Tuesday, March 24, 2009

And the winner is?

Wouldn't we all like to know the answer to that question! Clearly there are those amongst us who think that any such 'winner' is really a short to medium term loser, but for owners, suppliers and whatever limited number of staff get rehired, right now they need SOMEONE to step up to the plate. The trouble is, almost three whole weeks after the Chapter 7 ruling, nobody actually has. I therefore feel compelled to ask the obvious question.

Why?

It's interesting that a company which raised (and spent) a BILLION dollars before earning a cent, and then blew another billion (or more) in a few years of 'producing' the FPJ cannot now find a willing buyer. Clearly there are offers, but the value being placed on the assets (in the $10 million range) is below what the 'senior note holders' feel they'd get in a simple break up of the the facilities. This means they think that the existing owners are prepared to pay significant sums for maintenance, upgrades and repairs in the future OR that the tools, facilities and odds and ends will sell at a 'court steps' auction for more than what they've been offered for the entire thing.

Here we get to one of the key difficulties any prospect buyer of the entire faces. There are several conflicting sets of interests that need, somehow, to be reconciled for a 'Version 2' company to have half a chance. Existing owners want cheap (by jet standards) upgrades, maintenance and repair in 'local' facilities. Suppliers want some payback for the pain they've been through with EAC and (at a minimum) a premium price for the parts they hold currently. The various other creditors (landlords, government and state institutions etc) will need a plausible business plan showing a something back on a) what's owed already and b) a return on the money they will have to forgo while Version 2 gets up and running.

And then there is the FAA and EASA. The Production Certificate has lapsed and will clearly have to be re applied for. In the meantime there will be considerable cost in doing any upgrade work (aeromods, FIKI, AvioNG 1.5 etc) or getting the aircraft on sale outside North America. Training, both for Type Rating and recurring (to keep insurers happy) is a big question mark. The simulators were excluded from the original Chapter 11 proceedings, as the supplier proved to the Court they had not been paid for in the first place. I'm not even sure if they remain in ABQ...

These are significant hurdles for any purchaser but there is another, much more serious one which any attempt to restart will have to overcome.

Staff.

I'm aware that most of the original 'executive team' have aligned themselves with one or the other of the prospective bidders, but these people were part of the problem and are unlikely to prove adept at providing a solution. All they really offer is knowledge of the 'grunts' who actually did the real work. The A&P's who wielded tools to keep the birds flying, the software 'propellor heads' (a term of endearment between programmers, btw) that provide the glue between the various bits of Avio. The line works who are needed to finish the 28 or so unfinished hulls that represent the easiest way to generate revenue for Version 2. Even the sales and marketing people who did the deals and know who's most committed to this bird. Where are they now, and will they come back to ABQ?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I can make an informed guess about critical staff who've taken other work, many of whom were lured to ABQ in the first place by the higher benefits (stock options, pay etc) and are now very skeptical of this whole program. The good guys will have found work with the 'branded' companies and will probably keep their heads down for a while, for sure.

So now we move to consider the owners and depositors. I'm sad to say that I detect signs of a civil war between factions which have supported one or the other of the prospective purchasers. I'm sure that a contributing cause was the re emergence of people like Roel Peiper and Mike McConnell, whom many hold directly responsible for the demise of EAC in the first place. It's also clear that anyone who mentions realistic service and support costs gets dismissed by some of the owners, who are still holding onto their dream of an inexpensive twin jet. Sadly, it's abundantly clear to the entire world that there's no such thing. Depositors, who represent the best short term hope for new sales have been ignored by everyone, and that seems plain stupid to me.

But what would I know? I'm only a verbose Irish businessman, who saw EAC as a scam and said so. Not many believed me when I did, but few would argue with me now. And that's another, possibly fatal, anchor which attempts to revive this company faces. The name 'Eclipse' is now associated with the smell of something rotten, which will persist for a considerable time and require plenty of hard work and more than a share of good luck to negate.

Enough with the negative vibes, I have some good news for you all. The blooming month of April approaches when I'm sure you will see 'interesting' headline posts, from some of our favorite contributors. Prepare to be surprised, amused and possibly even informed. Consider yourselves warned!

Shane






332 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 332 of 332
Shane Price said...

Snippet Time

Seems someone is buying FPJ's.

For $600K.

Yes, your eyes do not deceive you. Six hundred thousand dollars buys you a twin jet, less than 3 years old.

The engines must be worth close to that alone!

Shane

michal said...

Anyone agree with my conjecture that this whole Avio was one of the key technical screw-ups in this project? Why not go along with proven avionics? Why insist on auto-throttle where one is clearly not needed in this category of aircraft?

Michael J.

WhyTech said...

Here is some pretty interesting (and amazing for the candor) reading re the govt intervention in the auto industry. This takes the form of a "Viability Memo" for GM and Chrysler which are linked from the front page of the WSJ On Line. I am not so adept at incorporating links in this particular blog, but here it is (or see www.wsj.com):

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/GM-Viability-Assessment-20090330.pdf

Someone could do a great service by authoring something similar for EAC and put an end to the BS circulating around and around.

gadfly said...

Shane

‘Seems like someone could purchase one of these little jets, sell off the aluminum for a playground or museum display, and use the engines for a dragster on a “quarter mile strip” somewhere in Southern California or mounted in some “boat”.

http://www.topix.com/city/salton-city-ca/2008/10/boat-racing-returns-to-the-salton-sea

A “one time event” would recoup all costs, and then some.

Shucks . . . some clever entrepreneur could figure a way to make the thing float . . . fire it up “once”, and do the one-time event . . . and (for a price) do an “encore”.

Hey . . . I just might have solved the problems for another 259 owners of “partially complete” aeroplanes. And in the “off season”, a couple hundred feet is not too deep for some great scuba diving, to examine the wreckages. In time, the 1.5 times ocean salinity would eat all the aluminium, stir-fried et al.

gadfly

(Pure genius! 'And nobody gets hurt!)

Baron95 said...

michal said...
Why not go along with proven avionics?

What proven glass-panel avionics suites existed for 6,000 lbs, $1M light GA planes in 1998 when this project was launched.

Avio was a good concept and given that Eclipse had access to hundreds of millions and thought they'd be producing hundreds to thousands of planes per year, it was OK to try.

The execution was deeply flawed. The vendor selection was atrocious. The project oversight disastrous.

But lets not try to re-write history here. At the time this project was started, there was no viable integrated glass flight deck available that didn't cost more than the plane itself.

michal said...

to baron95:

why insist on fully integrated avionics or full glass? There were many aircraft at the time (Pilatus, Socata, Mirage, etc.) that had decent half/glass avionics.

EclipsePilotOMSIV said...

Dude michal why do you have to ask so many questions. I think the one good answer about the avionics and auto throttle is as Howard Hughes said "The wave of the future."

And that shit is real cool.

Dave said...

why insist on fully integrated avionics or full glass? There were many aircraft at the time (Pilatus, Socata, Mirage, etc.) that had decent half/glass avionics.

Exactly. Avio strayed from Eclipse's mission of producing cheap aircraft. Putting in a requirement that it have an integrated glass avionics is itself re-writing history. This avionics talk is not in line with making a cheap aircraft.

airtaximan said...

"What proven glass-panel avionics suites existed for 6,000 lbs, $1M light GA planes in 1998 when this project was launched."

IIRC, there were 5 OEMs (Avidyne was the least respected) with a glass cockpit suitable for the EA500 - all, except for the price promised by Avidyne, within around $150k of eachother.

Goodrich
Garmin
Avidyne
Collins
Honeywell

and, remember, there were NO engines whatsoever... so, what!!!

airtaximan said...

Dave,

remember the BS that went along with the glass...

Easy to fly

Make everyone think anyone can fly this plane...

none-starter

Dave said...

I think the one good answer about the avionics and auto throttle is as Howard Hughes said "The wave of the future."
And that shit is real cool.


What you both are saying is not mutually exclusive - I agree with both of you. Something can be cool and futuristic, but it doesn't mean that it is cheap or will speed certification.

airtaximan said...

"The execution was deeply flawed. The vendor selection was atrocious. The project oversight disastrous."

Baron, what if they actually DID a terrific job? I am not joking.

What IF they were the best team, with the greatest performance, all the time in the world and all the money - and still did not succeed?

I think this IS what happend by the way. Why bother second guessing the execution?

They actually amde the same mistake as you - identified that nothing existed, when in fact there were viable options that were different (proven OEms) and less integrated, BUT appropriately priced and more easily attained and maintained.

The philosophy was just wrong - WCSYC
should have stood for
We Cannot See You, Competitors

In the end, the establishment won...

Better planes, better systems, lower cost, overall sane programs.

Just how I see it, after all this time

BUT, if the plan was to spend like a fool to reinvent for the sake of novelty (or ego, dare I say) I think EAC did a great job.

Market?
We have INVESTORS, so we don't need no stinkin market..

Baron95 said...

michal said...

to baron95:

why insist on fully integrated avionics or full glass? There were many aircraft at the time (Pilatus, Socata, Mirage, etc.) that had decent half/glass avionics.

Because Eclipse correctly identified that no 21st century jet could be sold without an integrated glass cockpit.

All the planes you indicated, had to convert to a glass cockpit and are all still way behind even a lowly piston single like the SR-22 perspective. In other words they have gone through a panel transformation and are still behind the times.

Eclipse was correct in their analysis and the spec of the panel - they just couldn't execute. Simple as that. They had th right vision, an OK architecture, sucky vendor selection, oversight and integration.

Baron95 said...

Dave said... Exactly. Avio strayed from Eclipse's mission of producing cheap aircraft.

Eclipse's mission was to produce small jets in VOLUME. That requires an easy to operate, type rate and insurance plane. That requires a state of the art integrated panel for a Jet.

Just because they failed in execution, doesn't mean the idea (as far as avionics) was wrong.

airtaximan said...

"But lets not try to re-write history here. At the time this project was started, there was no viable integrated glass flight deck available that didn't cost more than the plane itself."

this is patently false...AND aslo, I might add...

AVIO cost more than the plane was worth... in reality. So did the whole damn plane...

Dave said...

Just because they failed in execution, doesn't mean the idea (as far as avionics) was wrong.

The idea of competing with the F-22 and large commercial aircraft was wrong to begin with.

Baron95 said...

ATM, doing the analysis, ideal specs, then identifying options and paths to get there (perhaps in steps) as well as needed compromises, IS part of EXECUTION.

Listen Boeing identified that the correct design and architecture for the 787 systems is a mostly all electric, then they made compromises on state-of-the art designs and are accepting compromises on weight for the first few birds. They are betting that electric (vs hydraulic) systems will have a higher evolution velocity and pay-off over time.

Conversely, they identified that a wireless in-cabin entertainment system is the way of the future. However, they ditched during detailed design due to vendor maturity, risks, time to market.

It is all part of execution. And Eclipse sucked at it. Most likely because descent and "reality check" opinions were not respected in a Stalinist leadership style.

I'm sure that quite a few member of this forum doing a design/plan review for Avio and Avio NG would have quickly concluded it was not achievable. Problem is, they either didn't ask for a critical design review, or made it clear to those doing the review what the answer had to be or disregarded their honest appraisals.

airtaximan said...

Baron,

In the case of Avio, there was no good reason to go down this path, the way they did. They just missed the boat, assuming they did not have systems level suppliers.

I would offer that perhaps, for a home-grown integrated avionics system as spec'ed, they might have done an amazing job, compared with say GArmin or Collins for the same money and effort - only question is, why?

Unless you believe your own theory, there were no options, and this would just be wrong.

There were at least 5 glass cockpits in development during this period, and had they chosen any of them, the real cost would have been lower and the risk would have also been lower.

Its just wrong to dismiss their achievements wthout knowing the cost and level of effort. If you knew there were 50 guys working for 5 years and spent 10 million (for example) you would say man, that was world-class.

Dumb, but worl class execution nonetheless. No one else could have gotten to where they were with this level of effort and resources.

Collins, would spend 15X.

Anyhow, it is what it is, a bag o crapola.

Bad idea to homegrow your own avionics... this was the only decision they made.

Had they done nothing except spe'd Garmin, they would have been way ahead.

Baron95 said...

ATM - I don't disagree with anything you said.

Fact remains that the current systems on the TBM850, Mustang, etc, are put to shame by the lowly SR22-perspective. And the G1000 first flew certified (in a bare bones way) in 2004, and only had an integrated autopilot 2 years later. Fully four years after Eclipse deliveries were supposed to begin. L3 and Honeywell glass were delayed for years - had Eclipse bet on them they'd be even worse off. Avidyne is just a poor system - they will lose all their market share over time - guaranteed.

The avionics manufacturers are NOT the source of all innovation. It takes an OEM with the correct vision to lead them there.

WhyTech said...

"Anyhow, it is what it is, a bag o crapola."

Yes, and I have to somewhat agree with the Baron (I hate when that happens!) that grossly flawed execution was the main issue. No significant technology invention was needed - all lying around, just not in the necessary package.

airtaximan said...

well, well, well, look at the integration on the Phenom 300... its WAY beyond the others.

EMBRAER worked closely with GArmin and used their operating data to guide a nice system with much of the functionality you describe.

Its a $7M plane, but the avionics is not that much more expensive... ad if you apply VErntastic rate (EMB did not do this), you might get a likewise price.

So, yeah, the aircraft OEM can push the avionics OEM... but this is different than the aircraft OEM homegrowing a system.

Their wish list was OK, their approach was really silly. Is this execution? Nope... anyone can provide a nice list of "wants".

The idea they could not find a supplier, was beyond execution risk, it was... well, how they raised money from the unsuspecting!!!

Amazing

airtaximan said...

WT,

is that execution, or business plan?

1- I will homegrow the avionics
2- I will use COTS and leverage the oems

'nuff said

Shadow said...

AT, the avionics (Garmin G1000-based Prodigy) in the $6.65 million Phenom 300 are the same as those in the $3.25 million Phenom 100. You're way overspending if you're buying the 300 just for the avionics; get a Phenom 100 instead.

Anonymous said...

baron95 said...

Because Eclipse correctly identified that no 21st century jet could be sold without an integrated glass cockpit.

But they were not delivered that way!

There was ample opportunity to switch glass (which they did too late and to the wrong vendor). The first mistake is ignorance, the second one is pride. As it was, Garmin ends up being the actual solution after all. What a joke.

Besides, it is pure BS that the EA500 needed glass to be a success. The dream wasn't about glass, it was about a VLJ. Thousands of jets were sold with steam after the EA500 was announced. Leave revisionist history for the Eclipse faithful.

Anonymous said...

Shane Price said...

For $600K.

The engines must be worth close to that alone!


To whom?

Who needs PW610s? No plane that uses it is anywhere near HSI or TBO, and none of them will make it that far anyway. It doesn't fit on any experimentals that I am aware of. The market value for a PW610 is near zero because there is no demand.

So the engines are both expensive and worthless.

WhyTech said...

"is that execution, or business plan?"

Remember that in 1998, the Garmin 430 was just arriving on the scene. No one (including Garmin) was thinking G1000 then or even several years later. I agree that EAC could have reduced the risk greatly by using 1998 COTS, but would have been obsolete by 2003,

Jackrabbit said...

BEG writes:
If RiP is still a player, and Lundeen is involved, maybe something is still cooking with Russia.

For an update on Russia's economic situtation, see the description of the World Bank's report at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/europe/31russia.html?hpw

BEG writes:
Why did Wedge leave EAC??
and
Dave writes:
I think they were both delusional about the Russian money.

RPs takeover is fascinating. The best scenario that I've been able to put together on the subject is that:
1) RP and Wedge, being ex-Software execs became close as business partners
2) RP suggests a Euro manufacturing facility -- to be constructed sometime in the future. Russia was probably also considered as the best location.
3) Talks with ETRIC/RP heat up in Fall 2007 as Wedge becomes desperate for $$
4) CFO leaves in Nov/Dec 2007, objecting to impeding deal with ETRIC/RP/Russians which is forced by a EAC being virtually bankrupt.
5) Wedge signs deal with ETRIC/RP but continues to seek $ elsewhere when that doesn't pan out, he starts to sell positions for delivery of SEJ concept and to spend money on preparing for SEJ production instead of securing an EASA cert. as called for under the EAC-ETRIC agreement.

Wedge, I think, saw ETRIC/RP only as a short-term solution to his financing needs but his "deal with the devil" backfired because it included provisions for ETRIC to increase its stake if milestones weren't met.

6) RP, angry at the lack of EASA progress, and threatened by the possible success of RPs SEJ efforts, brings the matter to the BoD, demanding that Wedge be fired. Maybe he also threatens to go public with EACs dire financial situation -- which would choke off any hope of SEJ position sales. The Board complies as it is clear that the only alternatives are RP/Promise of Russian financing or bankruptcy.

7) RP *does* obtain LOT from Russians in September 2008.

8) Russian $ is dependent on EASA cert., which doesn't happen until Nov. '08. By that time, financial crisis is in full force and Wedge/Russians/EAC/Somebody(ies) decide to take EAC into bankruptcy rather than complete the capital raise with the Russians.

9) As we know, by Feb. '08 Russians are no longer interested, Ch11 sale fails, and EAC enters Ch7

Note: much of the above is speculation based largely on info I could piece together from past blog posts. It is amazing to me how ETRIC/RP wound up with so much stock and possibly other assets (Euro exclusive, etc.)

Someone who has followed this more closely could maybe correct any mistakes in these speculations.

michal said...

All the planes you indicated, had to convert to a glass cockpit and are all still way behind even a lowly piston single like the SR-22 perspective.,

I think it is a significant hyperbole. Yes, they had to convert when time was right for them, what's wrong with such incremental approach?. The only thing that separates them currently from the Perspective is synthetic vision which is a mere software update (fact, has to be STC-ed for every model). I would never call a vanilla G1000 "way behind" the same G1000 with synthetic vision. I accept your argument however about ease of operation and insurance however I don't have enough knowledge to judge if this premise is even valid - in other words if AVIO (if successful) would somehow make transition to EAC500 easier for a qualified pilot and whether insurance companies would be impressed and lower their rates. Is it happening with other glass aircraft?

bill e. goat said...

Jackrabbit,
I think you've laid out RiP's plot pretty well, thanks. Wedge shoveled himself into a hole, and somehow he thought he could get out if he just kept digging.

Meanwhile, I think RiP knew EAC was an UTTERLY hopeless financial money pit, and probably anticipated BK all along. I think maybe he had anticipated setting up the factory in Russia first, and then letting ABQ operation implode.

Being as RiP was a cool operator, I find it odd his sponsors can't scrape up the $25M or so needed to put EAC on ice until the economy improves. (Read as: I think RiP is still a player in this game)- TBD.

bill e. goat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill e. goat said...

Shane,
I agree on the PWC's being worth $300-400K a pair; I think if someone were to come up with a really light SEJ (2600 lb), they'd be the engine of choice.

(I suspect a $600K Eclipse is one of the orphans needing all the updates, or held by somebody in a LOT of pain right now).

bill e. goat said...

Baron95,
"But lets not try to re-write history here. At the time this project was started, there was no viable integrated glass flight deck available that didn't cost more than the plane itself".

Right-o. At the time, one might have asked the question: why not?

And comforted themselves with: "it's only software".

Which is apparently what Wedgie did.

bill e. goat said...

EPx,
I don't think everyone understood the inference "the wave of the future" (I hadn't seen the movie- but read a lot about HH*, and didn't recall that being one of his famous lines, but maybe it was. The director of the film apparently thought so anyway):

"The story picks up from there to his young adult life in the 1920s and moves to him as a tycoon-celeb in the late 1940s, stopping just as he goes batty when viewing in public his latest planes and starts repeating over and over again the meaningless phrase "the wave of the future."
The film, The Aviator
-----------------------------------

Howard Hughes

Brain Injury and OCD
*Recently, there seems to be a strong theory that Howie whacked his head pretty hard in the XF-11 crash, and this led to OCD.

There is a theory that Traumatic Brain Injury can cause/contribute to Tourettes syndrome too. As I have long suspected Wedge was dropped on his head as a baby, this would seem to explain some of his incredible utterances.

bill e. goat said...

Dave,
Interesting article- written in 2002.

Quoting a few passages, which are stunningly correct, I am stunned with just how observant, but clueless, our favorite ex-CEO was:
-----------------------------------
"Not only is it thought to be the most integrated suite ever to fly in a business or general aviation aircraft, Eclipse also believes it offers more functionality within one system than even that of the relatively recent Boeing 777".
-----------------------------------
"The Avio system makes the Eclipse 500 "the most electronic and computerised aircraft the general aviation industry has seen. We can't think of any other civil aircraft that comes close. The only examples are in the military world - the [Bell Boeing] V-22 and [Lockheed Martin/Boeing] F-22, that's the level of integration we've talking about", Raburn says".
-----------------------------------
"We decided a long time ago [1999] to take on the role of system integrator. That's a job usually done by a major avionics company".
-----------------------------------
"You couldn't get this functionality for much less than $1 million if you went to the original equipment manufacturers," he adds.
-----------------------------------
Well said, Wedge.

Baron95 said...

airtaximan said...

well, well, well, look at the integration on the Phenom 300... its WAY beyond the others.

What is your point? The Phenom 300 is coming to market 6 years after the first deliveries of the EA500 were supposed to commence.

You guys keep on insisting that Eclipse should use something that did not exist in the marketplace until years after the EA500 deliveries were to start.

The first deliveries of G1000+GFC700 didn't happen until late 06, 3 years after EA500 deliveries were to start. Even TBM didn't manage to convert to G1000 till 2008.

Baron95 said...

Flyger said... Thousands of jets were sold with steam after the EA500 was announced.

Not a single so-called VLJ, personal jet, was ever sold without glass cockpit.

Not even new single engine piston planes now sell without glass cockpit. Even Husky - a bush plane - now has to have glass to sell.

You are now grasping at straws and attempting to deny reality. If Elvis where a GA manufacturer, he'd be singing "It is Glass or never, the buyer won't wait...."

Baron95 said...

michal said... The only thing that separates them currently from the Perspective is synthetic vision which is a mere software update...

Do yourself a favor - call Cirrus, go a fly an SR22-Perspective and see for yourself. SVS is NOT the only thing. And by the way, Cirrus has SVS and EVS (camera) imaging simultaneously on PFD/MFD.

That LVL autopilot button, the huge displays with huge horizon, clean flight deck, integrated de-icing control, etc, etc, etc are all significant safety and workload reducing factors for pilots, specially non-professional, personal GA owners.

A $500K (SR-22 GTS) has a better panel, by a long shot, than all planes costing up to 6 times as much. That is what you get on an OEM properly designs and integrates in an avionics vendor suite. Socata TBM, took a tiny 10" vanilla G1000 implementation on a $3M plane. It is just sad what they did.

Baron95 said...

And that is the true tragedy of the inept execution of Eclipse. Cessna, TBM, Mooney, Beech, slapped a half-assed, non-integrated, small screen version of the G1000 on their planes. Piper has disgraceful avionics all the way to the top of the line with Avidyne on the Meridian.

The newish blood went much further successfully (SR22) and unsuccessfully (EA500).

Yes, the Phenom Prodigy is a good integration effort by Embraer. But that is for a planes with MTOW of more than 10,000 lbs priced north or $3M. Good effort, but on a different class of planes altogether.

Anonymous said...

baron95 said...

You guys keep on insisting that Eclipse should use something that did not exist in the marketplace until years after the EA500 deliveries were to start.

Traditional gauges existed, and some fine examples of that as well such as Sandel. Be careful when you speak for other people, you don't seem to get that right sometimes.

Not a single so-called VLJ, personal jet, was ever sold without glass cockpit.

None were offered that way. Seems like circular reasoning to say non glass won't sell when none available. Anti gravity space ships don't sell, either, market must not want those.

You are now grasping at straws and attempting to deny reality. If Elvis where a GA manufacturer, he'd be singing "It is Glass or never, the buyer won't wait...."

You've created this mythical connection in your mind. The Husky is an OPTION, so apparently not everyone WANTS it. Put traditional gauges in an EA500 and watch it sell!

I also think your are missing the very big clue here that glass is available for *ALL* airplanes, no matter what they came with, due to retrofits like Aspen and G600. So the glass addicts are not barred from any airplane, and the traditional gauge fellows can exist as well. Thus an EA500 would sell if it came with a wet compass because then the pilots could put whatever they want in them. In fact that would be *BETTER* than Avio right now because then you could have a full featured and *supported* avionics package.

The VLJ dream was about the small size, low cost, and personal nature of the airplane. Glass was never a requirement, just frosting on the cake. Vern got this wrong, too.

fred said...

Jacklapin

i think your description of EAC business plans is very good ...!

i don't really agree with conclusions , but it's brilliant !

you miss one CRUCIAL point : Roel & Wedge were in the boat right from the beginning ...

so if in your description you had that the Whole Plot was to have EAC to Fail , then the russian part to collect everything over ...

THEN we can (only speculation , carefull) assume that the whole idea was one way or the other

1° to have all costs of development paid by the first investors (owners + depositors) , to have a nice Ch.11;363 sale to the profit of the russian/european part of the story BUT leaving on ground all debts accumulated for certifying , develloping , marketing , etc ... the product (Fpj)

that could be a very good way for a successful bizz-plan : keep the profits but sink the costs in an other community ...!!

2° launch the product , make a few incomplete to fly , tout everywhere about the huge success for your product , tout about the gigantic order-book ...

then IPO ...

cash out and go to spend your life and money on some paradise island having no-extradition trety with USA ...
(which is BTW the case between USA/RU , it might be a beginning of explanation of the why of location , as well as the IDEA [and only a fantasy ] in Western minds that before crisis Russia was a place where Billions were waiting to be spent , wasted , made , etc...)

the main problem in those 2 proposition :

EAC was a bit of both !!!

Wedge probably saw it as a way of short-term and bit longer-term financing ...

sharks playing with other sharks and finally eating one an other ...

this is the only way i saw to explain why Ed of Dayjet was in the plot and leting Wedge to tout about the DJ's order-book (thousands ?) WHY wasting his reputation in being part in such a marketing ?

Problem : he was probably the only one of the 3 to have HIS own real money in line ...


RiP to take control of EAC in a "rocambolesque" way and flying from surprise to surprise , finally to play the "wow , i didn't figure it out the situation was so wrecked ..." aria ...

problem : he was in the boat right from beginning , how could he miss such an obvious scam ?


so you see your description is very good , just add a few nuances it would be nearly perfect ... OR at least making some comprehensible sens ...!

IMO

michal said...

That LVL autopilot button, the huge displays with huge horizon, clean flight deck, integrated de-icing control, etc, etc, etc .. .. Socata TBM, took a tiny 10" vanilla G1000 implementation on a $3M plane. It is just sad what they did.

Sorry, for a moment I treated your arguments seriously, now I see they became utterly nonsensical ... my mistake.

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

Billy :

as an answer to you question about Friedman's monetarism ...

in my humble no-brain thinking : it is a fact of nature that you'll always find more brain-material in 2 skulls than in only one ...

taking as granted this fact (wrong in my case : i have only water in the skull !) as usual universal-truth doesn't exist as a finite thing anywhere ...

so it might be that economic-answers are within a bit of all theory and approach ...but in no one in particular ...

the monetarism is quite certain , wherever you find money in too great supply = problems occurs !!

this is where i feel tempted to believe that the path B.O.pres. is following now MIGHT be a greater problem than a solution (in fact it MIGHT be a greater problem than the problem it is supposed to cure...)

the simple fact that now the U.S. right hand is making check that the U.S. left hand is pleased to cash-in (where is creation of richness in this ?market-economy is about this creation, otherwise it is "planned-economy" not very far off from communism !! ;-) ) is already a very good resume about the delirium of situation ...

i personally believe that the answer would be more in a ponderation of situation ...
"keep the scale right in middle" would be a plus , as Keynes is already totally lost in the Trillions spent and injected both to Iraq and to make peoples "not grind too much" about it ...

Plays a good part in this fiasco the Bankers mentality :
if you would have spent a long time on best university's chairs , could you accept that some Financial-instruments are simply TOO complicated for your understanding ?

NO way !

so you can pretend to control what's going on in the market for about anything and everything , for what you miss : you can make nice little mathematic formulaes that even Einstein wouldn't touch without a colt on the head , to explain why you failed !!
(which is exactly what did happen in LTCM nightmare ...)

until one day someone , somewhere "Invent" something that cannot be understood , just because there is NOTHING to be understood about ...
nothing apart good old BS and greed !!!
(you create credit for peoples who should never get it and have no way to reimburse , they buy houses , houses that have to be built , built by firms which have to employ peoples , peoples who have access to this credit because they have a building-houses job ...)

so you invent this "subprime" and you make the foreign money flow-in by selling it in the form of contracts that CANNOT be understood ... but with a very high return in % :

bankers cannot say " we do not understand , so we won't touch !" because it is High-return and they have the best education & diplomaes ... customers CANNOT accept that one banker tell them "please , don't touch this" because next bank at corner told them they could make a fortune without taking any risks ...
(which is the most wrong thing on earth : EVERYTHING is risky !!! life being the worst : we all have a 100% failure on it !only a question of time... ;-) ) and for customers Bankers ARE the professionals ...!!

so you see , my friend , i wouldn't say that one theory is better than an other one ... more that it need LOTS of analysis and even MORE humility ...

for that simple constat : Economy is mainly a science about predicting the past !!! ;-)

since i told you , i have no-brain ;i defined all this with a little simpler way :

let's say we are youngsters (20/25) with a big appetit for life and not enough mistakes done yet to have some of the needed reserve ....

we both want to have a family , with the best kids ...

we both know 2 girls :

one is very strict , she has large hips which is a good sign she will give birth as many times as you want , she is not very pretty ,she hasn't got anything really noticeable in her curves , not very wild ... , nothing really to turn men's head when she enter a place ...she comes from a traditional values family where they know that "life isn't a piece of cake , everyday ..."

the second girl is totally the opposite , she has curves to damn a saint , she is always dressed like when she enters a bar even the music stop and all men are mouth-opened ...she live her life like tomorrow will never exist , but you can be sure that the only thing which has never be "between her legs" is a train ....!!

which one would you choose as a wife ?

the one who will raise kids with you ?

the one who would tell you "don't want kids , it ruins a flat belly ..."

you see Economy is very simple , just a shame some "need" theories to find out ... ! ;-))

WhyTech said...

"which one would you choose as a wife ?"

In this whacko world, one can easily do both. Unfortunately, most significant choices in life are considerably less clear than this one.

fred said...

yes whytech ...

i made a clear example for the point ...

off-course there is an (almost) infinity of nuances !

but things would be better (already) if most would use their "common sens" ...

i am the first one to attracted to the "second girl" , but let's face it even if she can be more fun , more experienced , more anything man can wish ...

would you take her to your parents ?

probably not ! economy works the same way ...
if you are ready to believe any spell-o-fortune-teller , do not complain after ...

same with this girl story , if you marry the second (instead of just playing ...) do not be surprised to find an other man in your bed !!

fred said...

BTW :

you know that this "wacko-world" allow you to do both , because you have some experience yourself ...

remember a few years ago , when older than you were at that time told you "son ... don't even think about it...!" and the way you had to think "what an old-bag ! i want fun and i know what i'm doing...."

you probably thought at the time : things are different now ... times have passed , we live in a new world ...

Economy is the same : few to tell you "wisdom" , lots to follow "fashion" ...

where is the difference = theories are very good to explain afterweard ... or possibilities that may be existing ...

but as to forecast anything = no way it can work ...!

even if it has been quite popular to explain "economics and systems" as buttons to be pushed and levers to be actionned ...

there is still a "big" part of mistery in the "beast" (Human nature )

Jackrabbit said...

@Fred
It's difficult for me to believe that EAC was a "scam from the beginning." But your opinion seems to be shared by some others and being new to the blog I just don't know as much.

Many entrepreneurs plan for (er... dream of) a future IPO so I don't read much into any such plans by RP or Wedge.

I'm looking forward to the "tell-all" books after the dust has settled.

airtaximan said...

baron,

I assure you there were 5 glass offerings during 2000 timeframe... just like PW had the 600 in development since mid 1990's.

There's a lot you may not see in the newspapers!

Someone here says the avionics is the same for the P100 and the P300 - if this is true, I am not sure, then your time lag is pretty close to the delivery of th ea50... and no one is saying it could not have been done earlier. Like I said, these systems were on the table in 2000 timeframe.

I know there's at least one reader here who can corroberate this.

Finally, the timing point is moot, because Avio is still not finished, actually never was...

So yu can project (if ever) when the comparable systems will be finished and ready for delivery.

I think Garmin wins
;)

I also think sanity should have prevailed and the ea50 should have been finished, but as smarter folks than me keep saysing, not a single completed EA50 will ever be delivered.

WhyTech said...

"would you take her to your parents ?"

Fred,

I am surprised that a man of your vast experice and intellect has escaped a simple fact of life: you dont have to marry all of them!

Beedriver said...

I do not think the Eclipse 500 business plan was planned to crash from the beginning. I think it suffered from a lack of planning.
Wedge is what is called in the emerging laser market that I am in a GRAND VISIONARY.

A GRAND VISIONARY many times has a correct vision of a probable future but they have no idea of what it will take to get there and how to do it and what the mature market competitors know that he will need TO DO to beat them.

Many times they are charismatic and can get people to invest ridiculous amounts of money because they have a good story and the future they describe is plausible.

The worst case of this type of visionary results in Madoff type schemes.

Vern is a Grand visionary just like Bill Gates, the only difference was that Bill Gates operated in a market where it was possible to do the spectacular advances that were predicted and Bill actually had the smarts to do it. Vern saw Bill's success and said "I can do it also" however Vern was not luck enough to pick a fertile market that had not been plowed and planted by lots of people before.

fred said...

whytech ...

yep , you are right , you do not have to marry any of them ...
(i have never been married Btw ;-) )

it is called "playing" or "womanizer" ...

as long as you assume it = it is ok !

Dave said...

So how much does Jet Alliance stand to make on this? No wonder there are factions and going nowhere with the Eclipse plans. When the aircraft is just hanging on by a thread, you get people like Mike Press and Jet Alliance who get greedy. UT Finance has already gone on court record to say the used DayJet aircraft are worth "substaintially less" than $1.25M each. Sanada called Harlow "predatory," so why shouldn't that apply to Sanada as well?

fred said...

Beedriver + jack :


yes , i am quite sure that EAC wasn't a scam right from beginning as well ...

it became when , after the first flight revealed to be a fiasco , the decision was taken NOT to say the truth to depositors about a delay that was to be unevitable !!

If Wedge after the first flight would have been trustful and honest , he would have said the whole truth to depositors and THEN taking the money of the ONLY ones wanting to stay on the boat ...

he didn't ...

i have never been digging into the story deep enough , but i wouldn't be surprised at all if all the marketing-stunts would have started shortly after this "first-flight" ...

this is the difference in beeing visionary or a plain mytho !!

one has a quite good idea of what he wants and where he would like to go ...

the other one has the same "Vision" at beginning , but shortly after make things and take decisions to make it last an other day/week/month , just in case it would work ...

this is where EAC has similarities with the Subprimes-crisis ...

at beginning seems to be a very good way forward ... as times pass by , the events start to "dictate" the whole process and the more it last , the less ways out ... until it finally cracks !

exactly like the "stocks saying" : if everybody talks about , run ...run away as fast as you can ...!

julius said...

fred,

life is hard ... or soft..depends when and were...

Anyhow, to my knowledge wedge made a first major ethic mistake with the Nimbus orders (before the first flight?).

Once this "first time" was passed there seemed to be no obstacles to stop this behaviour!

Finally, he became the undertaker of EAC.


Julius

julius said...

Baron95,

Garmin 1000: Cirrus versus Socata


the TBM850 has three screens for pilot and copilot, the SR20/22 just two screens for the pilot!

I think the latest G1000s also contain major contributions of the OEM.

If I compare a G1000 with a double G430 with autopilot and transponder I think that's no difference (Ok the screens are bigger, some additional charts).
Perhaps Garmin is reluctant to continue because of liabilities: Automatic leaning - who becomes responsible in case of engine problems; automatic levelling in case of critical situations and structure failures ....

EAC was better of with its AVIO concept - but bad execution and too expensive!

Julius

Turboprop_pilot said...

Baron:

You mind sure works differently than most.In my old Malibu I flew hard IFR very nicely for several years. When I moved to the TBM with dual Garmin 530s and King EFIS (a glass cockpit), I flew hard IFR very nicely. I had a deposit on an Eclipse and an Adam A700. If either of these had made it to market (completed in the EA50 case), I would have flown them very nicely in hard IFR with steam gauges, TBM style glass cockpit, anything but the abomination Eclipse started with- VOR to VOR with a wing leveler- really.

The skills for IFR must be retained in the event of a systems failure, even with the best glass cockpit. And the actuality of too much automation makes accidents like the Turkish Airbus happen when they did not maintain a scan to catch an automation error.

ex Turboprop_pilot

Turboprop_pilot said...

Baron said: Socata TBM, took a tiny 10" vanilla G1000 implementation on a $3M plane. It is just sad what they did.

Jesus- a "tiny" 10" screen- you must have a really special Baron and have a Daddy who was a Wall Street Master of the Universe who spoiled you terribly....

ex Turboprop_pilot

WhyTech said...

"i have never been married Btw"

Go for it, but keep in mind it can take several tries to get it right.

Jake Pliskin said...

airtaximan,

haven't you learned yet that the baron is never wrong? even if the baron is wrong he is right, you're wrong for questioning the baron.

(or as i like to call him Cliff Clavin)

fred said...

gutten abend , julius ...

yes , i thought of Nimbus ...
but then Wedge could argue about the "it wasn't me alone" ...

as for the "First Flight" as day ONE of the scam , he has no way out : he was the one who took decision to lie !
IMO ...

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

Whytech :

i was taking the marriage as a paraphrase to economy ...

virtuous way or bad way = no problem , as long as you assume it fully with full understanding of what may happen to you ...!

as for "go for it" thanks , but no thanks ! i am happy as i am ...

WhyTech said...

"as long as you assume it fully with full understanding of what may happen to you ...!"

When you are in love with another human or an airplane, its almost impossible to see the possible downside.

michal said...

I compare a G1000 with a double G430 with autopilot and transponder I think that's no difference (Ok the screens are bigger, some additional charts).

I would no fall from one exaggeration to another. G1000 adds a lot to "double 430".

Perhaps Garmin is reluctant to continue because of liabilities: Automatic leaning

Unless I missed something I don't think Garmin is in business of leaning mixture. Also "automatic leveling" is really no automatic - pilot has to press the button.

Dave said...

Kent Kresa: "I will turn GM around 360 degrees!" Its funny how there are all these bios out on Kresa, but they don't say much about what Kresa did for Eclipse.

Turboprop_pilot said...

If he turns it around 360 degrees, it will be headed in the same direction????

ex Turboprop_pilot

Dave said...

If he turns it around 360 degrees, it will be headed in the same direction????

I was taking that from a famous sports quote made by Jason Kidd.

julius said...

fred,

bonne nuit,


in an interview wedge called the Nimbus deal a big mistake - after that there were "no" similar mistakes (IIRC)..... The dam (of normal behaviour) had collapsed!

Julius

Baron95 said...

I don't know why some here insist on waste time comparing the resulting botched Avio implementation vs the latest Glass suite on the market - e.g. Prodigy.

I was comparing the Avio requirements, architecture and design circa 1999 to what was available them, for certified delivery in 2003 - the original revised delivery date of the EA500.

There is no question that Eclipse botched the implementation, including two rounds of bad vendor selection and oversight. None. It is self evident.

As to the desirability of an integrated glass panel, the market speaks for itself, Flyger. Every time a G1000 system was made an option (even against another lowly glass panel) it was ordered virtually exclusively by buyers.

Cessna stopped offering steam on 172s, Diamond on the DA40, etc, simply because no one was ordering it.

And TBM - big deal - you can fly hard IFR on steam gages. I can drive a rear wheel drive car in the snow with no ABS, no traction control, no electronic stability control. But I'd rather be driving one with all of the above, and I certainly want the other drivers around me with all of the above.

It is completely STUPID to insist that pilots should just be perfect and deal with challenges with just the bare minimum. Just plain STUPID.

A professional AA flight crew with glass and INS and FMS flew a 757 into a mountain in Colombia. You can DREAM that pilots will never make those mistakes or you can give them an inexpensive (even handheld 696) terrain mapping and alerting. Your choice.

Thankfully, pilots are voting with their wallets and shunning anything that does not offer VISUAL safety information on big screens.

I could care less if it dumbs down pilots. I care about the practical safety advantages (some yet to be proven).

I'd rather fly as a passenger, with a pilot that has no clue about partial panel flying and only knows GPS/ILS nav and approaches with huge visual terrain displays, and the other goodies, than flying with a guy that can fly NDB approached partial panel behind a steam gaged, non-visual cockpit.

But that is just me.

WhyTech said...

"But that is just me."

You got that right!

michal said...

I don't know why some here insist on waste time comparing the resulting botched Avio implementation vs the latest Glass suite on the market

You deliberately keep missing the main point of the argument presented here. No one questions that glass is "nice" and that it is preferred by majority of pilots. But glass is recent, aviation was doing fine decades before it. Folks were enjoying their Pilatuses, CJ1s or TBMSs and reaching their destinations. You are trying to convince us that somehow Eclipse 500 was unique and it had to have Avio (or other full glass) otherwise it was not a viable product. Sorry but for me it is a BS. You haven't presented a shred of evidence that this aircraft could not have been successful using off-shelf avionics available at that time and later could have upgraded to something better once it was ready.

Dave said...

You haven't presented a shred of evidence that this aircraft could not have been successful using off-shelf avionics available at that time and later could have upgraded to something better once it was ready.

That's how I see it too. The Eclipse was supposed to be a bargain-basement priced aircraft and the concept of Avio (not just the execution) was counter to this. Trying to make avionics like the F-22 avionics doesn't exactly go together with being cheap.

airsafetyman said...

"I'd rather fly as a passenger, with a pilot that has no clue about partial panel flying and only knows GPS/ILS nav and approaches with huge visual terrain displays, and the other goodies, than flying with a guy that can fly NDB approached partial panel behind a steam gaged, non-visual cockpit."

That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog.

WhyTech said...

"That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog."

Baron would come around to this point of view if the big screens went blank while he was a pax with such a pilot. Reminds me of a conversation I had with the Klapmiers (sp?) of Cirrus back in the early days when they were looking for capital and believed that big screens would make everyone an instrument pilot. I asked if it wouldnt be necessary to have some level of partial panel skills in case the screens went blank; the conversation quickly turned to other subjects.

airsafetyman said...

From a glass cockpit manufacturer's service bulletin:

"Full or partial failure of the PFD can lead to spatial disorientation of the pilot and subsequent loss of control. This could result in an accident causing death..." and .."exercise basic airmanship and practice partial panel flight operations. If you are not comfortable or current flying partial panel, avoid flight in IMC and marginal VFR conditions." There it is from a manufacturer. But the Baron knows better?

PawnShop said...

That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog.

I take that to mean that you must skip past most of my posts.

DI

Anonymous said...

WhyTech said...

I asked if it wouldnt be necessary to have some level of partial panel skills in case the screens went blank; the conversation quickly turned to other subjects.

Like, maybe, parachutes? I wonder if Cirrus will get an ELOS for the SF50 to dispense with backup instruments because they have a parachute?

michal said...

I asked if it wouldnt be necessary to have some level of partial panel skills in case the screens went blank;

Maybe someone will enlighten me - what exactly is the partial panel on say a G1000 equipped SR22? If you lose one of the displays that's hardly a partial panel - all the functionality remains. You lose both screens - what's the chance of it - one in a billion? Ok, say you lose whole G1000 - you still have backup instruments to keep your wings level. I claim there is no such things as "partial panel" in modern glass cockpit aircraft. Partial panel was always associated with a dreaded turn-and-slip indicator which is extinct by now and the topic was far from academic because vacuum pumps were so unreliable, now the topic is purely academic.

fred said...

Gutten morgen , Julius ...

in an interview wedge called the Nimbus deal a big mistake ...

well , if we go down this path , it won't be very difficult to argue that the whole thing was a mistake ...! ;-)

i often wondered if it is the "Wedge's software background"
that prevented him to understand that when a computer crash , you just reboot ... while with a plane ... i still haven't found the reset-button ...

WhyTech said...

"I claim there is no such things as "partial panel" in modern glass cockpit aircraft."

You can claim whatever you want. Then go out an fly an approach to minimums on standby instruments and see how it goes. You wont like the results. Partial panel today means a reversion to whatever standby instruments are in the acft. I had an ESIS (glass panel Electronic Standby Instrument System) in one of my acft, and using this to fly an approach when one is normally used to large screens was a real challenge - not as bad as needle/ball/airspeed, but no piece of cake. There are any number of faults that can take out your main avionics - not common but more likely than one in a billion.

WhyTech said...

"Like, maybe, parachutes? "

Ever study the history of Cirrus accidents? I'll take the standby instruments any day. With the chute, you are guaranteed to lose the acft, and will lose your life around half the times its use is attempted.

eclipso said...

Turboprop_pilot said...

If he turns it around 360 degrees, it will be headed in the same direction????



VERY OBSERVANT!....you caught the smoke before it tarnish the mirror

Dave said...

Kresa has the right experience afterall. This sounds like Eclipse. Now all we need is for Roel to form a company called GMCar to bid on the assets.

airtaximan said...

"That's how I see it too. The Eclipse was supposed to be a bargain-basement priced aircraft and the concept of Avio (not just the execution) was counter to this. Trying to make avionics like the F-22 avionics doesn't exactly go together with being cheap."

Very sane commentary, here.

Also, just becasue they "thought" or "told everyone" deliveries were in 3 years, does not mean this was accurate. So, there were advanced glass avionics in development - in fact, EAC was using Avidyne (Vern was on their board)... instead of Garmin, Goodrich, Collins...which could have made it onto this platform, easily. Were they more expensive? Yes... at the projected rate, around $100k more. Were they reall more expensive - NO... look at the true development cost and switching cost and delays caused by Avio-dyne...

Anonymous said...

michal said...

Maybe someone will enlighten me - what exactly is the partial panel on say a G1000 equipped SR22?

Struck by lightning taking out all panels.

Software fault affecting all panels.

Dimmer circuits darkening all panels in daylight mistakenly.

Electrical fire behind panel taking out power or communications to all panels.

I guess your view is that it would be okay if people died when these things happened instead of having some backup instruments. Cirrus provides them for a reason.

You lose both screens - what's the chance of it - one in a billion?

No, it isn't. This is a common misconception. There are a multitude of connected faults between the panels.

For example, there is a story of a G1000 equipped Cessna being ferried where the fuel tank gauging system cause a software bug to be exercised in *both* panels rendering them inoperative.

Ok, say you lose whole G1000 - you still have backup instruments to keep your wings level. I claim there is no such things as "partial panel" in modern glass cockpit aircraft.

You lost all but three instruments when on backups, that's partial panel. No VSI, no DG, no TC, no navigation head.

Partial panel was always associated with a dreaded turn-and-slip indicator which is extinct by now and the topic was far from academic because vacuum pumps were so unreliable, now the topic is purely academic.

No, it isn't. A whole generation of glass dependent pilots are out there and I bet very few of them are paying much attention to backup instrument proficiency. They believe, like you do, that it is a one in a billion thing. It isn't.

bill e. goat said...

"If he turns it around 360 degrees, it will be headed in the same direction????"

Yes: Down.

jetaburner said...

Baron-

I haven't posted in a year or so but I need to correct your comment: " Socata TBM, took a tiny 10" vanilla G1000 implementation on a $3M plane. It is just sad what they did."

I own a G1000 TBM850 and your comment is just wrong. First of all it has 3 screens, 2 PFDs and a 15" MFD. It has 2 ADCs and AHRS compared to the Cirrus which has 2 12" screens, 1 PDF and 1 MFD and as far as I can tell only on ADC and AHRS. The TBM is now approved for SVT as well. So as far as I can tell the only thing that Cirrus offers that the isn't on the TBM is an automatic wing leveler and EVS. I agree that EVS is pretty cool and rumor has it that it may be available as an STC sometime in the future on the TBM. As far as the wing leveler goes, if you are flying a 300+kt turboprop you better have the skills so that it is not necessary. It makes sense on the Cirrus class aircraft since there are a lot of new pilots flying these airplanes but it is not necessary on TBMs, Mustangs or Phenoms. The fact that the TBM has 3 screens with a 15" MFD and 2 ADCs and AHRS puts it way ahead of the Cirrus in my mind.
As a side note I also fly single pilot a CJ2 with a Collins Proline and a UNS1K FMS. The G1000in the TBM is far superior and better integrated in almost every regard.

agroth said...

From WhyTech:

"Like, maybe, parachutes? "

Ever study the history of Cirrus accidents? I'll take the standby instruments any day. With the chute, you are guaranteed to lose the acft, and will lose your life around half the times its use is attempted.


WhyTech,

There have been a few SR22s put back into service after CAPS deployment (including the first one in TX).

As far as losing your life around "half the times its use is attempted," let me mention a couple of things. I'm going on memory here, so hopefully I don't get anything majorly wrong.

First, there have been eighteen pre-crash CAPS activations last time I checked (as opposed to CAPS activating or just unfurling due to impact forces). Out of those, I believe only three have involved fatalities. Of those three, two activations were way (major understatement) outside the CAPS envelope, and I suspect that will be the case for the third (in Florida a couple of months ago).

Regarding the first fatal CAPS accident that happened after an SR22 ran into severe icing near Reno, it's estimated that the pilot waited until the plane was well over 200 KIAS in an ice-laden dive to activate the system (the CAPS max deployment speed is 133 KIAS--which is a fairly high true-airspeed at altitude)

During the second fatal CAPS accident near Indianapolis (in which three people survived), the system was activated four seconds before impact after stalling and spinning from more than 3,000 AGL. The aircraft was also more than 300 pounds overloaded.

I'm not sure of the details on the third fatal CAPS pull (Florida in February), but I suspect it is a low-altitude spin/late activation.

That said, I believe the CAPS activations that have occurred within the stated performance envelope have been 100% successful with no loss-of-life and often no injuries. Additionally, there have been at least a couple of pulls outside the CAPS envelope that have had happy endings.

michal said...

No, it isn't. A whole generation of glass dependent pilots are out there and I bet very few of them are paying much attention to backup instrument proficiency. They believe, like you do, that it is a one in a billion thing. It isn't.
Ok, lets wait for the first "partial" panel in those aircraft to occur and then we can talk statistics. In the vacuum pump area they were happening all the time. Again, the primary difficulty pilots had was with turn and slip indicator, for some reason this particular instrument was hard to interpret, this is a fact.

michal said...

It has 2 ADCs and AHRS compared to the Cirrus which has 2 12" screens, 1 PDF and 1 MFD and as far as I can tell only on ADC and AHRS

This info is factually incorrect. Cirrus Perspective has two ADCs and two AHRSs. Also both displays can serve as PFDs because of the so called reversionary mode. So ultimately in this comparison TBM850 is ahead by 1 screen.

WhyTech said...

"That said, I believe the CAPS activations that have occurred within the stated performance envelope have been 100% successful with no loss-of-life and often no injuries. "

Since we are both relying on recollections, I guess I'll rely on mine. If you narrow the criteria enough, all successful CAPS deployments were, well, successful. My real point was that CAPS is not a realistic substitute for standby instruments and the skills to use them. As far as owning or flying a Cirrus which has had a CAPS deployment: not me, thank you.

WhyTech said...

"In the vacuum pump area they were happening all the time."

A bit of an exaggeration. They were no doubt happening more often, mostly because light GA acft did not have backup power (2nd vacuum pump, or alternator for electrically powered instruments).I have been flying GA acft with vacuum pumps since 1966 and have never had a vacuum pump failure.

julius said...

fred,

bonne nuit!

Don't misunderstand me, in case of a public company, the wedge would have had serious troubles with the police.

He might have called it a mistake, for others this is just a reason to oust someone immediately!

Finally the board of directors accepted this "mistake" and the outcome of the first flight...

It is interesting that up-to-now nobody puts any questions about these things!

Julius

agroth said...

-----
Since we are both relying on recollections, I guess I'll rely on mine. If you narrow the criteria enough, all successful CAPS deployments were, well, successful.
-----
WhyTech,

My point is that, if you look at the NTSB reports (the site is down today), all of the pilots who activated CAPS within its envelope lived to talk about it (many without injury), and that the three fatals might have been in the non-fatal category had the pilots not hesitated for an extended period of time to activate CAPS. Without CAPS, they were guaranteed to die (specifically the three), so it’s not like they had a better alternative.

Will people die in the future after activating CAPS within the envelope? I assume so. However, so far events have shown that it’s hardly the crapshoot that “[you] will lose your life around half the times its use is attempted” makes it sound like. That’s my main point.
-----
My real point was that CAPS is not a realistic substitute for standby instruments and the skills to use them. As far as owning or flying a Cirrus which has had a CAPS deployment: not me, thank you.
-----
I agree with both of those statements 100%, and I understand your point, among other things, that CAPS should never be a substitute for training, judgment, other equipment/instruments, etc…

I certainly can’t control what other pilots do, but I treat CAPS truly as a "last-resort" option. Two scenarios where I could see it potentially coming in handy for me are at night beyond glide-range from an airport or in LIMC conditions after an engine failure.

As you can see, I’m not overly risk-adverse. If I was, I wouldn’t fly at night or LIFR in a single engine plane. I’ve flown plenty of both over the years single-engine with and without CAPS (meaning CAPS hasn't caused me to take on more risk factors). I just like my chances a bit better with CAPS. ;-)

michal said...

As far as owning or flying a Cirrus which has had a CAPS deployment: not me, thank you.

I don't think there is a high chance for that. The CAPS is not designed to protect aircraft - only the people inside. If one of them is still flying today - well, the owner/insurer must be very lucky.

bill e. goat said...

Michal,
"The CAPS is not designed to protect aircraft - only the people inside. If one of them is still flying today - well, the owner/insurer must be very lucky."

I agree- landing in a (very) muddy field comes to mind. (Ironically, just the opposite of what one would normally want, due to the danger of flipping).

Anonymous said...

agroth said...

Without CAPS, they were guaranteed to die

What a load of BS.

bill e. goat said...

I think I would prefer (in order):
1) Standby instrument
2) Spin-recoverable airframe
3) Airframe Parachute

I find it irksome that Cirrus touts the "safety advantage" of the parachute system, but hasn't done spin testing, presumably because they don't like the answer- it would be a lot cheaper- figuring the chutes probably cost them around $5K per airplane. (And cost the customer around $350K per airplane, when used).

I assume they have done this for some reason, presumably (again) relaxed stability for more speed (less drag, and, er, less stability).
-----------------------------------

I was (for once) proof reading my post before I put it up, and it dawned on me, the Cessna 162 also has an airframe parachute. The first one got into a spin, and crashed. Cessna enlarged the vertical tail, but the second one got into "an unrecoverable flight condition" (sounds like a spin to me) and crashed too. Sounds like another case of not enough stability*. Maybe Cessna recognizes this, and that's why it has the chute? Probably not- I imagine it's more of a marketing (and product liability) thing. I suspect they will further enhance the natural stability (perhaps by modifying or restricting cg range this time).
Second Cessna 162 Crash
(Third time's a charm?)
-----------------------------------
*The same thing Wedge suffers from.

In the case of the Cessna 162, it seems an established spin an example of TOO much(/the wrong kind of) stability, in an odd sort of way?? Any aero geeks out there??
-----------------------------------
60 turn spin in a Cessna 152
(note: 10mB file, takes a long time to down load, no audio. Same guys used to have a great 42-turn spin on Youtube, with audio, but they took it down).
I don't think the guys flying the "new and improved" 162 will be trying this anytime soon...

Unknown said...

Interesting how all this went from partial panel EA500 to whatever. Fact is that an EA500 with the optional 3rd ATT or AHRS is only viewable on the MFD. The 3rd ATT/AHRS isn't able to be displayed on either PFD. Sooo if a pilot's MFD goes blank along with an AHRS or an avionics data bus failure (it happens) then he/she has a whiskey compass that can be up to 20 degrees off depending upon what is powered up (which battery, buss tie status, etc). The compass far from isolated from electrics. If the "135 package" includes the peanut gyro scabbed onto the top of the glare shield chances are better, depending on what bus it's running from. Pilots chime in!

With that out of the way note the source at the bottom of
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS159758+20-Mar-2009+PRN20090320

It's Eclipse Aviation Corporation. What gives?

fred said...

Kathy , do not be surprised too much ...

from SpJets M.Press : Website :

“Many of the owners are my personal friends, whom I’ve introduced to Eclipse and sold them their aircraft,” said Col. Press.

Who needs enemy then ?
with such friend , i guess no one ...

Restore their faith in the Eclipse 500 and keep them in the family;

Do they know now ? it is better to use lubricant BEFORE ...

"We agree with David Green's (leader of the "Co-op" plan) estimate regarding the value of the assets at $10-20 million, but we intend to capitalize Eclipse Jet with considerably more capital to better serve owners and depositors and offer them options the "Co-op" plan cannot afford."

how much is "considerably more" ?
if i do not have any money in pocket , ONE $ is really a lot more ... if on top of , i found a 2$ bill = i am 300% richer than previously ...! ;-)

BTW : is this a normal behavior to keep on calling someone (or yourself) Colonel when retired ?
sounds to me like "i have got nothing to show , so i present my past !" may be it is normal "on the other side " ... and yes , my father was in Army ...

M.Holland : “I have been a depositor with Eclipse and an active member in the E5C for five years."

i feel it is like paying income-tax = if you are happy about it : you don't pay enough of it ... ;-)

airsafetyman said...

"BTW : is this a normal behavior to keep on calling someone (or yourself) Colonel when retired ?"

No, it isn't. If you go to his website and look at his resume, he would have us believe he ran the entire USAF before he retired and went into industry, where he then ran the entire US aviation industry for several years. The BS leaps off the page.

Black Tulip said...

Fred asked, "Is this a normal behavior to keep on calling someone (or yourself) Colonel when retired?"

It worked out well for Colonel Sanders. His name was evoked last year with the phrase, "A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."

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

thanks ...

i was wondering !!! ;-)

my father was in Army , had at some point a third of it was under his direct command ...

i don't recall any second or any one he stated it to after he retired ...!

WhyTech said...

"is this a normal behavior to keep on calling someone (or yourself) Colonel when retired ? "

I guess when one has little else to brag about. An ex boss of mine was a WWII military pilot, a Colonel, then Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, then,a senior exec at Northrop to name a few of his earlier accomplishments, and he never mentioned any of this, and insisted on being address by a nickname.

One retired Colonel who did identify himself as such was George Washington. But, this was common in those times, and his military accomplishments to a great extent defined the man and our country.

fred said...

BT :

thanks for your humorous "Col. sanders" ...

sounds to me like asking someone "do you want to be stoned to death or hang by the feet until suffocation ?"...

until i found on Wikipedia that the title was honorific ...

a bit like J.Law was named first duke of Arkansas for doing about the same mess as the U.S. are in , now ...

hang-on , i call Sarkozy and ask Obama do be offered the title of
"Duke of Strasbourg" ... ;-)

WhyTech said...

"i call Sarkozy and ask Obama do be offered the title of
"Duke of Strasbourg"

Please dont do this. He is already being described in the press as "royalty" and we need to keep him as humble as possible - perhaps an impossible task.

fred said...

oh , yes ... i should ...

in France , many opposer to pres. Sarkozy call him Napoleon (because of his short height ...and his love for reforms , like the real one ...)

Napoleon made lots of his admirers duke , prince and the like ...

so you see , history is a never-ending revival ...!

fred said...

i forgot this one :
(BT i do need your sens of "a propos" ...)

serve owners and depositors and offer them options the "Co-op" plan cannot afford.

options ? options ...

oh , i get it !

Different Flavored Lubricants ...;-)

Black Tulip said...

Fred, how's this for summary statement:

“Eclipse has done for aviation what pantyhose has done for petting.”

fred said...

BT

stop it , please ...

or i won't be sure to reach the toilets on time for a natural need ! ;-)

airtaximan said...

seems like D-Jet is in trouble

lots of credible rumors regarding serious layoffs a few days ago at Diamond...

WhyTech said...

"what pantyhose has done for petting.”

BT,

You have a way with words that makes even the most complex issues easy to understand!

FlightCenter said...

"What proven glass-panel avionics suites existed for 6,000 lbs, $1M light GA planes in 1998 when this project was launched."

The correct answer is:

None. Nada. And nothing even on the horizon.

The only vendors who had a proven glass-panel suite at the time were:

Honeywell
Collins

The Honeywell and Collins base entry price for an integrated glass panel suite at the time was approximately $300K to $350K.

Hardly workable for an aircraft priced at $800K or even $1.2M.

None of the other companies you mention (Garmin, Goodrich and Avidyne) had anything resembling a glass panel suite in 1998.

The only other company that could be considered as providing a glass solution to OEMs at the time was Meggitt with their Magic EFIS systems which was installed on the Meridian. (This was a less expensive and less reliable version of Honeywell's EFIS 40/50 series.)

airtaximan said...

FC,

at proposed rates of production asuch as EA50, your pricing quotes are way off for the systems you proposed.

Also, around 2000 the companies I listed, plus Meggit, you are correct ALL had offerings, and they were all well below $300k at the fantasy annula volume purchase proposed by EAC.

I think there's at least ONE person who could corroborate this on the blog.

airtaximan said...

anyone else hear about carnage at Diamond?

eclipso said...

airsafetyman said...
"BTW : is this a normal behavior to keep on calling someone (or yourself) Colonel when retired ?"

No, it isn't


YES IT IS!...An 0-6 (Col) or above collects full pay and never actually is retired, so they always maintain rank

FlightCenter said...

"What proven glass-panel avionics suites existed for 6,000 lbs, $1M light GA planes in 1998 when this project was launched."

I forgot to comment on the 6,000 lbs. part of the question.

Even if the Collins and Honeywell solutions didn't cost $200K to $250K more than Vern's cost budget, those solutions weighed 2 to 3x more than Vern's weight budget for the little bird.

Remember, in 1998 the (Pronto) aircraft weight targets were 2,250 lbs. Empty and 4,300 lbs. Max Gross.

Empty weight climbed to 3,390 lbs. and max gross to 5,680 with the E500 price increase to $950K.

FlightCenter said...

ATM,

The problem with your statement is "at the proposed production rates"

Neither Honeywell or Collins were willing to believe Vern's plans for the aircraft. They never drank the Kool-Aid on volume, on price, on weight, or on schedule.

They were wise to pass on the opportunity and focus on customers that they believed would actually provide a good ROI on their program development costs.

I'll agree that around the year 2000 Goodrich, Garmin and Avidyne all had powerpoint presentations, telling aircraft OEMs how great their systems were going to be.

But not one of them had anything even remotely ready to install in an aircraft, even for flight test.

FlightCenter said...

Anyone else notice that Andrew Broom is now working for AOPA?


Andrew Broom LinkedIn Profile

fred said...

Atm

on the debate "glass-panel...blabla"

i feel no one is wrong or right ...

as written before , any vendors had or hadn't item on proposal ...

but the "trap" is that at the price Wedge wanted the Fpj , not a single one could make it or see any profits in doing it ...

if you look at this (taking for granted that only the finished products count) with that angle :

till today there isn't any ready for the FPJ , as stated by Wedge ...

otherwise the AvioNG 2.? would be finished or owners wouldn't have to spit an other few hundreds thousands ...

Jim Howard said...

A few random comments:

"YES IT IS!...An 0-6 (Col) or above collects full pay and never actually is retired, so they always maintain rank"

I don't think that a retired O-6 collects full pay, I'm pretty sure that they get half base pay. It is true that all retired officers, even humble Majors like me are still officers and can and should be addressed by their rank when in appropriate military settings.

As a retired officer I find it very unseemly, possibly even illegal, for a retired officer to use his rank in conjugation with a sales offering from a commercial venture. IMHO it just cheapens the military image for all of us when one guy does this.

On an unrelated note, I see in Aviation Week that EADs is considering canceling their A400 military transport program. "It is better to put an end to the horror than have horror without end" said EADS CEO Thomas Enders ( http://tinyurl.com/daekbq )

I guess this is another example of how hard it is to design an airplane and get it into successful production. Building a new airplane is not a task to be undertaken lightly.

fred said...

Eclipso :

having a rank and ostensibly showing it are 2 completely different matters ...

i accept that a few persons can be honored with a rank ( as G.Washington or C. De Gaule) ...

but that have been fighting for making their country what it is ...

for all others : sounds very pompous !!!

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Bendix King was providing EFIS 50 at that time from mid 90'2 or earlier, and it was original equipment in at least one production 6000 lb turboprop from the late 90's.

There were countless experimental glass panels at the time, including Avidyne which took their baseline experimental EFIS as the coree for what became Entegra and Avio OfG.

The issue with Avio is not EFIS or even low cost EFIS due to astronomical production rates, the issue was INTEGRATION which did not exist for non-heavies at that time.

The level of integration that Avio OfG or NfG promises is STILL unheard of in non-heavies and non-military aircraft.

This entire EFIS discussion has been off-point - it is not about the glass, it is about the integration - there were plenty of existing glass panel options - maybe not large form factor glass like the G900/1000 but there was good glass well before Eclipse was a gleem in Vern's eye.

Throw out the integration aspects of Avio, and they could have used EFIS 50, or Collins, or Honeywell. Sure, the price would have been higher, and yes the weight would have been higher, but then there would also have been a real airplane being built by a real airplane company - not a 10 year dog and pony show and some 260 orphaned incomplete jets.

fred said...

Jim :

the A400 might be dropped because of political disagreements ...

as usual : every one wants it , but no one wants to pay for it !

Ken Meyer said...

Kathy wrote, "if a pilot's MFD goes blank along with an AHRS or an avionics data bus failure (it happens) then he/she has a whiskey compass that can be up to 20 degrees off depending upon what is powered up (which battery, buss tie status, etc)."

Actually, either PFD can display AHRS 1 or AHRS 2 at the pilot's option. Failure of the selected AHRS causes the system to switch the AHRS source automatically to the good AHRS. The MFD displays ATT3 and switches automatically upon its failure to AHRS 2.

Ken

Black Tulip said...

Maybe the need for the EADS A400M could be met by a few thousand Eclipse 500's. This would solve all problems.

airsafetyman said...

"YES IT IS!...An 0-6 (Col) or above collects full pay and never actually is retired, so they always maintain rank"

Nope, O-6s do retire at partial pay, usually about 50%, and only an assh&%#s refers to themselves by their military rank when in the civilian world.

fred said...

BT :

if you want to use Fpj as A400 :

we better build plants by dozens ...

1rt Fpj = the helmet
2nd '' = the gun
3rd '' = the bullets (not too many )
4th '' = the guy wearing the 3 ...
etc...etc...

May be Wedge was right (and a visionary ?) how many needed to send a squadron in Kabul ? ;-))

Shadow said...

Avidyne Entegra release 9 announced today at AEA is the closest thing to a complete Avio system. As I've said before, the key to getting full Avio functionality is to go back with Avidyne. Heck, Avidyne could even announce its own Eclipse 500 panel upgrade program with the Entegra integrated suite. Stranger things have happened.

fred said...

Shadow :

you may be right ...

from here (E.U.) i can almost hear Wedge screaming ... "They copied us!"
this is proprietary stuff , they breached their NDA !!

and preparing arguments for suing !

Shane Price said...

New post up.

Just in case you lot thought I'd gone away...

And Ken, welcome back to your 'true' home!

Shane

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 332 of 332   Newer› Newest»