Tuesday, March 17, 2009

CWMoR Comprehensive Options and Alternatives for Eclipse 500 Owner/Operators

Well, he is one of 'us' (which makes a refreshing change) and it's a more mature plan that any of the other's I've seen. It's interesting, and makes a very wide sweep in an effort to meet with almost all 'stakeholders'. So here it is, fresh from his own laptop, and written by our very own member of the Honor Roll, ColdWetMackarelofReality

I'm sure it will generate some comment....

Shane

The normal warnings and cautions apply. This is not an offer to sell or solicit securities and is very forwarding looking – no guarantees are being made, explicit, implicit or otherwise. This is an overview only.

Philosophy
– Provide the closest thing to win-win for majority of owners
– Realistic, achievable and practical way-forward
– Flexible approach to meet needs/desires of most owners

Situation Summary
– There are ~260 aircraft with varying configurations and states of completion – all with a 10 calendar year fatigue life
– There is presently no source for parts, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, or Means of Compliance for AD’s or upgrades/repairs
– EAC Assets are in Chapter 7
– Development of new support concepts by 3rd party following Chapter 7 will likely take months to get operational, potentially leaving aircraft AOG into the summer
– Many current plans for support from third parties are focused on restarting production on the backs of the long suffering owners
– The owners are likely divided into several camps with competing interests
• Those who just want ‘out’
• Those who want to continue operating the plane
• Those who want to see the plane re-enter production
• Those who want/need safe effective transportation but are not dedicated to specific airframe/form factor
– The only way the owners community can act as a cohesive group is to address the needs of all owners, not subsidize the needs of a few

Identified Needs
– What is needed is a clearinghouse for the various capabilities needed
• a central management point for the various support activities
• a reliable source of objective information and guidance for the owners
• experienced technical and management leadership
• strategic understanding of the complex big picture
– Efficient exit strategy for those who want out
– Cost effective parts availability for those who want to continue operating the EA-500 (both individually and commercially)
– Experienced support for continued airworthiness
– Development of immediate, short, mid and long term objectives
– Identification of alternatives and risk management
– What is needed is a comprehensive set of overlapping options and alternatives that collectively serve the needs of the majority of owners
• This means realistic and honest evaluation of the situation
• A focus on mutually beneficial approaches to meet the needs of the majority of owners

CWMoR team are willing to fill this central clearinghouse role
• Bring 60 years collective experience in aerospace and defense
• Have existing relationships and experience with FAA
• Have existing connections to the needed skillsets from the former Eclipse
– Excel-Jet brings an alternate airframe possibility and significant design and systems integration experience

Options and Alternatives
– Those who just want ‘out’
• Need an option for assisting in sales or outright purchase for spares
– Those who want to continue operating the plane (individually or commercially)
• Need reliable source of known pedigree parts
• Need source for documentation/means of compliance
• Need experienced strategic management for PMA/STC and other options
– Those who want/need safe effective transportation but are not dedicated to specific airframe/form factor
• Need an alternate airframe that can re-use the PW610’s while placing bulk of airframe and system parts into circulation for spares use
• This frees up the most valuable and portable components on any delivered airframe for re-use and makes purchase of near complete airframes for spare reasonable
– Those who want to see the plane re-enter production
• Need insight into challenges for start-up and certification efforts

Proposal
– Our recommendation is to NOT seek the assets from CH-7
– Intent is to provide sufficient alternatives to keep any other players honest in their dealings with the owner community
– Excel -Jet Ltd. has offered to produce a modified experimental Sport-Jet 610 design to accommodate the PW610’s based on the airframe of the JT-15D powered Sport-Jet II
– The new Sport-Jet 610 provides speed and range profiles equivalent to or better than the EA-500 Spec but does so at FL250-280 (more easily and inexpensively insured)
– Estimate that there is a need for 5-10 current owners who are interested in alternate airframe to make this a reasonable possibility
– Examining alternatives re: Avio hardware and software
– Excel Jet estimates 12 months from receipt of funds to flying demonstrator aircraft
• Modular design of Sport-Jet II supports development of a new aft-section for PW610’s and associated equipment without requiring redesign of wing, gear, or cabin (all originally sized for single 2,100 lb thrust P&W JT-15D turbofan)
– These owners can then sell their Eclipse airframes (sans engines) into a fleet support spares pool
• Could get the new airframe nearly for free after selling EA-500
– The spares pool provides the time necessary to identify willing vendors, qualify replacement vendors where needed, and lay the foundation for PMA/STC and other options
– CWMoR Team will assist owners to establish a business to manage fleet spares pool and continued airworthiness issues
– Focus immediately on AOG situations
– Prioritize analysis and support needs for A, B. C and D Check, Phased Inspections as well as other inspection requirements and life-limited parts
– Identify vendors interested in upgrading known weak parts (already identified for tires and brakes)
– Identify qualified MRO providers and A&P’s to support the fleet
– Eventually work to remove 10 calendar year airframe life limit and expand to 20,000 hrs
– Excel-Jet Ltd. has offered to honor up to $80,000 in lost Eclipse deposits towards purchase of Sport-Jet II kit

Sport-Jet 610 Preliminary Specifications
– Dimensions
• Length - 34 ft.
• Wingspan - 35.2 ft.
• Height - 9.6 ft.
• Performance
• Maximum Speed - 380 kts
• Normal Cruise - 350 kts
• Economy Cruise - 320 kts
• Rate of Climb - 2,500 ft./min.
• Operational Ceiling - 28,000 ft.
• Stall Speed - 70 kts
• Landing Speed - 85 kts
• Range w/IFR reserve - 1,000 m
• Take-off Distance - 2,300 ft.
• Landing Distance - 1,800 ft.

– Weights / Capacities
• Empty Weight - 3,060 lbs.
• MTOW Weight - 5,500 lbs.
• Payload w/full fuel - 800 lbs.
• Wing Area - 150 sq.ft.
• Fuel Capacity - 260 gal.

– Engines
• (2) PWC 610F 950l b thrust turbofans (1900 lbs total thrust)

– Cabin
• Seating - 4+1
• Cabin Size - 62”w x 49”h x 105”l
• Baggage Area - 27.5 cu.ft.

Initial and ongoing Costs
• Sport-Jet 610 design, tooling and demonstrator aircraft estimated at ~$1.75-2.0M
• PW610 powered Sport-Jet 610 Kit is estimated at ~$700K for the aircraft, options and build assist
• Purchase of 8-12 airframes for spares ~$6-8M
• CWMoR initial management consulting establishing an Owner’s Group business entity ~$250K
• Needed whether or not owners bid for or win CH-7 assets to provide control over maintenance destiny
• Prioritize engineering focus for AOG, scheduled maintenance, and life limited components
• Target for maintenance costs and TC support is in the $400-500/hr range + fuel
• Final cost to be determined based on results of analysis of maintenance concept and risks
• Intended to restore balance of JetComplete concept
• Operations Budget for Owner’s Group Business Entity are estimated at $12-16M/yr funded from per-hour cost above or on a quarterly subscription basis
• Includes Mgmt consulting
• Spares and repair parts
• Most Scheduled/Unscheduled Maintenance
• Continued Airworthiness/Means of Compliance
• Engineering Development (e.g., AMP/SLEP, PMA and STC)

Harlow plan will result in ~$1.78M costs over 9 years, not including upgrades, fuel or unscheduled maintenance (@150 hrs/yr)
• $300,000 initial investment, $800/hr for maintenance and support
• Approximately $198,300 per year in lifecycle costs incl. insurance w/o fuel

Owners Group plan will result in ~$1.24M costs over 9 years, not including upgrades fuel or unscheduled maintenance (@150 hrs/yr)
• $200,000 initial investment
• $70,000/yr for TC support ($467/hr)
• ~$300/hr in maintenance and insurance
• Approximately $137,200 per year in lifecycle costs w/o fuel
• Neither plan provides for immediate or near-immediate spares
• Neither plan provides for immediate engineering support
• Neither plan provides relief for current AOG aircraft
• Neither plan hits the ground running with specific plans for maintenance significant parts and inspections

Savings for CWMoR plan compared to Harlow Plan
• Save $1,060,000 over 9 years
• Equivalent to 250,000 gallons of fuel (5,000 plus hours of flight time)
• Roughly 2-3 times the cost of needed upgrades
• Approximately $100,000 per year savings in lifecycle costs incl. insurance

Savings for CWMoR plan compared to Owners Plan
• Save $510,000 over 9 years
• Equivalent to 127,500 gallons of fuel (2,500 plus hours of flight time)
• Roughly 2 times the cost of needed upgrades
• Approximately $60,000 per year savings in lifecycle costs incl. insurance
• Savings for Sport-Jet 610 compared to EA-500 under Harlow Plan
• $1,350,000 over 9 years (and can operate beyond 9 years out of the box)
• Equivalent to another plane or 337,500 gallons of fuel (6750 hours of flight time)
• DOC estimated at $450-500/hr incl. fuel and insurance

Principals
• CWMoR, Logistics Management Consultant
• 18 years in industry, 23 years as a pilot
• 12 turbine aircraft programs, 6,000 – 70,000 lb MTOW
• Bob Bornhofen, CEO Excel-Jet Ltd.
• 30 years in design, manufacturing, TRW and Hughes
• Designed original Maverick TwinJet aircraft in mid-90’s
• Currently finishing detail design and prototype construction on JT-15D powered Sport-Jet II

Summary
• This is the only plan to recognize and address the needs of the owner community as a whole as well as individually thus providing real leverage in dealing with any potential entity for service or support
• This plan does not require universal adoption, only needs $10-12M and 5-10 willing owners looking for an alternative for the engines
• This plan does not result in the owners investing $20-40M initially, and a further $100-200M over 9 years supporting a restart of production
• This plan takes advantage of existing regulations and existing, experienced and capable service providers while providing realistic and honest guidance for owner community
• This plan allows the owners to control their destiny without burning an unnecessary additional $100-210M over the next 9 years by providing reasonable alternatives to help keep 3rd parties honest
• The principals of this plan are willing to speak with the owner community directly via telecon, e-mail, or perhaps even a customer summit to answer your questions

438 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 438 of 438
WhyTech said...

"Better than trying to sue collect from the estate of a guy that may not be "that" wealthy/liquid anymore"

I guess that will depend on how big the "prize" is. I am also hearing talk of criminal action.

baron95 said...

Criminal action against a dead pilot?

What are they going to seek? An after-death penalty?

airtaximan said...

baron,

you seem very good at recognizing and moderating any extreme reaction...

except you somehow want a sub 6000MTOW twin jet for $1M.

joshing of course...

WhyTech said...

"What are they going to seek? An after-death penalty?"


Baron,

Forgive me - you havent been on the blog for awhile and I had forgotten all that you have all the answers.

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

Whytech . . . et al:

It doesn’t matter . . . all the lawyers and lawsuits in the world won’t bring back the lives of “little kids”, nor their parents, who put their trust in “professionals”, and looked forward to a fun time skiing . . . and are now in “eternity”. Some may just now be in a much better condition . . . and others may be facing judgement, beyond our imagination. We have to leave it there, for their part . . . it’s “over”.

But for those of us, left back in “time”, we still have decisions to make, things to do, to correct the problems . . . to get our priorities correct. As much as I’d like to present a message . . . I won’t . . . I can’t . . . I do not have that privilege.

On the human level, in day-to-day living, a group of folks are no longer among us.

Is there something we, in the aviation industry, could have done differently? . . . to have prevented this sort of thing? Maybe not! But at the minimum, it deserves further thought.

Sure . . . whoever can, sue the socks off anything and everything within range of a clever lawyer. But nothing within the court system will ever bring back all the “what ifs” of those little lives that suddenly went from time into eternity, on final approach into Butte, Montana.

gadfly

(And in keeping with Eclipse, never, ever, forget the lives of the “innocents” that may travel in the little jet from ABQ, who put their trust in those who buy and fly this contraption.)

baron95 said...

Errrr.... a question mark ? is now an answer? ;) LOL

Anyway - back to hibernation for me ;)

WhyTech said...

"whoever can, sue the socks off anything and everything within range of a clever lawyer"

Gad,

I am much in agreement with your post. Regrettably, using the courts in such a manner seems to be the American way. Definitely not something I endorse. What is important, is that others learn from this sad event.

gadfly said...

Yes, WhyTech!

We're on the same page!

gadfly

bill e. goat said...

Baron,
"What are they going to seek? An after-death penalty?"

(I actually think that is rather witty :)

How was China?
,)

Dave said...

The insurgency company will just come in and say - airplane was operated in violation of TC, policy was not in effect, we will deny any claims, but are willing to make a good faith payment of $100K or whatever to the estate of each child and $200K to the estate of each adult, or whatever they calculate.

Usually that settles it. Better than trying to sue collect from the estate of a guy that may not be "that" wealthy/liquid anymore, and has most things in the names of wife, children, etc.

Just my 2c, but I think this is at most an attorney picnic or backyard cookout, not a full fledged field day.


Actually what you are describing does sound exactly like an attorney field day...a way to get a lot of money really quickly without having to do any work. Getting 25% of a $1M+ settlement for basically just showing up is what I call a field day. Heck even just representing one client is a field day - $50K for a few hours of work.

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

"Getting 25% of a $1M+ settlement for basically just showing up is what I call a field day. "

I, for one, dont yet know with certainty the fact regarding who owns the airplane, who was flying the airplane, etc. Early "information" suggested that this might be a charter flight, but that now seems less likely. This may or may not lead to substantial assets which are at risk.

Dave said...

15 Minutes Of Eclipse - Aviation Week Podcast

Dave said...

This may or may not lead to substantial assets which are at risk.

For the sake of argument I was taking all of Baron's numbers who said such an amount would come from insurance.

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

Shortfall! That’s a nice term. Back in “olden times”, we had a similar word, “shortage” . . . but the problem with that word was it always pointed to a responsible person for the “shortage”. But “shortfall” . . . it “just happened”, without any responsible culprit. It’s much like a “time out” for a kid, instead of the “board of education applied to the seat of learning” out by the wood shed.

OK . . . Let’s just apply the same philosophy to general aviation . . . “It was a shortfall of lift!” . . . “A fuel shortfall!” . . . a shortfall of CG . . . a “shortfall of approach to the runway!” . . . a “shortfall of vertical direction” . . . a “shortfall of thrust” . . . a “shortfall of input to the glass cockpit” . . . and on and on and on . . . !

gadfly

(‘Sure wish I’d thought of that, back in early days . . . there would been a “lack of willow switches” trimmed off the tree out back, and a “shortfall” of screaming, as educational procedures were applied to the south end of my understanding.)

gadfly said...

Is it Friday yet? . . . I was hopin' for a shortfall of weekdays just now . . . it's still Monday, and I'm ready for Saturday.

gadfly

("Shortfall" ain't all it's cracked up to be. 'Think I'll stick with the energy shortage.)

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

Gadfly,
That sounds like an excess of shortages.
:)

gadfly said...

Let’s see if I get you correctly! If the shortages exceed the overages, the upkeepin’ will result in your comeupins!

gadfly

(Or did I miss somethin’ in the sum-uppins!)

gadfly said...

And “Goat”, you’re not all that rational . . . you just got caught, tryin’ to get through the side gate! Clever . . . but you got caught!

gadfly

(Go chew on a tin can or somethin’ . . . it’s more your style!)

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gad,
I get a "ration" every day at work.
In excess, I might add.
:)

WhyTech said...

This from another blog:

Aircraft configured with 2 + 10 seating.
Cabin configured with 8 "executive style" seats (double club arrangement) and 2 "commuter style" seats at rear.

Pilot approx 65 years of age, former USAF, 8500 civilian hours, 2000 on type, military hours unknown at this time.

No reported mechanical anomalies prior to this flight

Fueled in Vacaville with 128 gallons (~3.5 hrs, ~750 lbs), this particular aircraft can hold 402 gallons.

It does not appear that the pilot was a family member as preeviously reported. And, it does now appear that the acft was leased. Not sure that any of this is any more reliable than earlier info.

gadfly said...

Goats are special! . . . there ain’t no bout a doubt it.

And here’s a poem, just for you:

“Why reeks the goat on ‘yonder hill,
Who daily dines on chlorophyl?”

Now, isn’t that lovely?

gadfly

(As a “kid”, I was raised on “goat’s milk” . . . and that’s a fact. And the way the economy is looking just now, I may go “full circle” . . . living off goats, home raised chickens, and a garden out back. ‘Don’t recommended it, but somehow we survived. And “Eclipse jets, and anything else of that nature, will pass into history . . . no longer available to anyone.)

bill e. goat said...

Gadfly,
"living off goats"
!!! ??? !!!
I Object !!
But maybe not THAT strongly-
"Kids" these days !
:)

gadfly said...

WhyTech

This info seems to confirm much of what we learned earlier . . . including that lack of fuel was probably not a problem, even though an earlier report said that they did not take on fuel in Oroville.

‘Just a guess on my part, but I’m thinking that the pilot may have suffered some impairment . . . it sometimes comes up unexpectedly on us “old guys”, even after having been given a clean bill of health . . . as I can attest first hand. ‘Just a “hunch”, mind you, but that’s what I’m a thinkin’.

The “too many passengers” is important, but maybe not directly related . . . although the public perception will naturally turn in that direction.

‘Just thinkin’ out loud!

gadfly

WhyTech said...

"but I’m thinking that the pilot may have suffered some impairment "

Certainly possible and plausible - could have been the reason for the diversion. However, no hint of this so far - you are the first to suggest this in all the press and blog coverage I have read.

It is slowly becoming apparent that there may be plenty of assets at risk: as I now understand it, the owner of the plane (who was not on board) is a very successful dentist and businessman in the LA area. Sadly, he lost several family members in the crash, however, a number of others who died were not family members. What happens in this regard will depend on their survivors. B95 was indirectly right about the pilot - probably few assets to go after. But the legal process follows the deep pockets and it seems that there are some.

bill e. goat said...

Gad, WT,
I've read that it was a leased airplane, several places too.

Brown Field Muni (San Diego) KSDM
Redlands Ca (L12, I think)
=91 nm

Redland Ca (L12)
Vacaville CA (KVCB)
= 347 nm

Spent the night, then

Vacaville CA (KVCB)
Oroville CA (KOVE)
=68nm

Oroville CA (KOVE)
Butte MT (KBTM)
= 559 nm

-or- Oroville CA (KOVE)
-intended Bozeman MT (KBZN)
= 597 nm
WT can correct me, but based on some other numbers I'd read for the PC-12, it looks like it gets around 5.5 nm/gal at heavier loading; 128 gals puts that at 704 nm.
Compare to KVCB-KORV-KBTM =68+559 =627nm.

Add the climbout from KORV and the diversion from KBZN, and a 50 knot headwind or so, and it sounds like he should have maybe 30 minutes less fuel as he did when he landed and fueled up at Vacaville. (Which, was probably a pretty fair amount, as he'd only flown 438 nm (KSDM-L12-KVCB) the day before, unless he was deliberately keeping it really light.

The fact the kids used the bathroom at Oroville, and that they were so young, made me think that maybe the diversion to Butte was a potty break (they had been in the air over 2 hours by then).

I'd read the on-board folks were
7 adults
1 y.o.
3
4
4
5
7
9 y.o.

2+10 seating would put the following in seats:
7 adults
9 y.o.
7 y.o.
5 y.o
4 y.o.
4 y.o.
with the 1 and 3 year old in somebody's lap.

(Fed reg is less than 2 year olds okay).

So, this doesn't look like the "awful" dismissal of reg's that I originally thought.
-----------------------------------
I figure 1700 lbs for pax, around 1000 for luggage, this still leaves 1800 lbs available for fuel (say, 250 gal or so, for a range of -PDF pretty Dang Far, maybe 1500 nm or so.

WT can correct my estimations perhaps, but as I said before and he confirmed- a pretty impressive airplane.

And the pilot doesn't sound like the young kid building hours that I expected- and doesn't sound like the kind to push range. Reports of erratic maneuvering from ground witnesses- their interpretation might be misleading though. So, TBD, some more.

Dave said...

And on other news... it looks like the Dow is up almost 1,000 points and the broader market up almost 15% since the market bottom was called on this very blog.

I guess I'm inherently bearish, but I expect there to be a hang-over on the stock market jump. I didn't think it was possible, but Geithner's so-called plan is just a re-tread of a dumped Bush administration plan and it is actually worse than the original. At least with the Bush administration plan the government stood to make a profit for the risk it was taking, but with this plan the profit has been removed so that the government takes the risks and the hedge funds get the profits. Subsidizing hedge funds is not a solution to unfreezing credit markets, but instead burns up all the money that could be used in an actual solution. I'm not saying the original proposal was right (as it doesn't fix the underlying problem), but this re-tread of it removes whatever taxpayer benefits the original had.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the link to the audio transcript of Eclipse's BK and bidder review- 14 minutes and 47 seconds.

Does that qualify for EAC's 15 minutes of fame-
Or 15 minutes of infamy?
:)
-------------------------------------

What's up with:
"Any one who wants to get into the game must ally themselves with David Green and the E5C club" !?!

I don't see them being a player in this- AT ALL- no how, no way. Wishful thinkers. They'll shoot each other in the back worse than any real "support" company. Don't see it? Just figure how they are going to treat those who don't "buy in" up front.

The Greenies say they need $10-20M to purchase IP, and another $10-14M for first year operations. Figuring Al Mann wants his $10M back, let's bump that to the high end, $34M. That's $150K per airplane, for EVERY plane except the DelayJet fleet (28) and Wedgiepoos. Think ALL 230 are going to buy in? (Maybe, maybe not- those who don't are going to get reamed).

Which leaves RiP & Co the likely winners (ahem).

Now then, suppose Wedge wants an ego rub, and revenge on RiP, and vindication in the aviation community, plus concessions on Wedge Doll sales, etc. THEN, I can see him allying with the owners group, with them kicking in most of the money, plus proceeds from Wedge going on the county fair dunk tank circuit (and maybe pin the tail on the donkey).

The Chinese? Maybe- but sounds like some export restrictions- but still, if they offer $100M, the senior note holders will kiss them and gladly take notes in the rope company.

WhyTech said...

"I figure 1700 lbs for pax, around 1000 for luggage, this still leaves 1800 lbs available for fuel "

Max ramp weight for 12/45 = 9965
Empty weight = 6548*
*NOTE: this is actual for my acft with 4 seats in cabin; accident acft had 10 seats in cabin so add another 6x50 = 300 lbs to empty weight = 6848.

Useful load = 9965-6848 = 3117

Pax = 7@170 +7@85 = 1785

Max fuel with no baggage = 3117-1785 = 1332

Max fuel with 1000 baggage = 1332-1000 = 332

Rule of thumb = 600 lbs first hr, then 400 lbs each additional hour plus reserves.

As you can see, even with no baggage, pretty light on fuel. On a trip like this it would seem that there would be plenty of baggage. At 40 lbs per pax = 560, leaving 772 for fuel.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

BEG you are hitting the nail on the head.

The economics of ownership, not operations mind you but simple ownership, will run one to perhaps two million dollars over the next 7-9 years unless the owners are somehow able to divorce themselves from the likelihood of being held hostage by any of the current asset acquisition plans.

That only happens with rational alternatives that are ready to go as soon as possible - without alternatives the holder of the IP will basically have the owners by the short and curlies.

The problem is that the owners are not a unform group, there are a bunch of different needs and desires - and it appears that even the owners group leadership is not of uniform mind or agenda.

If 5 guys can't work it out, how will 200?

This is why I formulated the concept in the way that I did - only a plan that recognizes all the varied needs and provides at least some alternative for each of them can potentially be successful.

It is up to the owners to decide what is in their best interests as a group and individually and then act accordingly.

bill e. goat said...

WT,
Thanks for correcting my estimates with the "real world" numbers- I was off quite a bit on both empty weight and MTWO- it looks like that would have been pushing it on fuel.

Also thanks for sharing the operating characteristics- it's helping us get a a lot better idea of what might have been going on.

I'm not interested for ghoulish fascination- more like, "what kind of mistakes do other people smarter than I am make, that I need to be aware of" -

"It's good to learn from your mistakes- but better to learn from other people's mistakes".

(Not to conclude that there were any mistakes made. Instead I hope this discussion makes everyone who is reading it a safer pilot. My heart goes out for all involved in this specific incident).

bill e. goat said...

CWMOR,
It's like a herd of cats !
(Or worse- goats !!)

Get Along, Little ?"Doggies"?
------------------------------------

You have to think like a squirrel

EAC production quota methodology
(Well, things might have turned out this well, if they had used EDS instead of SAP).

fred said...

baron :

you started this non-sens !

i firmly believe that right now , WE are wasting a wonderful opportunity to reform the Finances-world ...

off course , it wouldn't be done without some pain ...

as you know , the US administration is sending to the furnace Trillions of tax-payers money , to be helped in the destroying-process of $ (this is what it is REALLY about , all debts of USA are in $ , destroying it could only lower what you do need to pay-back ...) Obama has asked Europeans , Chinese sand emerging countries to spend as much as they could to flood the market with liquidities ...

the Europeans already said No-way !
Chinese and Russians ,respectively the first and fifth contributors to US Treasury bonds scheme (not bad for a country that was said to be so broke that they couldn't even send 28 Millions$ for RiP ...) ,already understood that if they come to a full-stop too fast , they will only loose most of the value ...
so they are very probably going to negotiate a deal (like "X yuan = N $ IF $ = X € and X oz AU ) and get out of this scam
(this one of the analogy with EAC = send us your Dosh at a value X of today , will give it back in X years at X minus "unknown")

as you probably know , when a state is doing deficits , it only means that the state in question PROMISE foreigners who send their cash in to SQUEEZE the tax-payers to pay back ...

in the case of USA , it cannot be done without dramatic changes , there is just too many things
to be renewed , fixed , to be re-done or just plainly promised ...
(like infrastructures , education system , health system , gigantic army ,etc...etc.. AND last but absolutely not the least Pension-system ...)

so , how to make future tax-payers repay the trillions burnt now ? they will have to face already tough enough challenges ...

WHY not make tax-payers pay NOW (B.O. plans already stated ...) which is probably one of the way to save some value to $ ...

but if $ keep some value , your debts means more to repay ...

if $ loose all its value : your debts are annihilated but so your way of living ( how to pay for Oil coming from abroad ? How to pay for the Chinese products [68% of what is sold in USA] ? and MORE important : what about NYSE , T.Bills [the way you you finance your way of living and spending , now ]bought by Foreign Govt ?)

you see , whatever is the outcome , the situation is very messy ...

SO , it is a perfect opportunity to change the rules ...

it is ONLY a matter to know WHO wants to negotiate those changes or "pretend" there is no needs for and then , afterwards, suffer from the new rules ...

we are at a crossroad , the only sure thing = Practices permitted until now , will be soon memories ...

the funny aspect = NO one can afford to miss it !

are you ready ?

Shane Price said...

New post up.

I've had enough of talk about 'plans'. What we would ALL like to see is some action.

What I want to know is why there isn't any....

Shane

Beedriver said...

Possible Tailplane stall cause of PC12 crash?

If the PC12 had been loaded forward of the CG, especially with the skies etc in the cabin, and when it got slow and possibly triggered by flap extension perhaps they suffered a tailplane stall.

that would have resulted in a severe pitch down. and the "80 or 90 deg nosedive into the ground" that was described.


If they were carrying some ice on the tail that would have made it worse even if it was just a light strip along the leading edge which would help make a stall start. It would act as a stall strip. I have seen this effect many times in light rime on the leading edge of the wing and tail.

has any one looked at the W&B with a lot of skies etc in the isle. when I go skiing it is normal for me to be personally carrying 80 lbs or more with skies boots and basic clothes etc. I usually figure 60 to 80 lbs per person of equipment.

Air planes can carry a lot of extra baggage (IE Alaska) if within limits. My type Aerostar is ferried many times at 8000 lbs (1700 over gross) and still climbs at 1000 FPM but it must be loaded correctly

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 438 of 438   Newer› Newest»