was AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL FASTENERS SHEAR AND TENSILE STRENTH AS POSSIBLE. Putting a -6 fastener in place of (say) a -4 rivet concentrates the stresses at the oversize fastener, if it is significantly stronger than the other fasteners.

Other concerns are the ability/clearance to install the fastener properly; you also want to spec a fastener that is locally procurable,and/or not made of unobtanium.

Additionally, you do not want the fastener to be stronger than the material it is securing. The plan is for the fastener to be slightly weaker, so it will shear off when stressed, rather than tearing thru the skin or underlying structure.

Lastly, the WEIGHT of the replacement fastener sometimes comes into play......My personal experience is that it is damn near impossible to balance a flight control that has had too many driven rivets replaced with "pulled" (Cherrymax/Huck) rivets. On the other hand, re-driving a SECOND rivet into a hole in thin material (.020-.025) starts cracks around the hole.

Any bets on whether all of these steps were properly complied with?

Which leads to the another issue with the FPJ......if Eclipse goes Tango Uniform, who is going to step up to the plate and do the engineer dispositions, if your airplane is damaged? If Eclipse customer service engineering is no more, you are looking at locating a DER who:
-Won't be cheap, and

-May be "too busy" to work your project.......much the same as FBOs being "too busy" to deal with FPJs.

I also find it interesting that Eclipse seemed to have the FAA guys on 24 hour call......when we did STCs at my former employer (one of the major OEMs service center), you worked YOUR schedule around when the FAA guy was available......you either had it ready to go when he showed up, or you rescheduled around HIS work schedule. And they NEVER worked nights or weekends without authorization......which means someone in the food chain had to approve their overtime.....if it wasn't approved, they were working for free.

gadfly said...

‘Sorry, fred . . . but it’s already been done . . . by “Eclipse”, no less.

Maybe it was before your time, but it was discussed on the previous critics’ blogsite by many . . . and called the “Can of Beans”. And if you missed it, the “can of beans” was never to be eaten, but to be “sold” . . . and, man, they sure sold it! . . . ‘until someone finally removed the lid . . . and got “wisdom” instantly!

gadfly

(Even our long lost friend, “the goat”, couldn’t stand that sort of wisdom.)

fred said...

Mr Gad :

honestly , to compare you with this "band of looser" was probably the most remote thing in my mind ....

i think you should be in charge of something greater ...

amazing as when i read the quality of peoples here , Vern would have been very inspired to just ask for advices ...

even if he could have pretended after that it was fruit of his own genius , this shameful thing would have never happen ...!!!

Shadow said...

Freedom,

The lucky owner of S/N 002 is DayJet.

eclipso said...

"But at the end of the day, all that really happened was two loud Congressmen told the FAA they didn't like how the Eclipse certification was handled, and the FAA said, "That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant."

Don't think for a second that this is the last statement from all of this. This is REALLY just the beginning.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Thanks Shadow,

I wonder which lucky bank gets to repo this POS.

Deep Blue said...

Joe P.

Thank you for that very informative post on fastners.

Question: are you suggesting that what one Blogger described as several E500s with empennage fastening variations as otherwise not unusual.

Thanks and regards.

fred said...

by the way :

i don't remember who mentioned M.Press ,but i had a look on his website ...


incredible how some are able to see a gem into the mud (i know that for 1Ct of diamond , one need to dig about 200 tons of mud and rocks) but Fpj is not to be mistaken with it ...!

it clearly indicate that EAC is looking for 2 different financing ...

one for ABQ
one for Ulyanovsk

who has a spare 400 to 600 M$ in his pocket ?

madness !

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Part of this dicsussion is misisng the point.

EAC contracted with Michelin to deliver a radial tire to meet certain weight and reliability/lifetime targets, that would have been based on specificied landing weights and speeds.

EAC has admitted that in response to issues with instrumentation that they adivse landing a little fast - this TOTALLY changes the energy dissipation requirement for the brakes AND the tires.

The tires are not meeting the reliability expectation because ECLIPSE told Eclipse operators to land a little faster. Same goes for the brakes.

More utter and complete BS from Amateur Hour in the 505.

WhyTech said...

Ken said:

"Take a peek."

What, no synthetic vision? Even my helo has synthetic vision ( and full FMS, WAAS moving map, NEXRAD, geo referenced approach plates, TCAS, TAWS-B, XM radio,etc, etc.) And best of all, this all worked as advertised the day of delivery. Radically disruptive!

fred said...

coldwet :

yes , exactly ...

the tires and brakes are not to be blamed for the miscalculation of EAC ...

once again , they were TOO focused on safety to see the risks !!!

Dave said...

EAC has admitted that in response to issues with instrumentation that they adivse landing a little fast - this TOTALLY changes the energy dissipation requirement for the brakes AND the tires.
The tires are not meeting the reliability expectation because ECLIPSE told Eclipse operators to land a little faster. Same goes for the brakes.


Instead Eclipse blames their suppliers and the pilots because Mr. Microsoft couldn't write an OS properly.

Dave said...

Here's Eclipse response to a deposit holder wanting a refund in July:
Our records indicate we are in receipt of your selection form requesting a refund. Currently, our finance team has forecast that we should have your check ready for mailing by the first week of August.
Needless to say that didn't happen and they didn't go for bit about being "briefly delayed" and taking 6% and instead they sued.

Dave said...

More comments on Eclipse's "proven concept" by those who received payments from DayJet based on volume:
The airline signed on at St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport last July, promising to connect with the local business community. It was operating from the fixed-based operator Sheltair Services’ facilities.

Losing the air service has no real effect on the airport because the fees collected were so small. “We never even knew they were there because they didn’t fly from the terminal,” said Michele Routh, director of community relations.

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/09/22/daily11.html

baron95 said...

Something is screwy with Ken's avionics.

On the PFD it shows that the plane is doing 205KIAS/M0.640. On the MFD (backup for the pFD) it shows 199 KIAS/M0.616.

So either the right side of the plane is going much slower than the left side or Eclipse has some really bad air-data computers. At FL350 you really shold not have a 6KTS/M 0.24 (3% discrepancy).

Other than that, Ken is confirming what I have heard fron 2 other pilots, that below FL380 or so (particularly if it is cold) you have to throtle back to aboid busting MMO.

You can say anything about the EA500, but the thing is fast and efficient. They got the aerodynamics right even with the ETTs.

WhyTech said...

"So either the right side of the plane is going much slower than the left side or Eclipse has some really bad air-data computers."

Obviously the acft is turning!

julius said...

Fred,

most people are polite or "polite", apart from me once and a while.
I had to learn that when dealing with with customs, border police and others. These guys are polite - and I am polite or try to be polite!

Julius

Black Tulip said...

Ken,

There must have been some powerful KoolAid served up at Sunriver.

baron95 said...

Working Pilot said... "Long ago I learned that People with Harvard MBA's or others who think that they have the world by the ass, shouldn't be in Aviation. There is no room for ego's.

What!!!????!!!! Shane is he for real?

There are few fields that have people with bigger Egos than Aviation. You typical airline captain, needs an 747ERF to carry his Ego around.

Many of the key leaders and innovators in aviation like Howard Hugues and Artem Mikoyan not only had huge egos but also troubled souls.

As for Harvard MBAs running aviation, well, what can I say, the most successful aviation companies are very well represented by Harvard MBAs, including the largest and most successful aerospace company in the world - Boeing - whose chairman and CEO - James McNerney - got his Harvard MBA in 1975.

So working pilot, please send a letter to the Boeing board and tell them that they should fire McNerney because Harvard MBAs have no place in aviation. Then right a letter to AA's CEO and tell him that he has a huge safety problem and need to fire all his pilots because they have big egos.

Or, as I suggested earlier, you can get some therapy.

baron95 said...

You can even write that letter after you right it ;)

julius said...

Ken,

nice picture, you are great!

"That's okay, we stand by our work, the plane is certified because it is fully-compliant."

For me the PFD and the MFD show different speeds. Which speed is the correct one? Flying at Mmo or just M 0.616?
Do you know why there is no red bar to indicate Mmo on the MFD? Just to save energy or cpu usage in case of emergency???
Just to reduce the workload?

What is the max autopilot speed?

Anyhow good luck - you need it!

Julius

baron95 said...

WhyTech said...
Obviously the acft is turning!


I'm assming you meant that as a joke, right? The plane is in AP heading mode - only mode that currently works and is wings level.

Looking at the picture again, I also noticed that there are no color markings on the MFD/backup-to-the-PFD - i.e. no speed red-markings. Does that mean that if the PFD fails you need to fly the plane with out the airspeed markings?

Dave said...

There are few fields that have people with bigger Egos than Aviation. You typical airline captain, needs an 747ERF to carry his Ego around.

I think I know what he means. There are egos and there are egos. As you point out many jobs require one to have an ego, but there are egos that result in doing one's job confidently, while there are egos that are destructive. Vern for instance has shown the destructive power of a bad type of ego. I don't think it matters where one went to school, just unfortunately many MBAs are minted without much if any real world business experience and also there "suits" who think they know it all.

baron95 said...

Shadow said ...
Yes, he was a flier,
until that one fateful day
when things went terribly astray


Shadow, I assume you didn't intend it that way, but this, IMHO, is in very poor taste.

I think I can speak for the entire blog on this one... We wish Ken and his family a very safe and enjoyable flying experience in his EA500 with the number of successful landings equal to the number of takeoffs.

Dave said...

So either the right side of the plane is going much slower than the left side or Eclipse has some really bad air-data computers

You're seeing the Reality Distortion Field in action. Eclipse needs there to be strong Reality Distortion Fields for them to stay in business.

Dave said...

I think I can speak for the entire blog on this one... We wish Ken and his family a very safe and enjoyable flying experience in his EA500 with the number of successful landings equal to the number of takeoffs.

Yes, but we don't want Ken to harm others by selling the aircraft to some unsuspecting pilot. Hopefully Ken will provide full disclosure regarding the aircraft so that any potential buyers can make an informed decision.

WhyTech said...

"I'm assming you meant that as a joke, right?"

Right. And thanks for defending Harvard MBA's. A surprisingly high percentage of successful companies are led by Harvard MBA's (and MBA's from lesser institutions).

Dave said...

Right. And thanks for defending Harvard MBA's. A surprisingly high percentage of successful companies are led by Harvard MBA's (and MBA's from lesser institutions).

I believe the most billionaires come from Havard compared to other MBA schools. However, it would be interesting to know the percentage of felons (white collar criminals) who graduated from the various MBA schools.

baron95 said...

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...
EAC has admitted that in response to issues with instrumentation that they adivse landing a little fast


CW, from what I was told in a short conversation with two EA500 pilots, it was the instructors and mentors, not EAC that started encouraging or allowing pilots to land a bit faster AND rotate at higher speeds.

I have heard that the excess take-off speeds on the runway, due to delayed rotation are actually harder on the EA500 tires than the slightly faster than normal landing speeds.

I think (but hope I am wrong) the retired heavy iron types transitioning to the DayJet EA500 on long runways had a very casual rotation MO - remember no V1, VR, V2 call-outs here to give that sence or timing and urgency. The EA500 accelerates through VR very quickly, a few additional seconds on the runway on take-off can get those tiny tires spinning at very fast angular speeds.

P.S. This entire post is based on multible bits of incomplete information - so there is a good chance that I am totally off the mark. Take it for what it is worth.

WhyTech said...

"I believe the most billionaires come from Havard compared to other MBA schools"

This may be true. Regrettably, not all Harvard MBA's are billionaires!

Dave said...

CW, from what I was told in a short conversation with two EA500 pilots, it was the instructors and mentors, not EAC that started encouraging or allowing pilots to land a bit faster AND rotate at higher speeds.

In the redacted section of the SCR, it said that Eclipse increased the landing speeds to get around the Avio stall bug rather than re-coding Avio. The aircraft was given false stall warnings, so the solution was to increase the landing speed.

Joe Patroni said...

Deep Blue,

Assuming that the stabilizers and primary flight controls are built at least as well as a early 500 series Citation (ribs and skin thickneses in the .025" range, using 2024T3), using -4AD and -4B fasteners primarily), a -6 rivet anywhere on a flight control surface would raise some eyebrows.
Especially if the -6s are in different places on individual airplanes.

But then, I'm an old dinosaur that doesn't understand what "paradigm" means, or the Eclipse way of doing things.

What needs to happen is for the Feds to pull a random airplane off the line, or in storage, then pull out the prints, and see what fastener the print calls out in a specific location. If it is different, there had better be a document in the production file documenting the change, and who in engineering reviewed and approved it, or an Airframe Logbook entry documenting the removal and replacement, and what technical data they used to select the replacement fastener.

AC43.13-1A doesn't count, unless there is NO technical data available anywhere else.

julius said...

Baron95,

I also heard, that the tyres of big birds typically suffer most when taking off (higher mass and speed).
Is this applicable to the FPJ?

BTW: "Maximum tire ground speed 139 KNOTS" for EA50!
I do not know V2 but I assume the FPJ flights at 125 knots.

Julius

baron95 said...

dave said ... In the redacted section of the SCR, it said that Eclipse increased the landing speeds to get around the Avio stall bug rather than re-coding Avio.

Thanks for that info Dave. Also, the distinction that I was trying to make doesn't make much sense, since trianing and mentoring are provided and arranged by Eclipse.

My point really was that these things have a tendency of compounding on one another...

Like EAC learns of the stall warnings on landing and adds 5KTS to Vref. The instructors learn of the same issue and tell the mentors and owners to land a bit faster than the already increased Vref. Pilots transitioning from jets (e.g. MD80s) or TPs (e.g. BE200s) with much higher Vrefs feel more comfortable approaching another 5-10KTS faster still (with the blanket comfort that instructors are endorsing the practice).

We add to that a plane that accelerates very quickly through VR and has no spoilers, prop-drag or anti-skid, and planes that grew in weight and Vref to the very limits of the tiny tires.

With all that, I'm actually surprised that tires last 100 landings vs 5.

An extra 5 seconds o nthe runway for a 747 may mean an extra 5 KTS on tires rated for 160KTS+rotation (<3%). An extra seconds on the runway for an EA500 may mean an extra 15KTS on tires rated for 100KTS (15%) (using round numbers here to illustrate)

Dave said...

Now that I look at it, I'm not seeing where it said about the increased landing speeds, but it is SOMEWHERE in the testimony and reports about how Eclipse raised the landing speeds due to Avio giving false stall warnings. I do feel that I should repost the redacted statements from the SCR:
Afterburner said...
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.

Afterburner said...

Appendix C from the blacked-out portion of the SCR:

APPENDIX C — ANOMALIES AND FAILURES DURING INITIAL FUNCTION & RELIABILITY TESTING (SUMMARY)
Function & Reliability (F&R) testing is not a requirement for airplanes less than 6,000 pounds maximum gross takeoff weight; however, Eclipse agreed to do F&R testing. An F&R test program of a new model airplane with a previously uncertified engine would be 300 hours, but the Eclipse 500 F&R test program was agreed to be 100 hours before type certification and 100 hours posttype certification. One hundred three flight hours were accumulated during the agreed-on first 100- hour phase of F&R testing. During this phase of F&R testing none of the resulting problems were considered to be either compliance issues or safety significant. All problems noted in F&R testing that were not totally resolved before TC issuance were dispatched through AFM procedures. Resolution of post-type certification software and hardware changes was not considered to be a specific compliance issue, and was accepted by the FAA with the knowledge that no airplane would be delivered to the final customer until the problems were corrected. The following problems occurred during F&R testing and were all dispositioned as post-type certification changes:

WING DEICE FAIL CAS Message
• Message typically occurred on the ground at engine idle setting— cleared when throttle was advanced.
• In the event that the wing de-ice fail CAS message appeared in flight, an Emergency AFM Procedure is provided.
• Post-type certification software change ACS v4.4.
• Flight into known icing prohibited as an AFM Limitation.

FLAP FAIL CAS Message
• Message typically occurred on the ground after engine start. Moving flap handle generally cleared message.
• If message does not clear on the ground, flight prohibited by Emergency AFM procedure.
• If message occurs in flight, safe landing with flap in any position is possible.
• Post-type certification change to actuator software effectively eliminated the problem.

STICK PUSHER FAIL CAS Message
• Message generally occurred during landing flare in ground effect.
• If on the ground and the message does not clear, flight prohibited by AFM Emergency Procedure.
• Post-type certification software change ACS v4.4.

ADC 1 FAIL followed by onside PFD resets
• ADC 1 AFM Emergency procedure provided to restore systems; procedure validated during F&R program flights.
• Post-type certification AHRS software change and EFIS software change.

STALL PROTECTION FAIL CAS message on second engine start
• If message does not clear on the ground, flight prohibited by AFM Emergency Procedure.
• Post-type certification software change ACS v4.4.

CONFIG ENG TEMP CAS message posted on takeoff roll
•The AFM Normal Procedures Before Takeoff checklist requires T/O CONFIG OK CAS status message be annunciated before takeoff. If not annunciated, the pilot must manually set the OAT to prevent the CONFIG ENG TEMP CAS Warning message from occurring.
•Post-type certification software change ACS v4.4.

ECB CTRL FAULT CAS message after engine start
• AFM Emergency procedure provided— do not fly airplane when message occurs on the ground.
• Post-type certification software change ACS v4.4.

During ground gear check, gear would not retract (presumably on jacks)
• Post-type certification — reduce resistance value of some series resistors.

Seat inertial reel lock fail
• Post-type certification hard protective cover added over cable.

No thrust rating displayed on MFD N1 gauge when throttles are advanced
• Considered a pilot training issue.
• Post-type certification FADEC software v4.

-burner

Dave said...

Here's the Minority (republican) background report on the hearing:
http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/File/110th/Aviation/09-17-08-HearingBackground.pdf
I'd say I disagree with more of it than I do in the Majority background report, but even this report doesn't come off like how Hayes did.

gadfly said...

For the benefit of those who may wonder about the “-4" and “-6", etc., on rivet sizes, . . . this refers to the diameter of the body of the rivet, expressed in 1/32nds of an inch. A “4" is 4/32nds . . . or 1/8th of an inch in diameter (0.125"). A “6" is 6/32nds or 3/16" of an inch in diameter (0.1875").

As a quick thumbnail look at comparable strengths, a “6" is over twice as strong as a “4" in tensile and shear strengths . . . proportional to the square of the cross sectional area. The rivet may have any of a number of different heads, depending on the application, and are made of aluminum alloys that gain their ultimate strength when “upset” (deformed) in the process of forming the gripping end. This is called “work hardening”. The fit and size of the formed end is carefully specified for each and every rivet.

In the “old days”, an A&P mechanic had a manual called “CAM 18", which was his “bible” and the final law for all of the requirements in rivets . . . the approved alloy, the size of the holes, the height of the “upset rivet”, how close to the edge, how far apart, etc., etc. A good mechanic would follow those “specs” very carefully.

The alloy, “2024" was mentioned: At one time, during WW2, it was known as 24ST . . . the highest strength alloy for most of the early multi-engine and high performance aircraft. The Japanese developed an even higher strength series of aluminum alloys . . . commonly known as 7075 . . . and other variations within the 70XX family. Most modern jets use this type. It’s a “mixed bag” . . . subject to corrosion much more than the other alloys, but having wonderful strength to weight relationship. Friction stir welding is an attempt to “almost weld”, but “not quite” . . . and may be like seeing just how close to the edge you can walk without falling off a high ledge.

The problem with 2024 and 7075, and their close cousins, is that they obtain strength by heat treating . . . but welding upsets the metal and causes serious damage within the crystalline structure. Some Aluminum is weldable, but is generally only about half as strong as the 20XX and 70XX alloys.

A “T” after the main number tells the method of heat treatment, and the strength of the alloy . . . such as “T651". Low strength alloys may have an “H”, which means that they obtain their strength by “work hardening” . . . such as “pounding” or “bending”. If it says “H 0", it is “dead soft” or “annealed”. H2 means 1/4 hard . . . H4 means half hard . . . H6 = 3/4 hard . . . and H8 means “full hard”. The “hardness” was obtained by the rolling process in bringing the sheet to final size.

Most of you will never need to know these things, but these are the issues that are critical in the manufacture of the little jet, and may spell the difference between life and death. Aircraft are normally a delicate balance between the ultimate strength of the aluminum alloys used throughout, and the weight and balance, etc. The use of a wrong rivet, or in a way that causes a crack in the edge of a skin in a critical area, can allow it to open and be peeled like a banana . . . the “pull” of air going over a curved surface is what keeps the airplane flying . . . and those same “Bernoulli” forces can also spell destruction.

In light of what you may have learned just now, you may wish to go back and read again the testimony given by Ford J Lauer III, as already pointed out earlier on this blogsite by others. This is not a game. The carelessness observed by Mr. Lauer would not be acceptable even in a factory building early low performance aircraft, yet people are presently flying at high speeds . . . those stresses are proportional to the “square” of the speed (or velocity). In other words, forces on an aircraft at 300 mph are nine times those at 100 miles per hour . . . and at 400 mph the forces are sixteen times as great . . . even more, considering that at altitude low temperatures of minus forty degrees (F or C), and lower, causes aluminum to become slightly brittle. (‘Just read the outside air temperature on Ken’s instruments.) From an engineering standpoint, that’s “scary” stuff, considering what we know about metallurgy.

gadfly

Repeating:

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20080917/Lauer.pdf

airtaximan said...

I think I read that Lauer took it upon himself to buy liability insurance, once he saw what was going on with the EA-50 cert process....

I wonder how frequent THIS occurance is?

One would need to believe that good folks like Lauer are lying through their teeth, in order to believe this plane is safe.

Even if you are inclined to believe Peg Bilson, VErn Raburn, etc... ove this guy... ask yourself:

Why would he be dishonest? WHY?

Regarding EAC, they have a long track record of BS... there are many answers to the wuestion "why" regarding them... so I'll leave it to you.

READ LAUER's testimony... and HOPE people go to jail... hope it comes out, and hope that anyone who contributed to the Republican Background Report understands that this nonesense just contributes to the cover up... and NO, I personally don't vcare about your opinion that the EA-50 certification is not representative - I sure as hell HOPE NOT. That does not make me feel any better about the cover up and unsafe airplanes flying (or laying as the case may be) around, waiting for something bad to happen.

gadfly said...

One more comment on the claims that certain components met the design requirements, during static (non-moving) testing:

Good aircraft and automotive testing goes until components fail. Short of that, you will never learn the weak points.

Everything fails at some point . . . the question is “where” or “when” . . . and then “what”?

Such tests should have been carried out before the first aircraft was delivered. But to my knowledge (which is not “great” . . . to that I’ll readily agree), such testing has never been accomplished . . . unless they did it in secret, and are ashamed of the results.

For legitimate manufacturers . . . of any product on which human life depends . . . anything and everything about that product will be tested . . . putting in under load, until anything and everything that can break or come apart is pushed, pulled, open throttle, until it “blows” . . . Katy, bar the door! And then, when everything works up to 150% of all limits and beyond . . . and then blows up, you have a product worthy of selling to the public . . . and not until then! And then you get busy and make it go 200% and beyond.

And then we have an aircraft designed on the “Microsoft” type approach!

gadfly

(And yet, there seems to be a market for a can of beans, guaranteed to make you smart. ‘Help us all!)

EclipsePilotOMSIV said...

The discrepancy in airspeed is common between the ADC1 and ADC3 which is represented on the MFD in the picture. It is completely independent of the airspeed indicator on the pilots and copilots PFDs. Which correspond to ADC1 and ADC2 respectively. Usually the ADC1 and ADC3 have a minimal discrepancy at higher airspeeds.

Shadow said...

Baron,

Of course I wish everyone here safe travels, and that certainly includes Ken.

What I'm saying is that by Ken outright dismissing the warning signs from the House hearing and the bloggers here who know a thing or two about building airplanes, he risks this type of future event.

I personally wouldn't fly aboard an Eclipse 500 knowing what I do now. If you'd like to play Russian Roulette by flying in one, it's a free country and you can do as you wish.

baron95 said...

gadfly said...
One more comment on the claims that certain components met the design requirements, during static (non-moving) testing:

Good aircraft and automotive testing goes until components fail. Short of that, you will never learn the weak points.


I'm sorry, Gad, but this is simply not so. There is no compelling reason to test to failure, unless you are trying to calibrate your models or come closer to the design/limit loads to save weight etc.

So, if you are testing a wing, and you show 1.5 design loads you are done and can legitimately stop there.

The only compelling reason to test to failure is if your design is based on an analytical model (e.g. FEM) and you want to refine the model (e.g. to save weight on a redesign) or to be able to certify by analysis a weight increase, etc.

So, lets say your FEM for the wing predicted that it would fail at 1.55 x design load and it actually failed at 1.65. Then you use that data to recalibrate your model.

Now, a year down the road, you want to certify a GW increase of 1% by analysis, instead of by testing, you can now use your validated model to do that. Conversely, you can use the fact that the wing failed at 1.65x to shave some weight and recertify by analysis or test a lighter wing.

If you are not planning or evnisioning doing any such thing, then testing to destruction is pointless.

Similarly in automotive. Most components/parts are tested to "maximum wear", not to destruction. For example, BMW will test its brakes to maximum wear of pads or rotors and then adjust pad or rotor hardness to achieve whatever pad to rotor replacement multiples they choose. Samething on piston to cylinder, etc.

Boeing is about to start static tests on the 787 - you may want to follow that program. A year back, there was a big debate inside Boeing if they were going to test the wing to destruction or not - I have not been in touch with my friends there (they are mad at me and a bit defensive, because of some comments I made on the 787 program), so I don't know what was decided. If you follow that up, please let me know.

In the A380, it was the oposite. the wing actually failed before 1.5x (failed at 1.49 if I remember correctly). Airbus fed the data back into their model, strenghten the wing and certified the final wing design by analysis (on the FEM) without a need to retest. Both the EASA and FAA accepted that.

It just shows you how close and precise FEM models are. Airbus goal was for the wing to fail at 1.505x and it failed at 1.49 (IIRC). You can forget about the old notions of overbuilding structures these days. The market is just too competitive and fuel is just too expensive. Customers (Airlines at least) want a 1.50 wing, no more no less. You won't score any points with customers by claiming - oh my wing failed at 4.0x design load. That is BAD design.

Dave said...

You can forget about the old notions of overbuilding structures these days. The market is just too competitive and fuel is just too expensive.

Actually I saw something that mentioned that. I don't know if it was Engineering an Empire or what, but they talked about why that is. Now in the age of computers and calculators way more calculations can be made way more precisely, but prior to the calculator all these equations that can be done instantly now would have taken massive amounts of human calculators, so things were overbuilt due there being a lower level of calculating power then than now. That being said, things are built for user margin of error and it looks like Eclipse did any number of changes to reduce the margin of error and Eclipse's changes could be directly responsible for all the tire problems and other such things.

baron95 said...

EclipsePilotOMSIV said...
Usually the ADC1 and ADC3 have a minimal discrepancy at higher airspeeds.


Are you saying that there is usually a greater discrepancy between ADC1/2 and ADC3 than between ADC1 and ADC2? If so, could you explain why? Also do you really see that large a discrepancy (0.024M) between ADC1 and ADC2? Isn't that a CRM issue?

What is the AP keyed to once Avio suports airspeed mode?

Are there 3 ADCs on all planes or only with the Part 135 optional package?

(sorry for all the questions - I don't have the flight manual)

Thanks in advance.

baron95 said...

Dave said... it looks like Eclipse did any number of changes to reduce the margin of error and Eclipse's changes could be directly responsible for all the tire problems and other such things.


Reducing the "margin of error" (I think you mean margin) by itself is not bad. Good design is that the desing margin should be equal to the uncertainy margin.

So if you know your FEM is accurate to 5%, your margin should be 5%. Not 5.5%, not 4.5%, but 5%. Then you test and validate your model and next time you use it for that structure you'll be accurate to maybe withing 2% and that should be your margin.

That is why follow-on version (e.g. stretches, GW increases, etc) are usually much more efficient than the base line model - you tested your model and cut your margins on the follow-on design making it more efficient.

So a 77E is much more efficient than a 772 and a 77F is much more efficient than a 77E. Same (should) be true for the CJ1, CJ2, CJ3.

Watch Cessna. As soon as the orders for the Mustang start to slow down, they will launch a Mustang I or Mustang + with a higher GW and a bit more power, maybe a bit more fuel. If they do that without strengthening the wing or landing gear for example it is either because they built in the extra margin (by design) or because they "found" the extra margin during validation. If they strenghten the landing gear and/or wing for a 100-200lbs GW increase, it is a sign that their model was very accurate and they didn't build any extra margin in there. (or less likely they build extra margin and it turned out that the model was innacurate in the wrong direction - could happen)

Turboprop_pilot said...

When you design right at the limit with precise FEA and 3D models, accurate following of the engineering specifications in manufacturing is critically important. To meet their weight targets, Eclipse designed close to the limits (plus they LOVE computers and computer models, just ask Ed).

When you read the congressional testimony and hear experienced people ex Eclipse, you know they did NOT follow the design closely (they never really had a finished design) so have eaten deep into design margins . Poems about lawn darts are unfortunately too close to the truth.

Turboprop_pilot

baron95 said...

Turboprop_pilot said...
When you design right at the limit with precise FEA and 3D models, accurate following of the engineering specifications in manufacturing is critically important


YES!!!! Thank you for that comment. And it also applies to repairs.

If you have uncertainties in you build tolerances or repair tolerances, then it all goes to hell and you are back at designing in extra margin.

The brake example I gave on BMW is useless if there is such variability in the pad or roter construction, in the pad or rotor installation, or in the alignment of pad/piston/rotors during maintenance.

Again, look at the 787. While designing testing their parts, Boeing tested the approved composite fuselage repair instructions and kit, then re-tested to make sure the strength was maintained or what the change was and fed that right back into their models.

I've seen more than one A&P in light aircraft maintenance, fabricate a repair and then proudly demonstrate how it is now "stronger than before". That may work OK on a Mooney or 172 which have *HUGE* variability in mannufacturing and *HUGE* above and beyond margins. Try that crap on a A380 that has a wing that fails exactly at 1.50 and you may not get away with it. You are likely just putting extra and ununticipated load on another structure that may wear faster and/or fail.

Example - AA A300 accident over Long Island. Pilot (as trained by AA, and against Airbus recomendation) tried to right a wind dip by aggressively stomping on the ruder pedels. Even on a 30 year design (which should not cut as close as today) the little margin that existed in the vertical stabilizer was exceeded.

Dave said...

they never really had a finished design

They still don't and if Eclipse dumps the FPJ for the Frankenjet with NG23, they will never have had produced or retrofited an FPJ to spec.

baron95 said...

TP said... Poems about lawn darts are unfortunately too close to the truth.

Lets hope not.

But it would be better to KNOW it wasn't so, than to be in a position to "hope" it isn't so.

FlightCenter said...

There is no compelling reason to test to failure,

... unless you want your customers to be the first ones to test your product to failure.

... unless you really want to understand the product you are selling and how to make it better.

Dave Ivedorne said...

gadfly, Baron, and others who are interested -

A video of the test to destruction on the Boeing 777's wing ( 154% design strength ).

At one point, Boeing indicated that it would do the same on the 787, but has changed its mind about it. The reason? The release of carbon fibers accompanying failure would require extensive hazmat cleanup costs.

Pull around to the second window,
DI

I AM NOT VERN said...

Where is Ken when you need him?"

Flying :)

Flying at Mmo at FL350

Somewhat older photo? He is flying near Death Valley. A this time of the year the temps at FL350 (he shows -59C) should be about 10 degrees warmer (-49C).

stan said...

PASSMIDO has posted clips from the hearing on youtube that are easier to view than the entire procedings on the congressional site.

http://youtube.com/PASSMIDO

PASSMIDO = Professional Aviation Safety Specialists - Manufacturing Inspection District Offices

airtaximan said...

established OEMs use design systems, with material property data and years of testng and analysis in the system.

A new arrogant SOB OEM lacks this, and argues with experience... need we look any further?

thee a-holes lacked the system, data and common sense to design and develop a safe plane.

And... they were too arrogant to even understand THIS.

airtaximan said...

funny discussion regarding margin.

Imagine acceptance testing engines with no margin.... that is, required to produce max thrust throughout the lifecycle.

No wear, degradation, margin, etc.

It has to run perfect.

Now imagine you have a margin of say 10%. You can accept a lot more engines. MArgins are there.

Now, do this with engine 1, no learning curce, no margin. HOw many rejects? A LOT.

Design the margin in, and you have no rejects.

The e500 was designed with very little margin. Low tolerances, thinking this would result in assembly efficiencies.

How stupid. I kow nothing, and even I know that had they built in tolerances... lower precision part designs... they could have had fewer rejects, and higher conformity.

ust really piss poor decision making for any kind of rate, acceptance, tolerances, lower cost, etc..

Dumb.

How do I know? Becasue EvEN I know this shit, and I am a not the sharpest knife in the drawer - I just listen.

gadfly said...

Well, it would seem we’ve touched a few nerves. So let’s look at a few things . . . briefly.

First, Boeing and possibly Airbus can afford to “pretend” that all the bugs are fixed in the design, in the “CAD” stage . . . and with a few thousand highly trained workers working daily under proper adult supervision, there is a certain consistency in the final product. And let’s pretend, for a moment, that Airbus didn’t attempt to mow down a small forest of trees . . . and attempt to fly out of Boston, minus a vertical fin one time . . . and Boeing doesn’t have any problems of consequence (“that’s a joke, son!”). And let’s pretend that the boys playing with high explosives over at Sandia or Los Alamos, with the fastest computers in the world never make mistakes . . . and I haven’t made money “fixing” certain component designs on the PBFA2 and aboard the Airborne Laser Lab, etc., etc., etc.

When the software developers and aeronautical designers over at Eclipse demonstrate true omniscience, and anticipate each and every possible problem, assuring complete compliance with their designs, put together by a crew of unsupervised 12 week wonders, left pretty much on their own, then I’ll grant that testing to destruction is unnecessary, prior to delivery of product.

But here’s just one little item (among many) that would bother me: the claims of a very stiff main spar, machined from a billet, that does not allow for “flexure” of the wings (which, of course, it must be “stiff” for an effectively forward sweep). You see, I like to design and build things with “progressive structural failure” . . . allowing time to stop something before ultimate failure, or, in the case of an aircraft, at least time to call “911" on the way down to ask for a large broom and dust pan to clean up the wreckage.

Human beans have a unique ability that, no matter how hard I try to anticipate each and every scenario, some clever individual will find a way to thwart my best intentions. And it seems that computers have acquired this same ability. One of my sons-in-law gets paid a good wage as an engineer, discovering the errors in scientific devices that do not behave according to the extensive finite element analysis . . . because of some rather “simple” but critical error in manufacturing . . . caught only at the last minute. And, of course, all paid by your tax money under government contracts.

So, back to the little bird of local fame. In view of all that most of us either know, or can anticipate, each and every critical component should be tested to “failure” under each and every extreme condition . . . including the BMW Designer Interior. (I’ve owned a couple BMW’s, and learned that even the Bavarian hillbillies in Munich are not infallible.)

gadfly

(‘just living up to my reputation of sarcastic rhetoric, which I have neglected most recently.)

gadfly said...

Let’s have just one more “pretend” story, before we all go “nighty-night”.

In the land of make believe, there was a little airplane factory, that designed the best little airplane there ever was. All the workers in the factory did everything perfectly . . . every rivet was in place, every wire exactly where it should be . . . and even the windows and tires were most wonderful. And everyone was happy . . . and everyone trusted each other.

But one day, a wicked witch cast a spell on the people that made the aluminum . . . and they left out certain secret ingredients, and didn’t bake it at the right temperature. And the elves brought the aluminum to the airplane factory . . . but didn’t know it was not good aluminum.

And the workers made some airplanes from the bad aluminum . . . but didn’t know it, because everyone trusted everyone else . . . and the bright shiny airplane went out the door, to fly to lands far away. . . . I forget how it ends!

gadfly

What if everyone in the supply chain had the same attitude about quality control that has been demonstrated by Eclipse? How now, computer model?

baron95 said...

DI said ... The release of carbon fibers accompanying failure would require extensive hazmat cleanup costs.


Of course, there is no guarantee that it won't fail before reaching 150% just like the wing box spars failed and had to be reinforced by union machined aluminum braces ;)

If it fails like the A380 wing at 149% it will be a mightybig bang. Though, to be fair, the FEM/FEA has predictors on deflection/deformation prior to failure - it is possible that Boeing is planning to stop the test if the actual deflection/deformation run ahead of the model.

Either way that wing will flew by an incredible amout prior to reaching 150%. Will be a sight to behold.

forward-observer said...

Now this is some classic history here: And prophetic- One for the memories...

G.W. Bush's visit to Eclipse Aircraft for a rally in 2004:

We've got another entrepreneur with us, Vern Raburn. He -- he is the -- (applause.) So here's a guy who said, I can build a better airplane. (Applause.) That's what you call a grand vision. (Laughter.)

Why don't you tell the folks about your company.

* * * * *

THE PRESIDENT: McCain and I will fly the first one. (Laughter.) So how's it going? I mean, this is -- this is --

MR. RABURN: Things are going great.

THE PRESIDENT: You've hired since I saw you last, four years ago, how many?

MR. RABURN: Well, four years ago, at this time, we had about 18 employees. We have 342 employees now. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's good. And like what skill level is required -- skill level of the worker?

MR. RABURN: Skill levels, we have very high skill level. Most of our work force today are engineers, manufacturing folks, white-collar workers. In fact, our average salary of each of our employees is about twice that of the average family income in New Mexico.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, let me stop you there. One of the real challenges we have in our country to make sure jobs stay here is to educate people, is to make sure the education system works. (Applause.) You just heard what -- it's a new business, new business. He says that we pay twice as much as the average income, but we require high-level skills. You know what that says to me? It says to me that we've got to make sure No Child Left Behind works. (Applause.) We've got to make sure we keep raising the bar, make sure the young kids can read and write and add and subtract early before it's too late. We've got to make sure our community colleges are able to train workers for the jobs of the 21st century, so that Eclipse* can find a work force necessary to make this company fly. (Applause.)

So when are we going to see the first unit take off?

MR. RABURN: Well, we'll be flying again late this year, and we expect to have the aircraft certified in early '06, March of '06. Today we've got orders for about 2,200 airplanes, about $2.5 billion in back -- (applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That's good.

MR. RABURN: Good problem.

THE PRESIDENT: -- pulling to make sure this economy stays strong. Any of them overseas?

MR. RABURN: A lot of those are overseas.

THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you something. See, if we get into a mode where we become economic isolationists, he won't be able to sell these airplanes overseas. We don't need trade wars. He wants to be able to sell this product overseas without having to compete with government bureaucracies and unnecessary tariffs and restrictions. That's why we believe in fair trade and open trade.

You got workers here who are going to be working because you've got planes being sold overseas. So when you hear them talk about trade, you need to be thinking about jobs. Jobs exist when you're able to trade overseas. You've got some farmers in this state don't you? (Laughter.) Yes, the farm economy is strong around the country. You know why? Because not only are we feeding our own people, we're feeding other people. Other people are eating our corn and our soybeans and our wheat, because we're opening up markets. Still working to get that New Mexico cattle around the world. (Laughter.) Open up markets for the Mexican cattlemen -- and Texas cattlemen, too, I want you to know. (Laughter.)

So what else? What else on your mind, Vern? You get the chance to tell the President something. (Laughter.) By the way, I guarantee he's a big believer in tort reform. (Laughter.) A lot of airline companies, a lot of manufacturers in the past got shut down because of all kinds of lawsuits. And these lawsuits, we want good justice in America, but when the trial bar converts the law into a legal lottery, it begins to affect jobs. You just got to know that. It's one thing to have justice; it's another thing to go overboard with justice, because people start to lose work. I don't know what your opinion is.

MR. RABURN: I agree. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. See, you'd think I was a lawyer. I'm not.

* * * * *

THE PRESIDENT: See, this is a vibrant company. And I'm excited to be here. I want to thank you for inviting us.

ron said...

Why do you guys have such a hard-on for Eclipse ?
I put my money down back on day one. I took the risk, but I am in cheap. I got my plane last year and have about 180 hours on it. I used to fly a P-Baron. The Eclipse is light years above the Baron. Why?
The single engine climb rate of the Eclipse is better than the Baron with both engines. I climb above all the weaqther. It goes almost twice as fast, twice as high, with about 25% more fuel burn. It has turbines. It is very quiet. My wife doesn't get bounced around. Regardless of what you think, It is a robust design. It lands slow. It is way easier to fly than the Baron. I feel way safer in it than any other plane that I have flown.
I have had less issues with it than any other planes that I have owned. I just don't get it? From listenening to you guys it would seem that I am taking my life in my hands everytime that I launch. Well I hate to burst your bubble, but it is a dream to fly.
Eclipse still has some IOU's that are due me. If they go Tango-Uniform I will get them done on my nickel.
Bottom line.
If I fly my plane just as it is, It's still better than anything that I've ever flown.
I know that you guys probably donn't want to hear this. but I'm flying one and you aren't.

Shane
Sorry to hear about your Dad. My Dad is 84 and still flies his 177RG around the patch every week. I stay very close to him as I'm sure that you did. The pain of losing him is unbearable. We will keep you in our prayers.
Ron

ron said...

Why do you guys have such a hard-on for Eclipse ?
I put my money down back on day one. I took the risk, but I am in cheap. I got my plane last year and have about 180 hours on it. I used to fly a P-Baron. The Eclipse is light years above the Baron. Why?
The single engine climb rate of the Eclipse is better than the Baron with both engines. I climb above all the weaqther. It goes almost twice as fast, twice as high, with about 25% more fuel burn. It has turbines. It is very quiet. My wife doesn't get bounced around. Regardless of what you think, It is a robust design. It lands slow. It is way easier to fly than the Baron. I feel way safer in it than any other plane that I have flown.
I have had less issues with it than any other planes that I have owned. I just don't get it? From listenening to you guys it would seem that I am taking my life in my hands everytime that I launch. Well I hate to burst your bubble, but it is a dream to fly.
Eclipse still has some IOU's that are due me. If they go Tango-Uniform I will get them done on my nickel.
Bottom line.
If I fly my plane just as it is, It's still better than anything that I've ever flown.
I know that you guys probably donn't want to hear this. but I'm flying one and you aren't.

Shane
Sorry to hear about your Dad. My Dad is 84 and still flies his 177RG around the patch every week. I stay very close to him as I'm sure that you did. The pain of losing him is unbearable. We will keep you in our prayers.
Ron

fred said...

julius

sorry ...

i didn't mean you are not polite ...(if you took it this way ...)
what i was trying to point out :
Russians peoples are not known for their practice of politeness !
roughly they can be described into three sections :

1° the ones used to deal with foreigners : they are OK , there isn't anymore so much difference of treatment if you are in Domodedovo or Frankfurt

2° the ones not used to deal with foreigners (used to russians only)
well , it can be a shock the first time , it very easy to see this , you go to any "Normal" supermarket , you'll see peoples working there who seems to be "held" by the shelf ... never understood really what is their use ... they seems to spend most of days , "planted" at the same corner of shelf , the eyes lost in the void and if you ask them any question , they answer " Nié Snayou" (i don't know) if you are very lucky , they may even look at you !

they are mostly very nice peoples , once you know them , before at the best they seems to be as friendly as a prison door ...

3° the ones with money , or very good look : expect anything(bad?) ! they usually see mostly what use they can do of you ... not really the best type to be known ...!

so when you wrote about "polite russian technician" my unconscious thinking reacted like usual with russians :

if they are polite , ask them WHERE they have been trained ...

if they are used to work with multi-types of peoples , they may know their stuff ...

if they are not used to work this way or are very good looking or not train in multi-cultural environment = expect anything ...
(unless it is in their temper to be nice with others)

off course , this is generalized , which itself is very inaccurate and in anyway quite bad ...

i am , myself , trying to be polite most of times , unless one piss me , then expect surprise !

fred said...

Mr Gad :

#(I've owned a couple BMW's, and learned that even the Bavarian hillbillies in Munich are not infallible.)#

you see you do it , again !

may be , i am too much used to hear inept stuff or concepts ...
but for me = THIS is Wisdom !! (not the can of beans one)

i don't want to recall how many times i tried to explain this around me :

"the best way of setting yourself for failures is to pretend being unfailing !"

starting by me ...

failure is the essence of being , one can always learn much more in a failure than in a success ...

so , yes ! things should be tested to the ultimate point !

fred said...

F.O.:

are you trying to do a kind of satire with this GWB visit ?

sounds so hiaaaaaahhhaaaaa ;-)

fred said...

Ron :

don't take what most post here in the wrong way ...
you like your toy , it's perfect !

but i thought that in free countries , peoples can think whatever they want ...

i wrote it before , this is not a school yard ...
don't let anybody compelled to have you playing the "mine is bigger , because it is mine !" game ...

you are happy with your belonging ... fine , who cares ?
we are a bunch of guys who DO NOT like it , our choice ... who should care ?

you see this what being a customer is all about :
you made a choice , fine , it is YOUR choice ...

is that a reason to have any other to agree with you ?

i don't think that the argument "i am flying one , you don't " has any value ... apart being your feeling of the situation ...

julius said...

Fred,

bon jour!

Sorry there is a misunderstanding,

"i didn't mean you are not polite ...(if you took it this way ...)"

I took in the right way - !!!


BTW: A blog is like ice hockey: certain body checks are part of the game!

I agree to your post to Ron -
especially when looking at Ken's picture:

The speed shown on the MFD/PFD should be too high in the high speeds (to prevent structural damages) and too low on the lower side (to prevent stalls).
IIRC the autopilot should not be used above 200 KEAS.

That's not great!


Julius

P.S.: Thanks for hints to the russian mentality. I take it in the right correct way!

fred said...

alles klar , vielen danke !

fred said...

julius :

talking about Russia ; something should strike the unconscious of the believers :

out of the pretended loan for EAC/Etirc , some Economic publication are talking ... (very few !) BUT not a single aviation related publications ...!

what is the formula ?

"no problem if everybody say bad things about me , as long as they keep talking about me ...!"

Seems like EA500 is on the verge of being forgotten ...

while Cessna is really pushing very hard into Russia , does not sounds very good for Roel future ! ;-))

fred said...

and do not forget to "take it in the right correct way !" ;-))

julius said...

Fred,

c'est vrai.
Up to now RP has a save harbour in Twente/NL. He is prof at the unversity. He was second supervisor
with for a thesis on MSc. business information technology (airtaxi).
If ETIRC aviation fails RP's reputation will suffer a bit in Lux but much more in NL.

Sooner or later EAC must change is PR strategy (only media alerts, no interviews/question).

When is RP in Ulyanowsk for the housewarming party of the new plant? Oh - there is no party!

Julius

fred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Black Tulip said...

Ron,

If you’re happy, we’re happy. Given you were flying and maintaining a P-Baron before, you would seem an ideal candidate to become a satisfied Eclipse customer.

fred said...

julius

Genau !

but don't worry about the party , as there is no plant either ... !;-))

alles ist vergessen ...

but what about being a second supervisor in a thesis on a subject you have failed yourself into its application ?
(considering it really existed in the first place ...!)

Dave Ivedorne said...

Ron -

Thanks for stopping by and offering your experience with the FPJ. I think I speak for everybody here when I say that I hope you enjoy thousands of trouble free hours with it, and that all of our fears about the little bird turn out to be wrong.

Just remember that "it is a dream to fly" does not preclude "I am taking my life in my hands everytime that I launch" from also being true. Kind of like great sex with a woman who is HIV-positive.

Put a helmet on that soldier,
DI

airtaximan said...

ROn,

seems like you were a lot lukier than the test pilots who were flying/certifying the ea-50...

they had a lot of very serious problems in their test flights... and I would imagine, those planes were built and maintained about as carefully as EAC could manage.

So, glad you are happy, glad the plane is great to fly - a lot of planes are great to fly... even experimentals.

Seems like the one you own has a lot of safety issues... I hope you NEVER encounter any of them.

Turn-And-Burn said...

Ron, You're play to deaf ears. Those that post here DO NOT want to listen to anything positive. As Fred said, they have have their opinion, end of discussion. They are so consumed with making trouble for Eclipse, incorrectly reporting what they consider facts, stating opinion as fact, and reliving history, that they hear nothing else. They are driven by their own feeling of self-importance in that they are "doing a service for the aviation industry" in bad mouthing the aircraft in any way possible. Let it be. You won't change their opinion. And they have nothing else to do but spend countless hours here, playing with each other. They claim to be, and praise each other as professionals in the industry. But in reality, all they are are professional bloggers.

Turn-And-Burn said...

airtaximan said... ROn, seems like you were a lot lukier than the test pilots who were flying/certifying the ea-50... they had a lot of very serious problems in their test flights... and I would imagine, those planes were built and maintained about as carefully as EAC could manage.

ATM, by your logic Cessna should be investigated. They just had the SkyCatcher enter an unrecoverable spin. Perhaps Cessna doesn't know what they are doing anymore than Eclipse.

eclipso said...

Turn-And-Burn said...

"stating opinion as fact"


How 'bout all them 'ol dumb investigators and Congressmen wit their sworn "opinions"

Turn-And-Burn said...

Eclipso, how about complaintant that when asked if he felt the aircraft was safe, and he stated he knew of nothing that made it unsafe.

fred said...

Upsidedown&roasted (turn&burnt is so boring for a name !! ;-)) )

what i wrote is working both ways ...
#They are so consumed with making trouble for Eclipse #

??? what trouble(please with a S , we have a reputation to keep!) are you talking about ?
it is not of any blogger responsibility to have had a CEO who was a lunatic , that spend so much money for nothing by not facing his own poop , spread what most here consider as a dream ... that eventually became a nightmare (if it is to be in blogger's mind)

#incorrectly reporting what they consider facts, stating opinion as fact, and reliving history, that they hear nothing else #

don't forget : what is hero for some is terrorist for opposite !
but i think we are not the only ones to state opinion as facts ! (EASA = how do you know WHEN and HOW ?? unless it is ONLY a point of VIEW ...)

#They are driven by their own feeling of self-importance in that they are "doing a service for the aviation industry" in bad mouthing the aircraft in any way possible #

i cannot say anything on such as i am NOT related to aviation industry in any form ...

and i am the first one to try to remain humble in my (nearly) complete absence of knowledge about planes ...

#And they have nothing else to do but spend countless hours here, playing with each other.#

i thought that was nothing of your business ???
are you jealous of not having free time ?

#They claim to be, and praise each other as professionals in the industry. But in reality, all they are are professional bloggers.#

is that exist ? really ? the american system will never stop to amaze me ... Professional bloggers ??? you must be kidding ...

more seriously , what is to have an opinion ?

are others supposed to have the same ?

when i am sure of me , you can say or do whatever , it won't change my mind at all ...
i really do not understand this habit of trying to convince someone else that you have made the cleverest decision ...!!

you find out if you like or do not like something , and that's the end of it !

i always found absolutely laughable the ones who feel "superior" because their pool is cleaned by some item , i prefer not to have ...

the same with the fact that i work for a few months in a year in Russia , then take long vacations = it is my life , my problem and as long as i don't ask anybody else to support me with this type of life , it is nobody's business...

whatever others have to say ...

Dave said...

Ron, You're play to deaf ears. Those that post here DO NOT want to listen to anything positive. As Fred said, they have have their opinion, end of discussion. They are so consumed with making trouble for Eclipse, incorrectly reporting what they consider facts, stating opinion as fact, and reliving history, that they hear nothing else. They are driven by their own feeling of self-importance in that they are "doing a service for the aviation industry" in bad mouthing the aircraft in any way possible. Let it be. You won't change their opinion. And they have nothing else to do but spend countless hours here, playing with each other. They claim to be, and praise each other as professionals in the industry. But in reality, all they are are professional bloggers.

Seeing how that you post here, you'll have to change the "they" and the "their" to "you" and "your." By the way, when are you going to actually contribute anything? You repeatedly complain about this blog yet you're not doing anything about it by making substantive posts. By the way Eclipse has already confirmed the accuracy of this blog by claiming in court this blog is too accurate, so you're opinion of facts and what Eclipse says about this blog in court differ.

fred said...

burntsoreturned :

may be Cessna does not know what they are doing (not being in either of them , i should i know)

the only thing i would like to draw your attention upon :

when you made 250 items , failure occurrence risks are at one level ...

when you did 250 factor N , the risk occurrence is the square of this result ...

so to have one problem on 250 , is the same than having XXX on 250 factor N ...

the aim is NO problem !

it never release anyone of any responsibilities ,by saying "wow , this one is even worse ..."

Dave said...

Here comes to Eclipske (or so Roel thinks)!:
Eclipse Aviation, a maker of small twin-engine jets that has been struggling with high costs and tight credit, said Tuesday that it would begin manufacturing in Russia.

The company, based in Albuquerque, said it would receive $205 million in financing from the Russian state bank Vnesheconombank. The bank’s supervisory board is headed by the Russian prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin...

“It’s an aircraft absolutely made for Europe,” said Roel Pieper, who became chief executive in June. The plane is made to fly 1,200 to 1,400 miles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23air.html?ref=business

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Ron wrote: Regardless of what you think, It is a robust design.

On what facts are you basing that opinion Ron? Because you haven't broken it yet is no substantiation. In normal flight you would likely not yet have seen 2G.

Normally your warm fuzzy feeling is guaranteed by a set of FAA witnessed tests to ultimate load, performed on an airframe which conformed to the approved type design, combined with the assurance that your A/C is identical, because it also conforms to that type design.

Limit loads are not there for normal flight, they are there for that bad day when everything turns to custard and you hit something like clear air turbulence at speed.

The 1.5 factor of safety between limit and ultimate loads aren't there for the extreme case, or for manufacturing defects, they are there to cover the unknown- unknowns in design.

The critics opinion that these aircraft may well be structurally unsound is based on the fact that we have numerous reports of:

1/ Quality escapes from Hampson which Vern stated in connection with the suite brought by this important vendor.

2/ Quality escapes from hampson reported by one of the ex-eclipses (Mouse?) (drill stops not used, thus drills damaging structure behind the hole).

3/ Reports from the floor that Hucks were being pulled with cherry noses.

4/ Reports to the senate subcommittee from the FAA inspection team stating incorrect use of fasteners, wrong fasteners etc.

5/Reports from ex eclipse production staff that the drawings were never revised to keep up with the changes being implemented on the shop floor (which is not a legally compliant system of aircraft modification).

6/ Vern used an email from his own manager stating "the quality of these planes is crap" in evidence.

7/ At least two experience FAA productions auditors were willing to stand up in front of the Senate subcommittee and testify that Eclipse did not have a robust system to ensure conformity. An FAA inspector even started an enforcment process because Eclipse inspection staff were signing conformity statements without inspecting to ensure conformity.

We have plenty more evidence leading us to the conclusion that the plane was designed for 4400lb, the design was stretched to 6000lb, not built in compliance with that 6000lb design, and built with poor quality.

Rob wrote: I feel way safer in it than any other plane that I have flown.

Ron, are you an aircraft engineer? Could it be that your warm fuzzy feeling of safety in your plane is based on ignorance of risk, rather than lack of risk?

What is the statement of conformity for your plane worth? Maybe you got lucky and your plane has the structural (and other) margins of safety which the process is supposed to guarantee.

One fact you can be sure of... it was cheap!

Shane Price said...

Roel is on a PR offensive.

Expect lots (trust me on this) of coverage, as he seems to be talking to the press, together with photos of Valdimir Putin gazing into the FPJ.

What Roel actually claims is that a Russian bank will finance the construction of the new plant, but he manages to make it seem like this is part of the financing required to move the entire company forward.

However, in one of the reports I've seen, Roel is careful to admit that EAC still needs buckets of money, real soon, and that this will be difficult to achieve.

Shane

Dave said...

More Eclipske:
The Russian plant is projected to produce 800 jets annually. Production at Eclipse headquarters in Albuquerque is expected to continue in full.
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10537110

The press release:
http://www.skycontrol.net/business-general-aviation/eclipse-aviation-and-etirc-aviation-gain-approval-and-financing-for-russian-production-facility-eclipse-500-jets-to-be-assembled-in-state-of-the-art-ulyanovsk-factory/

Around other blogs:
http://allthingsaviation.typepad.com/all_things_aviation_blog/2008/09/eclipse-e500-ve.html
http://californiaflightschool.com/flightschool/?p=138
http://2flytv.com/blog28/2008/09/21/why-the-sun-went-down-on-dayjet-first-vlj-air-taxi-is-belly-up/

Deep Blue said...

Gadfly/B95/Joe P.

Thanks for the very interesting (and important) discussion on fastening.

Gadfly: You may have addressed this before, but I assume you believe FSW is inherently unstable? BTW, one might wonder as well about EAC's certification proces in this area.

As for NDT of airframe/wings, I was told by senior EAC exec that "the testing equipment failed before the E500 did." But of course, at this point, who knows.

Any comments about fastening issues in composite airframes?

Interesting side note: I recently read a report that claims the Titanic forward hull ruptured after striking ice, actually because of faulty rivets that contained excessive amounts of slag (manufacturer under cost pressure, the report claims). I believe it was in the NYT.

Dave said...

However, in one of the reports I've seen, Roel is careful to admit that EAC still needs buckets of money, real soon, and that this will be difficult to achieve.

Yes, this Russian money doesn't do any good until 2010, but with Roel what a tangled web he weaves when he tries to deceive. Lets see how quickly he gives refunds now that he's got the $200 million that he had said he needed...

fred said...

#"It's an aircraft absolutely made for Europe," #

well ...

even if i was born in Africa ...

i believe i have more or less a clue about what can be good or not for Europe (by the way Europe in Geographic term or Europe in Political term ?) being myself an European for all my life ...

this is really a very good statement ...!

is it supposed to "blur" the idea that most US citizen have about Europe ???

1200 to 1400 miles , being perfect for Europe ???

ok , again : Paris/London = plane : less than 1 hour of flight (very good) but to get out of Paris , count a minimum of 50 Minutes to go to airport (IF there isn't ANY strike ...) once in London , the closet Airport (Heatrow) is what ? an hour from downtown ( may be less using Tube , but Metro in London is catastrophic ; no one is ever sure of not getting stuck between 2 stations ) =
result: +/-3 hours

train : time to go to station = none ! stations are in town ...
train travel = 2Hours 30 ...
Time to go downtown once in London = none , stations are in town in UK as well

train beat plane !

costs ?

train = 200€
Plane = few hundreds € (usually 2/3 times the train , cheap tickets exist but they are not convenient !)

so , here we have a winner ...

not sure Roel did so much travel in Europe lately ...

airtaximan said...

TB,m

"They are so consumed with making trouble for Eclipse"

I guess the FAA and the customers who demanded refunds, and the employees that were laid off, and the media, and Dayjet... etc... are all consumed with making trouble for EAC?

You are a joking, man - right?

Deep Blue said...

FreedomJT:

I believe that's a good distinction you make between load limit and 1.5X criteria.

fred said...

as well as :

Paris/Luxembourg : 180 Miles
Paris/London :205 Miles
Paris/Madrid:650 Miles
Paris/Roma : 680 Miles
Paris/Bern : 275 Miles
Paris/Munich : 420 Miles
Paris/Berlin : 550 Miles
Paris/Amsterdam : 260 Miles
Paris/Prag : 550 Miles
Paris /Wien : 650 Miles
Paris/Copenhague :650 Miles

1400 Miles being perfect for Europe , you said ??? ;-))

Dave said...

Der Telegraaf on Eclipske:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/1991652/__Deal_Pieper_en_Poetin__.html%3Fp%3D15,1&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=12&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Roel%2BPieper%2B%2522%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_nl%26as_qdr%3Dd

Roel in another foreign language paper claiming still that orders are huge:
"The Eclipse of orderporteuille growing so strongly that we need an additional production facility," reports Pieper according to the ANP in a statement.

"We expect a year from 400 to 800 airplanes to build. Furthermore, we predicted in our Europe and Russia have agreed to sell 1,200 planes. Then an additional factory certainly necessary. "

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.elsevier.nl/web/10204555/Nieuws/Economie/Roel-Pieper-sluit-miljoenendeal-met-Poetin.htm%3Frss%3Dtrue&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Roel%2BPieper%2B%2522%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_nl%26as_qdr%3Dd

Dave said...

Can someone who can read dutch translate what Roel said in the Elsevier article? Is he claiming that he's got a sustainable demand for 1200 units per year and that's why he needs two factories? Is he saying ABQ will produce 400 to 800 units and that's why he needs a second factory? I think having a proper translation is important. I'm trying to understand it since Roel has repeatedly claimed that the Russian factory will produce 800 year. Why does he need 800 year, let alone more?

fred said...

here you go , dave :

Roel has closed an agreement with the Russian premier Vladimir Putin concerning the construction of a plane factory in Russia. The total investment amounts to more than 200 millions dollar.

That ETIRC, the company of Pieper, today have announced. The factory is a joint venture with the Russian government. It concerns the construction of Vlj planes of the type Eclipse 500. The factory must deliver end 2009 or beginning 2010 the first planes.

Forecast the order of Eclipse grow this way strong, which make an extra production facility necessary, communicate Pieper according to the DUTCH PRESS AGENCY in a declaration.

'We expect per year 400 up to 800 planes build capacity.
we can sell 1,200 planes according to our forecast in Europe and Russia once more. Then an extra factory is therefore certain necessary.

It is a remarkable agreement and a good matter, because among the political adventure between the west and Russia we now build a factory in Russia for an American product, says Pieper in the telegraph.

Dave said...

'We expect per year 400 up to 800 planes build capacity.
we can sell 1,200 planes according to our forecast in Europe and Russia once more. Then an extra factory is therefore certain necessary.


So Roel is claiming that they'll sell 1200 units per year just in Europe and Russia ALONE?!?! This is totally insane. I guess Eclipse could do that if they supply the Russian Air Force with jets, but other than that...

fred said...

little comment on the news :

Roel met Putin ! yes , off-course !!Vladimir had nothing to do on that day ... he waited for him to appear , and when his majesty Roel 1er arrived , Mr Putin kissed him on the arse as to show some respect in the dutch custom ....!

it is NOT something said directly to the Newspaper , but something related to an other article from the "Telegraph"

after Freddie and Fannie being Nationalized , now it is one of the "BEST JEWEL" of the land of "free enterprise" who become nationalized by a foreign(and unfriendly) Govt ...

laughable !!!!

airtaximan said...

T&B,

"airtaximan said... ROn, seems like you were a lot lukier than the test pilots who were flying/certifying the ea-50... they had a lot of very serious problems in their test flights... and I would imagine, those planes were built and maintained about as carefully as EAC could manage.

ATM, by your logic Cessna should be investigated. They just had the SkyCatcher enter an unrecoverable spin. Perhaps Cessna doesn't know what they are doing anymore than Eclipse."

You lost me, please explain what you are trying to say.

To be clear, I was remarking that since ROn has a terrific E-500 plane and is not expereincing problems with say: avionics blackouts, fals error messages, improper trim/stuck control surfaces, etc... that he's fortuneate compared with the FAA test pilots who had all these problems.

Yes, if the Skycatcher fails in FAA cert tests, again and again... they should not receive a TC.. is this your point? If it is, I would agree. Especially if the cert tests results in unrecoverable spin... especially

fred said...

dave if you add up this to the declaration of Roel :

"we already taken out the DayJet orders , still 2600 remains"

it is easy to consider that Vern has been lying all along ...

the REAL order BOOK (please refrain your laugh...) was :

2600 for General customers (US)
1400 for DayJet
1200 for Europe and Russia

5200 in grand-total ...!!

Vern , you should have said so ...
i would have put all my cash into this ...!!
you naughty little twat !!

fred said...

a little "private joke" for Julius ...
Roel said : "It is a remarkable agreement and a good matter, because among the political adventure between the west and Russia we now build a factory in Russia for an American product"

i say :

"99 Luftballons
Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont
Hielt man fuer UFOs aus dem All
Darum schickte ein General
'ne Fliegerstaffel hinterher
Alarm zu geben, wenn's so waer
Dabei war'n da am Horizont
Nur 99 Luftballons "

hope you appreciate ....;-))

julius said...

dave,

have a look at www.ETIRC.com:

http://aviation.etirc.nl/news-items/eclipse-aviation-and-etirc-aviation-gain-approval-and-financing-for-russian-production-facility/

Another chair for RP....
Building up a company is difficult!


Julius

Dave said...

the REAL order BOOK (please refrain your laugh...) was :
2600 for General customers (US)
1400 for DayJet
1200 for Europe and Russia
5200 in grand-total ...!!


Roel is certainly generating comedy rhodium! That means that Eclipse supposedly still has 3800 orders or more than 3 years worth of orders if they produce 1200 units per year. Is Roel having a wild toad-obsessed year?:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6376594

fred said...

you mean a cheer ??

as for the new chair , it is going to be for Tovarich Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ... ! ;-))

Dave said...

have a look at www.ETIRC.com

It looks like Roel is in the business of Joke Warfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World

fred said...

YES , it is pure Madness comedy !!

three stooges ? naw ...

monthy pyton ? pfff ...!

Roel is the winner ! soon EAC story is reaching Hollywood ...

may i be in the casting ???

fred said...

dave , i just hope Roel is not going to finish as Brian in "the life of Brian "

the REAL story of a guy who was born 2 minutes before Jesus , but in the same place ...

it end-up being on the cross (a fashion at the time ...) singing and whistling :

"always look on the bright side of life ..."

hilarious ...

now , that i think of it , Roel destroyed my culture of what is a comical movie ... GRRRR...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 625   Newer› Newest»