Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Finally, Eclipse Aviation Corporation is no more

This post will evolve (like the last one did) rapidly over the next 24 hours.

Basically, the Judge in Delaware granted the Senior Note Holders 'Motion to Convert' today, Wednesday 4th March 2009. 19 employees are retained to Friday 20th March as caretakers. In due course I expect to get full details of the court 'action' which I will of course pass on.

Phil Friedman has already contacted me to say he is preparing a 'detailed proposal' for the current owners, which he will communicate in due course. I expect that any other bidders, including the 'owners group' will also be outlining their plans shortly.

It is in many ways, for many people, a very sad day. The end of a genuine attempt to change almost every aspect of how a small jet is designed, built, sold and maintained or a failed business plan that became a scam. Either way, I'm sure we'll be debating many aspects of EAC for a long time to come.

However, today I ask you to think of those affected, who've lost time, money and resources. Remember the suppliers, depositors and owners who've been through ups and downs which must have put great pressures on people over an extended period. And finally the staff, those who held on, hoping against hope that Roel would come good at the last minute.

The upside is that the new owners, whoever they are, have a totally clean sheet, unencumbered by debt or obligation. They will employ several hundred of those already familiar with this aircraft and, when times improve, may well be able to hire more people with "Eclipse Aviation Corporation" on their CV's.

Best wishes to all.

Shane

532 comments:

1 – 200 of 532   Newer›   Newest»
anonymous avionics engineer said...

Truth be told, Vern PUSHED OUT all the good people in the company... because they wouldn't do things his way. The idea that EAC failed because of "gross mismanagement" of assets is a serious understatement. The PEOPLE we had were assets too, grossly mismanaged. Vern will never understand that.

EDT: I concur 100%. Even the upper managment got rid of competent people. Incompetence, or a very low position in the pecking order are the only things that kept people onboard.

bill e. goat said...

Shane,
Great scoop once again.

There have been a lot of discussions about WHAT will happen next,

But I'm wondering WHEN it will happen-

Is there some court specified deadline, or is it up to the owners to pick an offer whenever they feel like it over the next so many weeks or months?

Thanks.

Dave said...

Is there some court specified deadline, or is it up to the owners to pick an offer whenever they feel like it over the next so many weeks or months?

I think that will be determined by the court once all the creditors have weighed and there's been a hearing.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

The motion to convert laid out 30 and 60 day windows as I recall.

In the meantime, no parts, no support, no hope for the long suffering owners.

The best looking option involves a member of the executive team that lead Eclipse down the path that is now ending in CH-7 Liquidation, and the plan from that option as expressed to the owners suggests a $300K ante just to get the river card, and $1000 per hour for support.

Sorry, I think it is over except the crying.

airtaximan said...

"During the flight, engine performance was "rock solid," said Raburn."

enough said

gadfly said...

“Lady Macbeth. Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky!”

The argument about which came first . . . the chicken or the engines is really not the issue. All that discussion could continue . . . with good points on either side.

The basic issue goes back to “honesty”, when there was a golden opportunity to do the right thing.

The aircraft was “airborne”, briefly . . . money was taken from escrow . . . the aircraft was declared “not ready” for prime time . . . and the money could have been returned.

A long time ago, I worked for a man who did much work for Sandia and another company called “Lenkurt”. One day, Lenkurt sent a check for $250 . . . and my boss said it was a mistake, a “double payment” for something for which he had already been paid. But, he said, “their loss, my gain” . . . and did not return the money. From that moment on, I never trusted my own boss . . . he was a thief, a cheat. He may have gained “$250" . . . but lost his reputation . . . and shortly after, I quit. Back then, “$250" was a week’s wages for some of us . . . “$25 million” is, for some of us, a lot of money, that we’ll probably never see all at once. But those that failed to do the right thing, with the escrow account, paid an extremely high price for the loss of their character.

The history of the little jet fades in respect to the “rest of the story”. Never again will honest people believe anything they have to say.

gadfly

(Have you noticed that liars, themselves, can never trust anyone else?)

Dave said...

From that moment on, I never trusted my own boss . . . he was a thief, a cheat. He may have gained “$250" .

That's what I've learned. If someone lies to a customer, they can just as well lie to you as an employee or any number of things. People who lack integrity will lack integrity when it comes to dealing with anyone rather than pick and choose. That's why I was against Roel running the company as well as against Roel buying the company - he showed he couldn't be trusted. Eclipse has shown itself to have a very damaged reputation.

Shane Price said...

Dave, Gadfly,

A long time ago (it seems) I posted one of my key 'guiding lights' in my personal and business life.

Never make a promise you can't keep, and always keep the promises you make.

Through rocky times and booms, in my dealings with family, friends and those who's company I'm graced to share, I've always striven to live up to that.

When first I 'tripped' across Stan's blog in my research of the FPJ I started to smell rodent. Pretty soon I became convinced that 'all was not right in the state of Denmark' and by the end of 2007 I was certain it had become a scam.

Now is not really the time to lay the blame. Let State and Federal authorities work out who to nail for the wrongdoing, if any can be proven.

And I agree that's a big 'if'.

Concentrate on what the best plan is going forward. By best I mean for everyone damaged by this mess, not any single group. If that plan can include a profit in a sustainable business, wish them luck.

There is a great resource here in the blog, with many clever people keen to see the outcome.

And, so far, no 'cockroaches', no matter what Wedge says....

Shane

bill e. goat said...

Dave and ColdWet,
Thanks for the timeline.
30 to 60 days, eh?

Heh...Heh...Heh...

stevehale_email said...

You people are ridiculous, and mostly pathetic.

This blog was interesting, once, when it was a source of [mostly] unbiased info and legitimate criticism of the Eclipse hype machine. Now it's just a place for bitter, obsessed people to slam Eclipse for any sort of real or imagined failings. (Of course, with your 20-20 hindsight scope).

And the most vocal critics here do nothing to add actual knowledge about Eclipse. All they do is tear down those associated with the company, repeating the same tired analogies and gripes. Do you ever ask if you're offering anything new in your comments? We get it, you hate Eclipse and all its managers... But shouldn't you get a life now?

What really burns me up is that when poeple with actual data get on, you just go into attack mode. You love to ridicule Ken for his decision to place multiple deposits down, but how does that discredit the actual facts he shares about his plane?

Peter Reed just provided an informative perspective on the decision making process that led up to abandoning the Williams Jet. First time I've ever heard that. I'd have liked to ask constructive follow-on questions, but before I could, everyone else jumped all over him to slam him. Real productive.

Look, it sucks that people lost their jobs and deposits, but that's what happens to most Aviation companies, eventually. Get over it, moveon.org.

It's sad that this has just become the "Eclipse Haters" blog.

Out.

airtaximan said...

let's play a game:

what was the greatest amount you returned because you knew it was not right to accept the money.

-$300,000

Dave said...

Concentrate on what the best plan is going forward. By best I mean for everyone damaged by this mess, not any single group. If that plan can include a profit in a sustainable business, wish them luck.

Right now the best plan going foward looks like figuring out how best to treat this as a loss on your taxes. I know that sounds sarcastic, but I'm being serious. I haven't heard anything that doesn't risk putting those involved in even worse positions than they are now. If someone should that they had a lot of money for real, then that would be different. If the owners have to finance it, they risk being much worse off than they are now. I also see structural problems with the owners themselves buying it as either Eclipse has to have too many people's involved in making the decisions or if most become silient partners, I question the owner's ability to find the right ones to run it and if the right ones are found that they have the proper organizational structure to do it well.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Steve, did somebody urinate in your Cheerios? Tell us how you really feel.

Come one, all hindsight is 20/20, what matters is that from the inside, from the periphery and from way outside, the blog collectively demonstrated 20/25 to 20/30 vision.

We criticized the business plan, the production rate, the order book, the fleet orders, the reliance on FSW, the overly integrated avionics suite, the 'new' air taxi concept, and every public management mistake.

By and large our specific criticisms have been very prescient and as of today ALL of them made over the last several years have essentially come to pass.

Bitter and hateful because people ask someone who appears to be the real Peter Reed questions about his departure, about the decision making process at EAC, and about the nature of how the program was run?

That is not bitter and hateful, it is curiousity and seeking validation.

The guy came here, and offered himself up as a participant, and seems to be a good natured one so far.

This IS the critic blog, but criticism is not hate, never has been, never will be.

$1000/hr in support costs should be a non-starter.

A $300K ante to see the River card should be a non-starter.

That did not come from we critics, it came from a peeved Eclipse owner.

We have tried to provide connections for displaced workers and even workable business plans for now dis-owned owners.

That is not hateful or bitter, that is compassionate.

Questioning one view/recollection of how things went down, when there is evidencve to the contrary, is not hateful or bitter, it is good thinking.

bill e. goat said...

Shane,
Hmmmm...In these times of complexity and unpredictability in the market and at Eclipse, I confess to grasping at timid, simple, predictable- in a word- conventional- solutions, such as Giant Lobsters from Neptune Invading.

How silly of me.

Not at all appropriate for our forum. Instead, and more appropriately- something completely "disruptive":
Watch Out, Wedgie !!!

Black Tulip said...

SteveHale,

You need to understand the personal circumstances of the bloggers before you criticize too sharply. Almost everyone who posts here is confined in a State or Federal Penitentiary. Some have committed crimes to horrible to mention and almost all will die in prison. In my case, she promised me that, "I am eighteen years old." Like many here, one of the few forms of personal expression I have is here at the prison library on the computer.

gadfly said...

Cold Wet . . . no one else complained about any change in the flavor of our cereal this morning in our “cell block” . . . you gettin’ favors from one of the guards? . . . again?

And Dark Blossom, you’re not supposed to talk about life in our gated community.

Goat . . . go back and chew on a tin-can, somewhere . . . I have it on excellent authority that you are “ridiculous, and mostly pathetic.” . . . Please don’t make me repeat!

gadfly

(They said they would visit this month . . . but ‘guess they couldn’t make it, again.)

baron95 said...

They will employ several hundred of those already familiar with this aircraft and, when times improve, may well be able to hire more people

I'm sorry but there is something I don't get at all.

Why are SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE needed???!!!???!

I keep on hearing that Eclipse employed 800 till the end, that Friedman will hire 400-500, with an initial plan to just update the fleet.

What am I missing. Lets compare it to the finest companies in the fleet upgrade field, shall we?

Sierra Industries, with over 300 certified mods for the Citation line (a much larger fleet than Eclipse), has total refurb STCs from wings to engines to interiors to avionics.

How many people do they employ? 125.

What the heck are 4-8 times that many people going to do?

It boggles my mind that people are talking about employment in the 100s to basically do an avionics upgrade of a fleet of 260 over a few years.

It is insanity!!!! I'm surprised Shane is repeating the BS line, just like Zoom.

Shane, you don't even say "may employ". You state "will employ hundreds". You are losing it pal.

airtaximan said...

steve,

"but how does that discredit the actual facts he shares about his plane?"

Ken is full of great insight, but, Ken also says thing like EAC chose not to certify the winshiled heat, and if you uncollar it, it works perfectly. It was just EAC's cert choice.

I dug.

FOund out, the windshiled heat contributed to the windshield cracking issue.

Shame on me.

Reed, is expressing his opinion about what occured at EAC regarding the engine. If some of it remains curious to me, I will ask away.

enjoy the blog.

BTW, being inquisitive and asking tough questions, and expression viable plausible theories about what probably happend, is OK, in my book. As a matter of fact, this has led to many insights that directly contradicted what any EAC employee or supporter offered as their opininon about what occured.

Peter is a big boy, earned a nice salary, HAD a promising stock option package and raised a lot of money - I think he can answer some of these questions, even if they are follow up questions regarding his answers.

- if you have any insight, pls provide it.. Otherwise you are just criticising the critics... adds littl... read me?

uglytruth said...

Gad

Your points are always well taken but are you talking about FPJ Co. or the US Goverment?

Airtax: $1200

Dave said...

What am I missing.

My assumption is that they would be hiring all these people to get ready for Eclipse 500 production rather than retrofits. If they don't hire them before the production line re-starts, they might have a very tough time finding them one or two years down later. I believe they would be using the existing Eclipse 500 owners to subsidize their production plan for future Eclipse 500 aircraft. The Harlow plan afterall isn't just about doing retrofits (I'd feel better about it if it was), but about making 100 units per year yada yada yada.

baron95 said...

Steve said... I'd have liked to ask constructive follow-on questions, but before I could, everyone else jumped all over him to slam him.

Exactly. Many here have no interest in facts, just in venting bitterness. The thing is, I don't know where it come from.

I have yet to hear an owner, or depositor, or vendor, or investor, or even ex-employee, be half as bitter are some of the blogers here who have no stake whatsoever in this saga.

Fascinating. I guess that is what they call mob lynch mentality.

Rape them, hang them, burn it. All been done before whenever a crowd of men set their sights on a weak entity.

Rarely does someone stand up in the crowd and tries to stop the mob. Sad, but just human character.

airtaximan said...

CW,

yup, that's what I menat to say...

thanks

ea500s said...

Well maybe one of those 19 employees will be able to assist customers who need minimal support like releasing to us with NG aircraft the Eclipse DO-20A data cruncher so that we can continue to create Nav DB images. If one of the 19 can provide me with this software, I will keep the rest of the NG fleet updated with current Nav data base free of charge.

Also if any of Eclipse ex employees can provide me with information on who else I might get main wheel packing seals for the wheel halves I would appreciate that as new tires are probably 30 cycles away and I would like to track down some packing seals now.
Thanks to those that can help

P.S. I think the real owners of the source code for Avio NG should belong to the 155 NG aircraft that were produced. So give it up Eclipse, it belongs to us *grin*

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

Ugly

‘Not sure the full meaning of your question, but over the past few days, I think that the “Eclipse” fiasco, is a micro image of our illustrious president, and the farce at the national level. Is that an answer? Frankly, the entire system has gone “nuts”!

gadfly

ea500s said...

Airtaximan, you said you dug and found that windshield heat contributed to the cracking. The info I was given concerning the certification of existing aircraft for flight into known icing did not include replacemnt of existing windshields. From what I understand the sevice bulletin was written, and here is an excerpt from the July 2008 Eclipse flyer sent to owners.

2. Aircraft prior to serial number 266 will require the Avio NG 1.5 Garmin upgrade as well as
compliance with a service bulletin that includes the following modifications:
• A modified cockpit center switch panel providing
independent control switches for engine anti-ice
management;
• A new rudder spring to provide improved directional
stability if ice accumulates on the vertical stabilizer
leading edge;
• A paint coating around the area of the static ports to
prevent ice from accumulating and causing inaccurate
readings;
• A windshield coating to prevent a build up of dry snow - dry snow accumulation can cause static
electricity, which can interfere with radio communications;
• Various bonding straps and conductive paint applications to dissipate effects of precipitation
static;
• Five additional static wicks placed on the tail cone, aft upper vertical tail assembly, and wing
tips;
• Wing tip paint application to improve pilot identification of icing; and
• New placards relating to FIKI operation.

Later update made EFIS 1.3 eligable for FIKI without the Garmin upgrade

gadfly said...

A funny thing just happened. A call came from some outfit . . . a nice lady asked for the owner . . . I responded in the affirmative . . . I told her that she and I were both "human", and to please remove us from their list. She was polite . . . neither of us were "upset", and the call ended in a most pleasant, and unusual way.

It is so "rare", that I just had to share it with all you folks.

Whether Eclipse critics, or Ecliplse critics of critics, or otherwise, it seems you aren't somebody, unless you're angry with almost everybody.

Hey, guys . . . it's OK to have some difference of opinions over the technical stuff . . . the "honesty stuff" is not within discussion . . . but that "technical stuff", that can lead to great things, provided folks don't care "who gets the credit", so long as things improve.

But never forget the folks that are hired to bring it all together . . . the thing that has probably hurt the most workers, and their families . . . the greatest cloud over Eclipse, to this day.

gadfly

julius said...

Steve Hale,

Peter Reed just provided an informative perspective on the decision making process that led up to abandoning the Williams Jet. First time I've ever heard that.

did Peter say anything about the concept of the jet? The fpj should be an "airtaxi" - you remember the Nimbus "incident"!

Now P. Friedman states that the fpj is small and not suitable resp. with limited use for the airtaxi market!

It's all about credibility...
If your are an owner, investor or an now ex-employee should you invest some of your own resources into the new company (P. Friedman's or someone else's)?

Hate is a passion and much, much more than simple curiosity!

BTW: I never used sleeping pills or something similar!

Julius

bill e. goat said...

ea500s,
Would you care to comment on the five most desired improvements after 9/11, er, 1.5/EASA?

(Things which would not involve a major redesign, but ought to be do-able by a small engineering/mod shop).

Thanks!

Dave said...

Airtaximan, you said you dug and found that windshield heat contributed to the cracking. The info I was given concerning the certification of existing aircraft for flight into known icing did not include replacemnt of existing windshields.

That however does not mean that heat wasn't a factor and that the upgrade doesn't affect that. I see two things on your bullet points that could point to that:
A windshield coating to prevent a build up of dry snow - dry snow accumulation can cause static
electricity, which can interfere with radio communications

I would think reducing the snow acculumation would also reduce the windshield cracking when heat is applied.
Later update made EFIS 1.3 eligable for FIKI without the Garmin upgrade
That could affect how strong the heat level is where perhaps the upgraded reprogrammed the heating level to go down a few degrees.

gadfly said...

While I’m on my soap box, I’ll continue for a spell.

Yes, I own a business . . . and I’ve been a business owner for over thirty-three years . . . and have been involved, directly or indirectly, with aviation since about the age of “five” . . . when was that?, about the time WWII began.

Back in those days, my Dad was working on a thing called the “YP-38", nicknamed the “Yippee” . . . to this day, I can identify a “P-38" Lockheed Lightning flying overhead . . . and a few years back, ran out into the parking lot, when a “Confederate Airforce” P38 and P40 flew right over our shop in Albuquerque . . . the sound those twin V-12 Allison supercharged engines . . . a part of my very mind and soul . . . as if my very life, itself, was being re-played, in “living color’ . . . like when at our Submarine Reunion, they fired up the massive diesels right under our feet . . . and a world of memories returned (I have that on video, in stereo).

In memories . . . I remember my Dad, carefully seeing to the needs of countless workers . . . making sure that their needs were met, even in the midst of war. You see, it really boils down to the man or woman, who works day after day . . . putting together something that maybe they don’t really understand, yet all depends on their loyalty, their expertise, their skill, in putting together the device . . . designed by someone whom they may never meet . . . and will depend on the entire chain of communication, the chain of events, the chain of trust. Without all that, the Eclipse becomes no more than a flying “Yugo” . . . a flying farce . . . a contraption, destined for disaster, and maybe the death of anonymous folks . . . written off, in a “will”, an insurance payoff, a “revocable trust” a memory . . . or even a law-suit. At best, a good memory . . . but in reality, a “memory” . . . and nothing more!

gadfly

baron95 said...

So Gad, do you have an opinion of naming the F-35 Lighting II?

Do you feel honored or do you think they should have just left the Lighting name alone and come up with something new?

I don't like the name, I wasn't around during WWII, so interested in the perspective of those who where, and where involved with the Lighting.

Shane Price said...

Baron,

Shane, you don't even say "may employ". You state "will employ hundreds". You are losing it pal.

Mea Culpa. I was trying to be a bit cheerful on a difficult day for (ex) staff, and went a bit beyond the bounds. Thanks for pointing that out.

Steve Hale,
Agreed, we do tend to be a bit 'down' on Eclipse. Getting sued will do that for you, every time.

Black Tulip,
Now you've blown our cover, the Warden will shut down the email server, again. My lawyers won't make the parole hearing, again. I won't get a chance to tell the board I'm innocent, again.

For the record, it's all YOUR fault we were caught....

Shane

airtaximan said...

ea500,

I think you are helping my point. The windshield cracking issue was supposed to be resolved BEFORE FIKI, and the windshield heat was collard, until after FIKI.

Trying to tie the tow together makes no semse. I dod not do this.

I merely stated that the statement the heater works perfectly when uncollared, and it was not certified BY EAC CHOICE, was wrong.

Like with most things, there's a good reason the heater was collared inop. It was found to exacerbate the cracking windshield issue.

Once the windshields were redesigned and replaced, its no longer an issue.

ea500s said...

Dave your remarks are purely speculation, and so are mine for that matter. THe only difference is I actually have the aircraft and fly it, so my experience based upon the FIKI service bulletin might carry a bit more weight. Over a year ago I complained to Eclipse that the aircraft was not properly bonded. They looked at me like I was smoking crack ( which I do not) Apparently no one else was complaining about this, but after flying friends Eclipse's I discovered their planes did the same thing. Dry ice or dry snow is not something you find on the ground. It is Cirrus clouds or Ice crystals. (ever hear of the 22 degree halo effect?) There were many times while flying above FL 350 that I encountered these dry ice crystals, and because they are already ice, they do not adhere to the airframe. These ice crystals were usually encountered at OAT of -40 degrees C or colder. Like I said they never did build up on the airframe, but they did create a lot of static. I could feel it when I put my hands near the windshield, The hair would stand up on my arms. This would also cause an annoying cracking static over the radios making it a little more difficult, not impossible to hear ATC. I really think this windshield coating is nothing more then an anti static coating. And I am willing to bet that it in no way affects the windshield from a heating structual problem such as you mentioned. What I really think that the flyer meant to say was it prevents static build up from dry ice rather then dry ice build up.

Also according to the readme file associated with EFIS 1.3 there is no mention of a change in the heat cycling of the windshield. There is and always has been over heat protection built in. Now I would not advocate what Kens said about uncollaring the windshield heat ( if indeed he ever did say that), but I also don't believe that the windshields in current planes are prone to cracking if the windshield heat is turned on. Again this is just my opinion.

airtaximan said...

"I have yet to hear an owner, or depositor, or vendor, or investor, or even ex-employee, be half as bitter are some of the blogers here who have no stake whatsoever in this saga."

Baron, have you been reading both sides here, when Ken, et als... post. It becomes personal within seconds, and nastier more personal posts are really rare.

There have been some, yes, but rare.

This has engendered passion for sure, and I would chalk it up to, no one likes a $3B lie.

Just the way I see it. And the defenders, well, they are defending a $3B lie... in many cases promoting it.

Intentional or not, it remains a huge fat lie - not "I tried and failed"... but "I lied and failed"

There is a huge difference, AND I provide the benefit of doubt - I love entrepreneurism. I just don't like bald faced lies.

To believe they did not know some of the huge misstatements that cost fortunes, is to believe these guys were asleep at the wheel, and purely stupid.

I do not buy THAT rendition

ea500s said...

airtaximan I am not sure I understand your logic here. You are saying that windshield heat exacerbated the cracking problem thus it was collared. However you go on to say that once the windshields were designed and replaced it is no longer an issue.

I am not sure were you are going with this, because I have an Avio NG aircraft and the windshield I have in my aircraft will not be replaced if I ever get the chance to have the FIKI service bulletin performed. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, and don't understand what you are trying to say. Ken would be wrong for publicly stating that he is uncollaring his breakers. But if indeed he is, I highly doubt that it will add to the cracking of his windshields. Again speculation on my part, but if I changed my plane to experimental category I for one would not hesistate to uncollar it and use it if needed.

airtaximan said...

ea500,

IIRC, the windshield were redesigned and the cracking issue is no longer an issue. It WAS when they obtained Cert, and therefore the heat was collard off.

Now that the windshield problem is no longer an issue, there is no reason to inop the heater.

Case closed.

Issue - misunderstood by Ken - offered by Ken as THE reason - there was another reason.

Interesting story about the bonding issue - and they "looked at you like you were on crack"

Well, we've just become great friends - you thought of an issue and brought it up - they accused you of being on crack, you were RIGHT!!!

Sounds like this blog.

Dave said...

Dave your remarks are purely speculation, and so are mine for that matter. THe only difference is I actually have the aircraft and fly it, so my experience based upon the FIKI service bulletin might carry a bit more weight.

I was only trying to show that what you quoted did not inherently moot what ATM said. Other than that my only assumption is that there's a good reason why it isn't certified to be used in non-FIKI aircraft, but as to what that good reason is, I don't know...and yes, what I'm saying is pure speculation.

Now it's time for something completely different...Former Eclipse employees sue over termination. When I first read the article I didn't think they stood to collect anything of substance even if they were to win, but apparently since this happened post-BK, they have an even stronger chance at collecting. Though it seems completely backwards to me, terminations that happen pre-BK are considered low level unsecured creditors while post-BK terminations can be considered high priorty administrative claims. Assuming that Roel keeps his DIP super-priority claim, it looks like he'd be competing with these employees for the Chapter 7 proceeds (if these employees were to win). From a logical standpoint I take issue with this case, but apparently the law in this situation is illogical (at least to me).

airtaximan said...

ea500,

and everyone who remembers...

there was a problem with cracking windshields and this required a redesign, after very frequent inspections and replacements.

Once redesigned, this SB wen't away.

So EA500's plane might never have had the cracking probblem... and still lacked the added safety of a working windscreen heater, as it was INOP according to the cert.

The coincidence of the FIKI mods and the windshield heater OP, was a pure coincidence. The important issue is, it came together, AFTER the windshield was redesigned so as not to crack.

SP. a nice side issue you bring out by all of this is: there needs to be a consistent configuration. Your plane suffered, becasue a previous config had a design flaw. Your didn't... and you got stuck with a misunderstanding of why your heater was INOP, and a new windshield design, that some earlier planes lacked and needed a retrofit. Tough to track, and keep straight. Some folks might think its OK to uncollar the heater, for example. Afterall, it works "perfectly".

gadfly said...

baron

Such a subtle thing . . . a single letter, defining the difference between something so simple as illuminating . . . illuminating shall we say “a closet”, a “stairway”, . . . perhaps the walkway between the car and the path that leads to the back door of the house?

The word was not “lighting”, something that could apply to an “LED”, perhaps with power supplied by a “solar cell” and a rechargeable battery, but included “n”, making it “Lightning” . . . something that Admiral Yamamoto did not have time to contemplate, when his Mitsubishi “Betty Bomber” was struck by 50 mm cannon fire from what could have been termed, “lightning”, delivered by a combination of aluminum, 130 Octane rated gasoline, and V-12 supercharged Allison engines, counter-rotating props, with human pilots . . . and a long history of human efforts, going back to folks living in a little community in California, called “Burbank”.

What’s in a word . . . even a “letter”? In this case, history itself. What if my own Dad had not gone to work with Lockheed, as a “jig builder” . . . and then began working on a twin engine fighter-bomber . . . and been involved in the “flutter problem” of the elevator (that killed a test pilot in a trans-sonic dive over Glendale), on that aircraft that the Germans came to call, the “forked tailed devil”. ‘Ever take a close look at that simple counter-weight on the elevator of a P-38? . . . It spelled the difference between success and failure of the aircraft that achieved the highest production of all allied aircraft of WWII . . . and some would question my full approval of my father’s ability as an inventor, machinist, and his Christian character, faith, and my example.

No, I cannot prove anything by investigation of the past . . . only, I was “there” and watched things happen, as they happened . . . not realizing until decades later what I had witnessed. By then, my Dad was long gone. But this I do know: History was changed, because of “little things”, things of honesty, caring for folks . . . and the list is long.

gadfly

A common cliché . . . “Little things mean a lot” . . . it was a song, popular when I was a teenager, hooked on “girls”. It still means a lot! Ignore the “little things”, and soon the “big things” mean nothing.

ea500s said...

bill e. goat, I am not sure I can come up with 5 recommendations that a small shop could do to modify the Eclispe to improve it. The Avio system is so tied into every aircraft system I don't know how a small shop could even think of modifying things. The two things that do come to mind are as follows.

First I would get the STC for new tires for the airplane. From what I hear Eclipse was less then a few days away from releasing a service bulletin to change to a better wearing tire.

The second STC I would go for is to convert the Phostrex over to Halon. I have a friend who has an Eclipse and had one of these things leak. And it took over a year for the leak to develope. He went thru hoops and was able to aquire one, but the one he aquired could possiblly leak in the future. He told me he contacted the company that was contracted to package Phostrex for Eclipse's application. He was advised by them that a PMA does not exist, so it is not possible for an Eclipse owner to even buy one now. They also told him that they advised Eclipse against using Phostrex due to its extremely corrosive characteristics, but that Eclipse was hell bent on it because they said it was easily neutralized by water. However my friend was lucky, he caught it the day it started leaking. But what about the owner that keeps his bird hangared for months not wanting to fly it until parts become avialable. What good does it do to wash it off with water a month after it has sat on the engine eating away at it. I am afraid that a lot of Eclipse owners have potential time bombs ticking away in their engine nacelles. The company that packages for Eclipse also told my friend that they would never PMA this due to liability, and that they would no longer supply the new owner of Eclipse with Phostrex canisters. They did mention to him that they would gladly assist with engineering to STC a Halon replacement system.
Sorry I can't add any more to the wish improvement list you ask for but I will keep thinking about it.

The bottom line I can surmise from all of this was Eclipse was doing eveything possible to save weight even if it wasn't good for the airplane or the customers.

P.S. Eclipse never came out with a service bulletin or customer communication on Phostrex, but they did mention it in one of their monthly flyers for owners to be on the lookout for these leaks. They also stated that the problem that caused this was corrected, but not until I believe SN 179 or higher on the Phostrex Canister, not on the airplane.

Eclipse said...

E500s the Mil P-83461/1-261 or M83461/1-261 is manufactured by Bell and Augusta among others. You shouldn't have a problem finding a couple. If the bearing seals need replaced just use the PN from the old seal. It has an "official" EAC PN: 154-09500 which will get you nowhere outside of EAC.

gadfly said...

Bottom line, my personal opinion . . . this bird ain't goin' nowhere, not now, not next year, never! It might have enough power to get airborne, with two passengers aboard . . . maybe. But with the moral and legal baggage, it's grounded.

gadfly

ea500s said...

Eclipse thanks for that info. I am assuming if I give that info to my mechanic he will know how to aquire them based on your info. Thanks again, I really appreciate your response.

Eclipse said...

Yes, e500s your mechanic should be able to find them. And you are welcome!

ea500s said...

Gadfly, not to take this too seriously or a personal attack, but good thing you were not on the Apollo 13 team. You would have had them dead at "Houston we have a problem."

Well the seriousness of the Eclipse situation may not be life or death for humans, but I still think it is too early to give it up for dead. As long as I can scramble to keep it airworthy I will keep on flying. It is what it is, good or bad this is what I have. And hopefully the airplane will survive in some way or another.

Dave said...

Well the seriousness of the Eclipse situation may not be life or death for humans, but I still think it is too early to give it up for dead. As long as I can scramble to keep it airworthy I will keep on flying. It is what it is, good or bad this is what I have. And hopefully the airplane will survive in some way or another.

I feel that I should clarify what I said. I feel that of what has been publicly disclosed that there wont be a good large-scale effort with the Eclipse. There will probably be ways of getting parts here and there, but I wouldn't count on there being a large organized support system to last a considerable length of time and if there is one it might be cost prohibitive and risky to put your money in. Even if the aircraft is still airworthy, I believe it may be able to be treated as an impaired asset for tax purposes. I basically wouldn't put six figures into any of the publicly disclosed deals out there because I believe there is great risk there in losing money for little or no gain. I see there being risk in all the different proposals out there since I think they are all under-capitalized from what I know. If someone like Cessna came in to bid to either do upgrades or to manufacture, I wouldn't have those reservations (though if Cessna themselves said they were going to sell 100 units per year, I'd still be more than a little bit wary). Since I believe they are under-capitalized, I don't see them as long-term viable and as such putting in considerable money into them could stand to have a repeat of all those who suffered financial losses with Eclipse.

Eclipse said...

E500s BTW the nose wheel packing is MS28775-242. The previous PN was for the mains.

gadfly said...

ea500s

If you have a bird, do your best to keep it flying. But understand, I'm not speaking of the "hardware" as such, over the "short run", but the company behind the hardware.

And I do not think that either "it" or the birds entrusted into their care, have a long and successful future.

But understand, that that's just my gut feel for this thing.

gadfly

gadfly said...

ea500s

"but good thing you were not on the Apollo 13 team. You would have had them dead at "Houston we have a problem." "

That's somewhat humorous. Once, in my "submarine career" we had a certain situation . . . read the second chapter in "Blind Man's Bluff", "Whiskey a Go Go" . . . they were the sub that replaced us on patrol . . . it took almost fifty years for that to be "declassified" . . . and the situation was "interesting", to say the least. And, somehow we survived, without panic. The difference was "we didn't get caught" at the end, but it was "touch and go" for many, many hours.

gadfly

airtaximan said...

I really like you. Are you on crack?

I can alomst hear Ken, "my phosterX works perfectly"

your words, plus something about a flying time bomb...

"The second STC I would go for is to convert the Phostrex over to Halon."

I guess adequate testing was done on this system?

FAA cert, yup. For sure.

Some said this would replace ALL HAlon based fire suppression systems in aircraft and make EAC so wealthy and flush with cash, it would dwarf the intial investments.

And all WE did was question, as more wuestions, and doubt the BS.

I guess we are assholes.

bill e. goat said...

Hi ea500s,
Thanks for the comment about tires (Michelin cure already developed?) and Fauxtrex (I think some corroded canisters on early items, as you mention).

I should have revealed my intentions more explicitly,
(Heh...Heh...Heh...)

No No, all you Sherlock Holmes wantabes out there !! Goat Inc does NOT have any designs on modifying Eclipsi. (Although, I do have a voltmeter and a hammer that I would be glad to loan someone if they need it).

"I'm not sure I can come up with 5 recommendations that a small shop could do to modify the Eclispe to improve it. The Avio system is so tied into every aircraft system I don't know how a small shop could even think of modifying things."

My proposition is:
Eclipse IS on the verge of becoming "a small shop" (think 60 people or so).

I'm just wondering what the five top things would be on their plate past the already-engineered (and equally important- HEY WEDGE, YOU LISTENING !!??- certified) Avio 1.5/EASA mods.

I figure there is a typical owner's "gripe list" of a dozen or so things, and was wondering what the top five are, so we can discuss the required capabilities to develop those items. (But didn't want to bring up any unrealistic exotic- and expensive- extraneous items such as a HUD, thrust reversers, etc.)

Any other relatively do-able items for the factory to address in the next year or so (past Avio 1.5)??

Thanks.

Dave said...

My proposition is:
Eclipse IS on the verge of becoming "a small shop" (think 60 people or so).


That I can see, just when I hear about it being closer to 360, the long term results in 0.

airtaximan said...

Gad,

can o worms BS.. IMO.

Anyhow, I knew this could get your goat, so to speak. I think the cooment stems from ignorance, not insight, and I surmise, so do you think it comes from that place.

So, assuming you are fatalistic is another mistaken comfortable thinking non thinking strategy. Denial, dismissing, whatever.

Too bad your comments are being dismissed by some, but no surprise.

EAC-Lovers, do not dismiss, think.

IS all I can say.

Enough noodling will bring enlightenment, good judgement, clarity, safety, and self respect. I promise.

Short of this, just freaking listen.

airtaximan said...

Document: Judge orally granted Eclipse bankruptcy
By HEATHER CLARK – 48 minutes ago

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A federal bankruptcy judge has verbally granted a motion to convert troubled jet manufacturer Eclipse Aviation's restructuring to Chapter 7 bankruptcy, ending a decade of business that led to the production of 260 Eclipse 500s.

The order has yet to be signed, but a document filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware says U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath "orally granted" a motion converting a Chapter 11 restructuring process intended to save the Albuquerque manufacturer into a Chapter 7 liquidation of the company's assets.

"It's unfortunate. It's tragic. It's horrible for all the employees," Michael McConnell, a longtime marketing and sales executive for Eclipse, said Wednesday.

Secured noteholders had requested the company be converted from Chapter 11 restructuring to Chapter 7 bankruptcy in February after a company that had hoped to buy Eclipse, European-based EclipseJet Aviation International Inc., failed to obtain financing.

EclipseJet Aviation International is an affiliate of Eclipse's largest shareholder, Luxembourg-based ETIRC Aviation.

Eclipse Aviation did not oppose the motion, which unsecured creditors later joined.

A copy of the order to be signed was filed by Eclipse's attorneys late Wednesday.

McConnell said in an e-mail Wednesday that Eclipse had closed its doors and the nine remaining employees had worked their last day. He wrote that Walrath was expected to sign the order Thursday morning and a trustee was expected to be appointed this week.

Eclipse has 15 days to file its unpaid debts and the names of its creditors. Within 30 days, the company must file a final report and account to the trustee, the unsigned order said.

Eclipse employees remaining in Albuquerque still held out hope that a buyer would purchase Eclipse's assets and keep the company going in some form, either by relaunching production or by creating a company that would service and maintain the 259 Eclipse 500 very light jets that were delivered.

At least two business executives have announced plans to purchase all or part of Eclipse, and one hopes to relaunch production of the very light jet in 2011.

But McConnell cautioned former Eclipse workers, saying "My guidance to all employees is to take care of your family, take care of yourself. There is no silver bullet."

According to court documents, ETIRC chairman Roel Pieper repeatedly had assured investors that Russia's state-owned Vnesheconombank would provide funding for Eclipse, which had planned to build an assembly plant in Ulyanovsk, Russia.

Pieper has not returned telephone messages seeking comment.

A spokesman for Vnesheconombank has declined to say whether financing for Eclipse was coming or not.

Dmitry Shikov, a spokesman for the governor of the Ulyanovsk region where the assembly plant was to have been built, said he does not know what is happening with the financing of the construction, but said there are no signs of the halt.

"As far as I know, the project has not been suspended," he said.

Eclipse's supporters have hailed the company for creating a market for the very light jet, which are twin-engine jets with five or six seats that have been likened to SUVs with wings.

Its critics have said the company's business model of producing airplanes at a high volume to support a low price that beat its competitors was abysmal and the jet was conventional in its flying capabilities.

Doug Royce, an aerospace analyst for Connecticut-based Forecast International Inc., which had forecast last fall that Eclipse's production would end this year, said late last week that one thing that led to the company's failure was that Eclipse founder Vern Raburn overpromised on what the company could deliver.

"He was always on a high wire act, and he stayed up a lot longer than a lot of people," Royce said.

McConnell created an automated e-mail reply before leaving work Wednesday.

It said: "I never thought Eclipse would come to this. However, if the best product does indeed win, then this little jet will live on in some way."

Associated Press writer Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

ea500s said...

Eclipse copy that thanks!!

gadfly glad you found that somewhat humorous, that was my intention. The Eclispe situation sucks but sometimes humour helps make the negative seem a little less toxic.
It will be interesting to see how the ch 7 goes, and I think it will take 3 months or more before any of us knows what will happen next, but I expect that Shane will continue to do his usual great job of maintaining the blog. Perhaps had Eclipse hired Shane instead of firing Brian we wouldn't be having these discussions LOL

airtaximan said...

Employees sue Eclipse
over termination
Judge says will OK liquidation
Updated: Wednesday, 04 Mar 2009, 5:32 PM MST
Published : Wednesday, 04 Mar 2009, 12:19 PM MST

Asst. News Director: Iain Munro
Web Producer: Todd Dukart
ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - Two former employees of Eclipse Aviation are suing the company, claiming they were laid off without the notice required by law.

Annette Varela and John J. Dimura filed the lawsuit Tuesday in bankruptcy court in Delaware. They requested the court certify the lawsuit as class-action for other laid-off employees.

Varela worked at the company's Albuquerque headquarters, and Dimura worked at an Albany, N.Y., service facility. Both were laid off when the company stopped operations in February.

Both claim the company terminated their employment without a 60 days' written notice required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, also known as the WARN Act. Dimura also claims the company violated a similar New York state law that requires 90 days' notice.

They claimed the company could have reasonably foreseen the layoffs and closings, but did not provide the warning.

The plaintiffs are asking for back pay and benefits that would have been covered during the 60-days' notice, plus attorneys' fees.

Jack Raisner, he lawyer representing Eclipse workers, on Wednesday called the lawsuit “an uphill battle.”

However he also said there's a chance that when money is raised by the Chapter 7 bankruptcy sale of the company's assets, some money might be left over for the 850 plus workers who are now out of a job.

A judge late Wednesday gave verbal approval to allowing the company to convert its Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing to Chapter 7 liquidation.

Eclipse Aviation filed for Chapter 11 in November and announced it was going to be purchased by a European-based company, but financing for the purchase fell through. Chapter 11 allows a company to hold it creditors at bay while it works out a reorganization plan to continue in business.

airtaximan said...

ea500s,

while you doubted my theory ont he heater and windshield, you never agreed when I clarified.

Perhaps you should?

gadfly said...

ea500s

You and I are on the same page . . . the humor part, for sure. Some day, be sure to stop in. I'm not that difficult to find.

gadfly

Dave Ivedorne said...

But understand, I'm not speaking of the "hardware" as such, over the "short run", but the company behind the hardware.

I've a small but important quibble with this statement, Gad:

The company behind the hardware is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! IT IS AN EX-COMPANY!!

The NEW company, whatever form ( or forms ) it takes, still hasn't tried to sue the blog - so at least it has that going for it. I suggest we all sit back, listen intently, disagree with that which we find disagreeable - but most importantly LISTEN.

When Peter Reed told his story to the blog about his time with Eclipse; of living, drinking, sleeping & breathing the objective; of eventual disenchantment and departure - it all rings oh so true. I could have told the exact same story ( in a different context, naturally ). He was one of the guys who was trying to make "the impossible" actually occur. He might still.

It's too late to make Eclipse's investors, employees, customers, vendors, and other stakeholders whole - Eclipse is dead. Let us not speak ill of the demised. Let us hope that its successor can make the best of what's left, for those who still hold a stake in the outcome. Even Ken. :-)

( but maybe not Wedge )

DI

gadfly said...

DI

You certainly have a point, to be sure. And I do not believe in ghosts, in the popular sense. But somehow the "spirit" of the original will linger, as long as the bird has even the slightest connection with the past. If you know something I don't, when it comes to cross-contamination, in the biological/medical sense, please set me straight. I am more than willing to learn a new thing.

gadfly

(Me thinks you're pulling my leg . . . right out of the socket.)

ea500s said...

airtaximan sorry I never doubted your theory, I just don't think I understand. I think you and I might be talking about two different things. If I have offended you in any way I assure you that was never my intention.

baron95 said...

atm said ... Baron, have you been reading both sides here, when Ken, et als... post. It becomes personal within second

Yes ATM. But the difference is that Ken and the other owners have (alot of) skin in the game. This affects their finances, their standing among friends and family, their aviation aspirations, etc.

We, the pure bloggers, have ZERO skin in the game. We need to be the mature, detached ones, and selectively engage in dialog.

Ken has a reason to be emotional and defensive. We don't. Simple as that.

baron95 said...

ooooops Gad - my apologies, to the P-38/F-35 fliers for the typo.

Bad Baron, Bad Baron, no cookies for you tonight.

But still, you never answered the question. What do you feel about LightNing II?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

All,

I have been asked by an extremely reliable source to share some clarification re: the PhostrEx leak issues.

The root cause was allegedly traced to a supplier process issue (the vendor of the canisters). The issue effected -2 and some -3 canisters used/installed in a/c up to s/n 176.

A betting man would surmise that Eclipse was not in a position to force replacement under warranty due to failure to pay for the faulty equipment in the first place - essentially leaving the customers without recourse.

The source recommends frequent inspection of the canisters, and suggests removing -2 or early -3 canisters if the plane is to be stored for any period of time (following established procedures).

Hopefully this will be a priority item when/if a new company or a support organization ends up holding the pieces.

gadfly said...

baron

Your premise is partly true, but many of us who do not, nor would ever own one of the birds, never-the-less have skin in the game. You see, some of us represent the manufacturing community of Albuquerque, and as such, some of us have lost much in this fiasco. The taxpayers have also lost . . . but by and large, most haven’t a clue as to how much this has cost them . . . they just go from “election to election”, never considering that they are voting their own taxation and loss.

Granted, the individual stories don’t represent much in “dollars”, but when I get a call from some person seeking a job . . . and I have nothing to offer him . . . and say, “By the way, why are you out of work?”, and the answer includes a story of major loss, by his former employer, because of Eclipse . . . Well, you get the picture.

‘Would that we could simply put a “happy face” on this story, but . . . !

gadfly

(Then there’s that little thing about the overall effect on General Aviation, and the industry that affects many of us.)

(And it's too late for me to figure out your comments about the P38, etc., so, go ahead and get your cookies!)

Dave Ivedorne said...

(Me thinks you're pulling my leg . . . right out of the socket.)

Nah, not that hard ( whenever I hear the word "sockets", I think "streams", and have no idea why ). It's just easy to fall into the trap of blaming all for the sins of a few, due to their mutual association with "the company". It's never as simple as that.

It wouldn't just be the Duetschlanders calling the P-38 a "fork-tailed devil" - its counter-rotating props turned "the wrong way", making both engines the critical one in the event of a failure. Sounds like it sure worked nice with 24 cylinders firing, though...

DI

gadfly said...

OK . . . Sorry about the delay. But the "F35 Lightning II" just didn't register . . . 'had to look it up!

Let's face it. The first "Lightning P38" is a hard act to follow. But maybe you young whippersnappers will add something to history with a greater story . . . that is, if the "F35" takes out Usama bin Laden . . . the equivalent of taking out Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto on that fatefull day, so long ago.

gadfly

(Now, go get your cookies.)

(Actually, the "first" YP-38, the props both turned in, over the top, but were reversed on the second . . . and forever after. Funny thing, our "submarine" followed the same pattern . . . for reasons too many to go into just now. Visualize a nine-foot diameter, with a five-foot pitch times two . . . on the sub, that is.)

ea500s said...

I don't know who your reliable source is but here is what Eclipse officially had to say about the phostrex cartridge leaks.

We have discovered that cartridges can leak when
the cartridge filling process is not adequately
controlled. This causes moisture to come in contact with the PhostrEx agent and, over time, form a
small quantity of acid. This acid can potentially
damage the integrity of the cartridge seal and
rupture disk, allowing the agent to leak out. Our
PhostrEx supplier incorporated a process change on
March 12, 2008 that became effective on cartridge
SN 176.

While we continue to determine if a more aggressive
field approach is required, it is recommended that
you check the PhostrEx gauge as part of each preflight
check and look for signs of leakage near
the bottom of the aircraft cowls. If you store your
Eclipse 500 for an extended period of time, please
make arrangements for the gauge to be checked
on a regular basis. Although instances of leaks are
rare, long-term exposure of the agent within the
aircraft can cause corrosion on the engine case
and some components and should be avoided to
prevent lengthy maintenance or down time for the aircraft.

You can take it for what it is worth but Eclipse says cartridge SN 176 not aircraft SN 176. But go by the date on the cartridge if you have any doubt is my philosphy.

baron95 said...

Gad said ... if the "F35" takes out Usama bin Laden . . . the equivalent of taking out Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto on that fatefull day, so long ago.

Since the first operational F-35 squadron is years away, lets hope it doesn't take that long.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

EA, I would go with the source but hey, it is your plane. And going back over what I got it does look like canister S/N 176, not a/c.

The recommendations are about the same beyond the suggestion to remove the canisters if your plane is going to sit for a while.

There is nothing to prohibit maintaining the plane more often or more effectively than the AMM suggests/requires - my source only wanted to make the suggestion to the operators to prevent possible damage from exposure to the PhostrEx agent due to leaks.

gadfly said...

All this “re-assuring” talk about a highly corrosive agent, stored under pressure, inside a 7xxx series aluminum alloy bird reminds me of the advice we used to give out aboard the “boat” (sub): If you find an un-exploded bomb . . . shake it! . . . maybe the fuse is stuck!

gadfly

(And baron . . . some things just cannot be hurried. Usama will just have to wait!)

ea500s said...

Coldwet that is exactly the reason I mentioned it in my post, to help assure other owners are aware of the potential hazard and take a proative approach to prevent damage.
Eclipse really downplayed this in my opinion. When I first read the flyer back in July and they said it was a very rare event I didn't give it another thought until my friend discovered his leaking and gave me a heads up warning. It is kind of scary though because that was the last thing my friend expected to see after all his time in service.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

OK EA, thanks for the clarification.

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

Working around FauxTrix, I would opine:
Take a deep breath.
And hold it.

"At room temperature, HBr is a nonflammable gas with an acrid odor, fuming in moist air because of the formation of hydrobromic acid."

Gee, I wonder what conditions are like inside your lungs- anyone?

Room Temeperrature - check.
Moist Air - check.
fuming hydrobromic acid - check.

More Koolaid please- but hold the "fiz".

Don't worry- precautions have been taken to make sure the canisters won't leak.

Very often.

Hydrogen Bromide HBr
(Byproduct of FauxTrix)

Beats the heck out of me- Eclipse hyped the daylights out of the stuff- anyone else have a theory on why it's not being adopted? Even if it's expensive- with it being "1000 times more potent than Halon" or some such, it seems like there would be some small, weight critical applications- space, etc.

The F-16 uses Hydrazine for it's emergency power turbine fuel (very "energy dense"), but there is a bit of a downside as well:
Men In Black- er, Yellow
"Hi- we're here to work on your EA500, er, F-16".

bill e. goat said...

ea500s,
I am confident that your airplane will have adequate support (maybe not great support, but adequate).
I'm just not sure by whom, or where, or when.
I think it is a very nice product, and the owner's are a patient bunch, so I figure no matter what happens, or how often it happens, there will be parts and service support for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure how the factory support is going to go- 350-400 employees, to kit up retrofit parts for 250 airplanes, for 2 years, seems like a LOT of overhead to me. Okay, so maybe they'll restart the line (but, 2 years from now or so?). I just don't see it being more than 60 or so folks with that plan.

Unless- they go into product development (design, test, certify, with the requisite electronics, aerodynamics, structural, propulsion, flight test, etc.support).

In this case, they will need probably another 100-150 folks- but this is an expensive undertaking, with delayed payback- I'm not sure the bidders will have pockets deep enough to pull it off.

Here's my read- if RP couldn't get $28M -anywhere in the world- then it's going to be a tough row to how by some less established players to raise half that.

Maybe Mr. Mann will subsidize the adventure for a year- or two- again, but I think by now he will only be willing to do it at a significantly (or "substantially") reduced scope.

I think our owner friends will be okay, and not suffer too much more inconvenience, once things get rolling in a month or two. I'm sorry it's a more dramatic impact for our ex-EAC friends though- wish I had a more upbeat forecast for the immediate future. (Lot's of talented folks there, above average, so I feel they will compete well in the job marketplace- but probably have to move to pursue them).

IMHO...

ea500s said...

another possibility for windshield heat breakers to be collared may have something to do with them not being load shed and thus dminishing the battery emergency power to less then 30 minutes. I have experimentrd with the windshield heat on the ground , and by default the heat controls on the deice synopitics page defaults windshield heat to on. The other options are windshieald heat hi, and windshield heat off. During my ground experimentations, I have noticed that when I turn the batteries on and close the bus tie breaker, the windshield heat is on and drawing amps big time.
I have however always had them collared during flight and thus can not confirm if they would continue to remain on in flight with a double generator failure. But my guess is with current software they will. Perhaps Ken can chime in on this one since he seems to know the deice system fairly well .

ea500s said...

bill e. goat considering what we have already lost, if we can get adequate parts support that can keep the plane legal to operate, then I will be a happier person. I hope you are correct as it will greatly add value to 259 planes.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Well maybe one of those 19 employees will be able to assist customers who need minimal support like releasing to us with NG aircraft the Eclipse DO-20A data cruncher so that we can continue to create Nav DB images. If one of the 19 can provide me with this software, I will keep the rest of the NG fleet updated with current Nav data base free of charge.

Sounds good. Is of course illegal.

fred said...

billy :

Here's my read- if RP couldn't get $28M -anywhere in the world- then it's going to be a tough row to how by some less established players to raise half that.

well as far as i know ...
the failure is not "due to conditions we are in" ...

but more to the very screwy nature of the terms of deal ...

the product is extremely far from being without problems ...

the very market it was meant for doesn't exist ...

the very firm who was supposed to acquire it was "less than consistent " (E-Trick)....

the same very firm that pretended to invest Billions in Russia , but couldn't spend more than "pocket change" for renting office-space


so IF the product could be fixed (unfortunately too much money was spent to chase chimers about a market that doesn't exist ... some to think about that ? EASA Cert. fiasco swallowed LOTS of resources to get a FULL cert. to operate Air-taxi ... where the market does not even exist as a hundredth of what it can exist in the US !! double waste !)

it could "may be" have had a chance ...

now , it is better to keep as "inexpensively" as possible , and let go to its natural end ...

so the real question is NOT really HOW much new EAC assets owners will raise ...

but more : "what for ? "

FreedomsJamtarts said...

E500s the Mil P-83461/1-261 or M83461/1-261 is manufactured by Bell and Augusta among others. You shouldn't have a problem finding a couple. If the bearing seals need replaced just use the PN from the old seal. It has an "official" EAC PN: 154-09500 which will get you nowhere outside of EAC.

Does the IPC give that Mil spec P/N as an alternative (Approved data)? If only the Ecorpse P/N is in the IPC, then it would be strictly illegal to substitute (but in practise I would also do it, of course).

fred said...

Freedom :

could you please tell me if you think that such "illegal activities" would jeopardize insurance ?

i think that's a common trait of this kind of peoples all over the place to refuse service if they can get a reason valid or futile enough ...

your guess ?

fred said...

(add to previous)

i am not criticizing your offer ...

i really believe you're hell of a bloke to offer such ...!

julius said...

fred,

bonjour,

P. Friedman decribed the fpj as a niche product - 100 fpj/a.
What is Peter Reed's task?


Julius

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

guten morgen , julius ...


P.reed was inside EAC in the "glorious" years ...

as i believe the matter is already dying , i won't go too far in the "task" for future ...

but he was CFO ( i think ) so for me it would mean Chief Finances Officer ...

therefor THE one to see the wedge's maneuver at work before anybody else ...
i was curious to see how this shamble did happen , if they had some "substances" in their actions ...

or more flying on(short) sight without radar support in thick fog ...
----------------------------------

100Fpj/ year ?

that would not be a "niche" to me ...

but more like an already top !
as i don't believe the "demand" is or has been around ...

13 years or so ,and so little demand ...

is that because so many left the boat ? or had more brain than money ? or by "strike of luck" ?

if 100 new ones could be purchased in a year , it would be already a success ...

but we wouldn't speak of Fpj !!!

IAgree said...

Bravo Steve Hale! You've only said what lots of people think but don't bother writing because no one here gets it- they'll just slam you (big surprise). The only interesting blogger in 6 months was Peter King (though why he is wasting his time here is beyond me), Baron, and more often than not BEG. I was hoping this blog would now fade away, but with New Eclipse looks like it has a longer life. It's like a car wreck looking at this blog- you know you shouldn't look but it's so horrible you can't stop yourself.

WhyTech said...

"It's like a car wreck looking at this blog- you know you shouldn't look but it's so horrible you can't stop yourself."

This is actually a more fitting description of looking at EAC!!

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

"could you please tell me if you think that such "illegal activities" would jeopardize insurance ?"

You didnt ask me, but that wont keep me from offering an opinion. IMO, the insurance company could successfully argue that by using such "non approved" parts, the acft was no longer airworthy under a strict definition, and the insurance coverage was therefore void. I believe that there will be very many such possibilities for the airworthiness of an EA 50 to be challenged (and insurance coverage denied) as the supply of approved parts dries up.

WhyTech said...

"Our
PhostrEx supplier incorporated a process change on
March 12, 2008 that became effective on cartridge
SN 176.

While we continue to determine if a more aggressive
field approach is required,"

Doesnt sound as if this "process change" has been conclusively shown to correct the problem. After all, they didnt get something critically important right in the first place. Can you spell T-I-M-E-B-O-M-B?

fred said...

thanks Whytech ...

even if i didn't ask you , the question was more something general ...

i very deeply believe that keeping each other's opinion for "private use" would have been the best way to keep humanity in the cave ...!

what i had in mind was along your opinion , but taken granted the justice-casus-belli of the US system (more than 95% of overall world court-case happen to be done in USA) just giving the advice of changing one spare-parts for an other could open an abyss of liabilities almost as deep as EAC itself was a money-abyss ...

eclipso said...

"The company behind the hardware is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! IT IS AN EX-COMPANY!!"

What are you REALLY trying to say?....LMAO

fred said...

though why he is wasting his time here is beyond me


is my english correct enough to read this as an iteration of :

"do as i say , not as i do myself " ?

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Effect on insurance? No experience, but I can not imagine an insurance not trying to weasel out of a pay out.

The substitution of the Ecorpse P/N O-ring with a Mil spec O ring would be differcult for anyone to prove causality in an accident, if the Mil spec O ring was just qualified and renumbered under the Eclipse type design (something you can not be certain).

The concept of a owner publishing NavDB updates for RVSM IFR operators is a terrifying liablity nightmare. Although the actual data in the DB would be from Jeppesen, and in practice the risk is probably negliable, I could see this being low hanging friut for an insurance company and a victims lawyer.

fred said...

thanks , freedom ...

i don't want to sound frightening , but when you know of the case where someone sued his microwave's maker because it is not written in the notice " you shouldn't dry your pet in microwave..." that could be a real bread-earned for vicious lawyer ... (pleonasm ! all lawyers are vicious , and yes, i am trying to make new-friends in this corporation ...! ;-) )

the Navdb would be jeppessen , so theoretically without problems ... or others than copyrights (?)

that really very nice of you to offer it ...

just be careful , should i remind you that without the "deed" from Monsieur Gunner we would have been sued and may be spitting $$$ now ...

Dave said...

I believe the reason that Phostrex hasn't been widely adopted is because it is actually an older technology that was rejected by the military for their aircraft. Actually back then a couple of people were injured (one person was out of work for six months if I remember correctly and there were lesser injuries) just as there were problems with Phostrex on the Eclipse assembly line. I think that Phostrex is difficult to handle and that's why there has been problems with leaky cannisters and that also goes to why it wasn't widely adopted. I also think that Eclipse has downplayed health concerns of exposure to Phostrex and that too has contributed to it not being widely adopted. If there aren't handling and/or health issues with Phostrex, I don't know why it wasn't widely adopted as it wasn't like Eclipse didn't let the whole world know about it.

ea500s said...

Some of you are missing my point, If I was able to aquire the proprietary data cruncher as I earlier described to convert Jepp data to an image file that works with Avio NG then I would have the ability to go to the FAA and aquire a type 2 LOA to distribute nagivation data bases to NG aircraft. This I would do and make avialable to owners at no charge if only I could aquire the software that Eclipse used to do the conversion.

baron95 said...

WhyTech said ... IMO, the insurance company could successfully argue that by using such "non approved" parts, the acft was no longer airworthy under a strict definition, and the insurance coverage was therefore void.

There is a great article on Aviation Consumer ( about 2 months old, you can get it on their site), about when insurance companies will deny a claim.

Bottom line conclusion is, if the item/part/event/action that is un-airworthy in directly connected to the loss (accident, etc).

e.g. You installed non approved tires, but the loss is caused by fuel contamination = they pay. Conversely, you installed non-approved tires and the loss is caused by the tires failing on a normal landing = they may not pay.

I recommend that article to all owners of all aircraft. It is about industry practice, and court cases, not the actual contract language.

baron95 said...

IAgree said ... It's like a car wreck looking at this blog- you know you shouldn't look but it's so horrible you can't stop yourself.

That is a very witty observation.

WhyTech said... This is actually a more fitting description of looking at EAC!

As is this one ;)

WhyTech said...

"This I would do and make avialable to owners at no charge"

This is a noble thought. Have you considered the possible liability exposure you would take on in doing this?

baron95 said...

ea500s said...
If I was able to aquire the proprietary data cruncher as I earlier described to convert Jepp data to an image file that works with Avio NG then I would have the ability to go to the FAA and aquire a type 2 LOA to distribute nagivation data bases to NG aircraft.

Ea500, I believe that the most prudent course of action would be to distribute the SW to all owners and let them all get FAA sign off to update "their" database themselves.

The FAA is very amenable to owners modifying THEIR own airplanes to keep them flying after an OEM goes TU.

But to enable an owner to supply the same "mod" to other owners/planes is a completely different ball park.

If you were to go that route, I hope you set up a good separate entity (e.g. LLC) to do it.

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

Gad,

OFF TOPIC THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the late 50's I was raised in Sun Valley, CA near the intersection of San Fernando Rd. and Hollywood Way. I too have fond memories not of the P-38's but of the U-2's and Queen Air 65's and 80's that I would see on short final while playing on the Glenwood Elementary playground that backed up to an empty field one quarter mile from runway 15 at the then Lockheed Airport. I did not really know what I was seeing then. Now we know that those Queen Airs were going and coming to and from "The Ranch" and that the U-2's were then manufactured and maintained there. What a great place to grow up. Thanks for the memory joggers.

And, just for the record, my FPJ deposit is gone. Thankfully only 10%. LESSON LEARNED.

Dave said...

Ea500, I believe that the most prudent course of action would be to distribute the SW to all owners and let them all get FAA sign off to update "their" database themselves.
The FAA is very amenable to owners modifying THEIR own airplanes to keep them flying after an OEM goes TU.
But to enable an owner to supply the same "mod" to other owners/planes is a completely different ball park.


The issue of updating the software is an interesting subject. I have no specific knowledge of the software or about dealing with the FAA for that matter, but I believe there might be some ways of doing it if the software can be found.

My line of thought that one person could do this would be that they would do it as a Work For Hire. I bring up this legal doctrine because what is being created is a copyrightable product and specifically under copyright law WFH is something created and owned by the employer rather than the creator, so software updates done under WFH would legally (at least within the realm of copyright law) be speaking done by the individual owners. Of course doing this with additional legal protections (a la an LLC), but with certain things there might be ways around them without making it too difficult for owners.

WhyTech said...

"What are you REALLY trying to say?....LMAO"

To your list I would add:

has slipped the surly bonds,
gone West,
is kaput, fini,gonzo
has croaked,


Did I miss any?

EclipsePilotOMSIV said...

You know what I have been thinking about was with all this talk of purchasing EAC and restarting production of the E500, I haven't heard a word about the E400. I mean I know it was not as far along in the cert process, but I am sure Roel decided to stop that program due to money concerns. Now I am not saying someone should up and reopen the e400 program, but that would be another little thing someone would be getting with their purchase. Sort of like French fries or something.

And to steal DIs trademark for a quick second...

Would you like a Frankenjet with your happy meal?

EPx (I like it because it looks spunky, thanks BEG for the shortened nickmane)

Black Tulip said...

Did I miss any?

"Won't be coming down for breakfast."

"Taking a dirt nap."

"On the wrong side of the grass."

"Reached its expiration date."

Finally, what is Mozart doing now? Decomposing.

Orville said...

Euphemisms for dead

Dave said...

Now I am not saying someone should up and reopen the e400 program, but that would be another little thing someone would be getting with their purchase. Sort of like French fries or something.

I think that the 400's concept was good (as in the concept of a single engine jet), but the execution was bad. The big deal about it was the parts commonality with the 500 that would supposedly lower the production costs. I think that was pennywise and pound foolish and I also think that for this parts commonality it required the parts to be reworked and I think that was a bad idea. That being said, there might be some processes and concepts that would be worth further exploring to incorporate in other aircraft.

baron95 said...

EP said...I haven't heard a word about the E400.

I'd consider buying an E400 (if finished right and with 5 seats vs 4), but not the EA500.

So, I too, would like to see someone make a go of it.

baron95 said...

Dave said... the execution was bad. The big deal about it was the parts commonality with the 500

Why do you feel it is not a good idea to go for parts commonality (at the beginning, assuming the EA500 would remain in production)?

The EA400 and EA500 have basically the same thrust rating, cruise at the same altitude, etc. I thought it was a great idea to re-use wings (sans tip tanks), tail, systems, etc. Kinda like a Baron/Bonanza, but with no need to mod the wing.

baron95 said...

Dave said... the execution was bad. The big deal about it was the parts commonality with the 500

Why do you feel it is not a good idea to go for parts commonality (at the beginning, assuming the EA500 would remain in production)?

The EA400 and EA500 have basically the same thrust rating, cruise at the same altitude, etc. I thought it was a great idea to re-use wings (sans tip tanks), tail, systems, etc. Kinda like a Baron/Bonanza, but with no need to mod the wing.

JBob said...

EA500s
PN 154-09500 (bearing seal) is a Parker Hannifin (Wheel and Brake division in Avon, OH) PN. Call the following number and they will tell you how to get the part. Not all Eclipse PN's are useless and most of them are actually supplier PN's that Eclipse used.

Parker Hannifin - 440-937-1257

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

If there is an EAC part number listed in the AMM or IPC, even if it is a 'make-from' an existing vendor P/N, only the EAC P/N is an 'approved part'.

Be very careful about this.

For any interested owner(s), my partners and I can provide consulting services for evaluating parts availability from vendors, with/without PMA or TSO authorization.

I have been contacted by several vendors and former maintenance staff, there is a way forward re: parts and spares.

We could even put together field-approval requests and the like for parts substitions.

Best would be a group-funded approach to evaluate the AMM and IPC and identify which parts can and cannot be used. Will not be super quick or inexpensive but will help keep things going in the interim.

If interested drop me a line:

ColdWetMack@gmail.com

Dave said...

I thought it was a great idea to re-use wings

Actually what I see the problem is not so much with electronics (except in regards to Avio) and those type parts, but the re-engineering of already finished parts like the wings. If the parts went unmodified (as would be the case for many of the parts), then I don't think it is an issue, but the re-use of the wings means altering those wings rather than them being the exact same as the Eclipse 500. I felt like they were trying to tweak things too much in order to be at the high amount of parts commonality.

airsafetyman said...

"This I would do and make avialable to owners at no charge"

In case of a serious accident it would be possible for you to be involved in a lawsuit even though the information/parts you supplied had no bearing on the accident. You might be dropped from the lawsuit eventually but you would have had the expense of hiring a lawyer to evaluate your exposure in the meantime.

Best course of action, at least on the hardware side, is for the owners to work with the FAA and see what can be done. Whoever comes up with the TC can issue a service bulletin listing the parts and approved vendor (or MS/AN part numbers) substitutes. The SB could be revised as necessary. It would be a good test for the people bidding on the assets. Do they want to keep the fleet flying or nail the owners to the wall?

JBob said...

I know that this was a released EAC part. I agree with you that owners need to be careful about the part numbers but I know for a fact that this one is ok.

Yes, I am an ex employee and I worked in supply chain. I have a lot of contacts and knowledge about suppliers and parts and feel I can help some of the owners in need right now.

airsafetyman said...

In the above example the Service Bulletin would be approved by the FAA before initial issuance or before each revision.

baron95 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
baron95 said...

ASM said...Do they want to keep the fleet flying or nail the owners to the wall?

Or both? ;)

airsafetyman said...

I think the owners have been nailed to the wall quite enough.

airtaximan said...

baron,

commonality is a great idea when you need to get the cost down, and your leverage is volume, and you do not have enough volume from the intial product.

May not be the best idea for the plane...BUT, you make a very good point.

I think the Conjet was a "case" for the suppliers to get the pricing down, due to promised higher volume.

It was never going to happen, it was a story - hence the name I gave it.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

JBob,

Drop me a line at ColdWetMack@gmail.com if you would be interested in offering assistance to owners or support organizations looking for potential suppliers.

Thanks

gadfly said...

Screwee

Your comments were not off topic . . . but a reminder to all of a small group of highly skilled and talented folks, working together as a team under the true genius of a single person (Kelly Johnson). The memories come from a time when your “Sun Valley” was called “Roscoe” . . . a little school was called “Stonehurst Elementry, . . . fishing for “Crappie” and “Catfish” was a bicycle ride to one of the five lakes inside the two mile long earth-filled Hanson Dam.

And while the P38 was going into production, there were hundreds of Hudson bombers coming off the line at the Vega plant . . . flying to England, with British markings.

From time to time, it’s good to see how it can be done, and was done.

gadfly

Al Petrofsky said...

In re: Eclipse conversion order entered —

At 13:42 EST today, Judge Walrath's "Order Converting the Debtors' Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases to Cases Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code" was entered in case In re: Eclipse Aviation Corp., et al., No. 08-bk-13031, Bankr. D. Del..

At 13:51, a "Notice to Interim Trustee / Trustee of Selection in an Asset Case" was entered, notifying Jeoffrey L. Burtch that he had been randomly selected, from the four people who serve on the panel of private trustees for the District of Delaware, to be the trustee of Eclipse's estate. Assuming he doesn't have to reject the appointment for some reason (e.g., he has some conflict of interest) then within a week or so he should schedule a second creditors meeting, to take place about a month later. At the meeting, creditors will have an opportunity to ask questions of an Eclipse officer, who will be under oath. (At the first meeting, back on December 22, the Eclipse officer was Mark Borseth, Senior Vice President and CFO.) The creditors will also have the option of electing a trustee of their choice, or just sticking with Burtch. (See, generally, the United States Trustee Manual, Vol. II.)

I've made bankruptcy docket listings and a few of the case documents available here: http://petrofsky.org/misc/legal-docs/Eclipse/bankruptcy

Adam Hunt said...

In case anyone didn't see them, here are the two latest articles from AvWeb:

FAA Issues Guidance For Eclipse Owners, by Mary Grady

Two Former Eclipse Employees File Suit, by Mary Grady

Shane Price said...

ea500

Perhaps had Eclipse hired Shane instead of firing Brian we wouldn't be having these discussions LOL

That was one of Wedgies more 'paranoid' delusions, in funny sort of way. I was reliably informed (during EAC's failed effort to shut us up) that Wedge tried to persuade his own lawyers I was a mole who actually worked for EAC.

He tried to join me in the action, but Rich Lucibellas' (aka Gunner) excellent lawyer Norman Malinski prevented same.

One day I really will tell the 'whole story' of that episode....

Speaking of which, I should mention the following:-

The Curious Case of Wedge and the ConJet

Subtitled "A Scam Too Far...."

Wedge really did think he could gather resources for another run at a 'Value Light Jet', which was his latest name for the E400. Several sources contacted me with evidence Wedge had been drumming up support to purchase the ConJet IP, in the event of a Chapter 7 filing.

However, he dropped the effort when rebuffed by key suppliers and previous 'soft touches' who had funded EAC. I'm told that the words 'never darken my door again' were uttered by one who was approached....

Wise man, if you ask me.

And another thing

Anyone want to open a book on where the various 'players' at EAC turn up?

1. Wedge as Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. He's small enough to fit the costume and vain enough to need the attention.

2. Mike McConnell as CEO of the Russian plant. Well, he nearly built EAC, so why not 'nearly' build a factory?

3. Roel Peiper as Darth Vader in Star Wars, Episode 7, "The Revenge of Eclipse", with sincere apologies to George Lucas. Just in case he's reading the blog..

Any other offers?

Shane

Eclipse said...

JBob good call on the seal...I should have looked into that before I responded.

Jackrabbit said...

Shane,

Eclipse execs, like many minor stars, failed celebrities and ne'er-do-wells before them, they will find ready employment in celebrity versions of game shows and reality TV. Naturally, each will participate in shows that play to their strengths and interests:

Mann - The Amazing Race

McConnell - The Apprentice

Wedge - Who Wants to be a Mill... uh, Billionaire, and America's Next Top Model

RP - Big Brother, Survivor ("Outwit, Outplay, Outlast"), and Deal or No Deal

Peg - Dancing with the Stars and Jeopardy!

gadfly said...

‘Just off the phone . . . a young man looking for work! We don’t have any openings. But wanting to be of help, and curious as to why he is without work, I asked him the question of where he last worked (somehow, I already knew the answer, and so do you).

So, I invited him to come by for coffee . . . he said he’d get here about 10AM . . . and maybe we’ll think up some possibilities. ‘Nothing tried, nothing gained. And, if nothing else, I’ll share with him our method of tool design . . . and he’ll take away something of great value.

gadfly

(The Eclipse, as a viable aircraft, which includes the organization behind it, is “kaput” . . . it does matter with whom you associate. But the effects of the fiasco are far from finished . . . much harm to many folks . . . but a few will have received an excellent education through it all . . . and may yet go on to great things. Somehow, I suspect that the young man who will drop in for a cup of coffee tomorrow morning is going to be one of the few “winners”. Time will tell. And that other question . . . “Have you followed the critics blog-site?” . . . the answer was in the affirmative. )

ea500s said...

Whytech:
Yes and I don't seem to think that using the same software that Eclipse used to create Nav database images for Avio NG would be cause for alarm from a liability standpoint. Don't know if you are a pilot or not, but have you ever read the release hold harmless agreement you click on before you can download database files. Both Jeppesen and Garmin have this and you must agree to to their terms or you cannot download the file that updates navagation databases. It basically says they will not be held liable for errors or ommisions and it is up to the pilot in command to verify all data before flight.

Baron95:
Yes I have considered that also, this of course is all hypothetical because to my knowledge the software is not in anyone hands that is willing to release it to the owners. But I really don't see that much of a liability issue that if I did get a type 2 LOA that would not be a concern of mine.
I have known from past experiences that Eclipse had no loyalty to their customers and would readily throw the people who bought their product under the bus. I don't have very much respect for any of the managment at Eclipse because I think they all were mostly looking out for their own self interest. However had I been an employee that worked in developement and had access to the proprietary software, and I knew the ship was going down for good, I would have at least evacuated the premises with some copies of that software. Now that the company is no longer in existence I don't see how any NDA's the employees signed would still be valid and enforceable. I am not a lawyer so I could definitely be wrong on that. but if it was me in that situation and I was a coder for Avio I would have taken a copy of the code and compilers with me before turning out the lights for good.

JBob:
Are you psychic or have ESP powers. LOL I just came back from the airport and got on my hands and knees just to see what was written on my wheel and brake assembly and was very happy to see the Parker Hannifin part number clearly stamped on it. I did not see an Eclipse part number, but maybe because I wasn't looking, but I have found more then one case in the Eclipse parts manual part numbers that exacly match that of the Vendor that made it.
Thanks for that info and it is guys like you that offer this help without self promotion that really earn my respect. I can't express my appreciation for the valuable information and experience you guys have and are willing to share.

Eclipse:
That goes for you too.

TBMs_R_Us said...

EA500s,

Those disclaimers that Jeppesen and Garmin put on the downloads don't mean much. Anyone can and will sue for anything they want to, disclaimer or not. Whether the disclaimer was of sufficient strength to cause a summary judgement in favor of the defendant would only be decided after many dollars had been spent on attorneys. I bet you that if a database error was found to be a contributing cause of an accident the disclaimer would not hold up as a release of liability in a lawsuit, there would be no summary judgement, and the parties would end up settling for big bucks.

TBMs_R_Us said...

Baron,

Hmmmm, 6700 is now behind us, again. Next call for a bottom?

Shane's guess seems more likely to be correct: 12 to 18 months out.

WhyTech said...

"Yes and I don't seem to think that using the same software that Eclipse used to create Nav database images for Avio NG would be cause for alarm from a liability standpoint"

I am not a lawyer (I only play one on TV) so I cant offer a meaningful legal opinion on this topic. However, in the event of an accident, the plaintiff sues everyone he can think of and lets the court figure it out. Best case: significant legal fees; worst case: wiped out.

gadfly said...

The time was near the end of the “thirties” . . . life was simple. Our water was hauled home in a galvanized forty gallon can, on the front bumper of the Ford sedan. The “bathroom” was the little shed, under the walnut tree, near the railroad tracks, across from the orange groves . . . Riverside, California. The nearest neighbors were my grand-parents . . . with a machine shop behind their garden, and the goat pens. My dog, “Spotty”, and I would sometimes walk down the railroad track, to visit the machine-shop, where I was warned to stay away from those leather belts, on the lathe, that could tear my arm off. My “Mommy” would pat me to sleep, with my favorite “blue blanket” . . . life was good. We ate radishes and carrots from the garden . . . day-old bread, that my grand-ma got for a cheap price at the baker’s in town . . . goat’s milk . . . chickens for eggs, and the job of scalding the chickens, and plucking off all those smelly feathers . . . somehow, we survived. We didn’t know any different.

In time, my “Daddy” got a job at Lockheed . . . and we moved to the big city . . . Glendale, then Sunland. I went to school for a few weeks . . . and watched a movie about the DC-3, and how the landing gear retracted . . . a war had started, there were “blackouts”, my Daddy had to work long hours on an airplane at Lockheed, called the “Yippy” (YP-38) . . . and we got a new car, a 1941 Chevy coupe ($1,100 . . . it brought $1,000 in 1945, for the down-payment on a house in the city). And my Daddy worked every night, from midnight, until morning . . . it was called the “Graveyard Shift” . . . and was building a house in the daytime . . . life was good. Grandma still supplied the chickens, the eggs, and a turkey for "Thanksgiving". I learned pattern-making, and how to run machines . . . and went to Stonehurst Grammar School, on a bus . . . first and second grade. But life was also “hard” . . . I didn’t know just how hard.

Then my “Daddy” had a heart attack (he would last another fourteen years, until he reached 44). . . my mother went to work . . . we moved to Burbank . . . the government gave my Daddy permission to work for another company (certain jobs were carefully controlled, and my dad was in that sort of position . . . he was a designer, an inventor . . . someone thought he was a valuable asset to the nation’s defense).

One day, everyone up and down the block came outside . . . the war was over . . . Japan had surrendered . . . "V-J Day" was finally a reality.

We had the advantages of living in the city . . . I could walk on a “side-walk” . . . it was all wonderful . . . but life suddenly became complicated. The old days were over . . . of feeding chickens . . . taking care of a garden . . . going hunting with the pellet gun . . . and fishing . . . life got complicated.

Maybe, some of that simplicity is about to return, for many who read this “blog” . . . the transition won’t be easy, for sure. But it’s like my earliest memories are all coming back. And this exercise with “Eclipse”, has been a brief but graphic illustration of what it is to believe a leader . . . Raburn . . . FDR . . . Obama . . . you choose . . . the results have a certain similarity. But history shows that each generation seems to forget, or ignore all that the earlier generations have learned, at great expense. Welcome to the “future”.

gadfly

(Unless I'm wrong, things are beginning to become far more than a "little interesting" . . . things have an ominously familiar appearance.)

ea500s said...

Tbms r us:
The database is used mostly for RNAV and RNP neither of which apply to the Eclipse, the FAA has said that it only affects some approaches. They do not specify why it would only affect some approaches or which approaches it does affect. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can answer that question, The bottom line is there is no accident history I am aware of that tried to make a database image maker liable for an accident. I for one don't think the risk of liability for an accident is something to be real concerned about. But then again I may be more of a risk taker then you. No hard feelings I hope:)

Shane Price said...

TBMs-R-US,

Shane's guess seems more likely to be correct: 12 to 18 months out.

Who said I guessed?

I was right about Wedge. He was/is incapable of running a company, and I'm sorry I suggested he'd end up in a Mickey Mouse suit. That's too complicated a job for him...

I was right about Roel. The man was a 'busted flush' who borrowed money (his original stake in EAC) in a futile attempt to outsmart the Russians.

I was right about Bankruptcy. The numbers didn't add up, so there was only one way for this company, and that was down the tubes.

I was right about it being a scam. Have you any idea how many people were suckered into parting with 'progress payments' when there was no way on Earth their delivery could be made in 6 months?

My considered investment advice, for those of you prepared for the longer term?

Get into forestry.

Invest in trees, wherever you are. It's good for the planet, and good for your pocket.

Shane

Shane Price said...

Before anyone asks...

Just over 250 hectares, some of it getting it's third replanting this year.

Each crop takes about 35 years, so it's not what one would call a short term investment. My great grandfather started the business, in the 1890's. I expect my children to benefit from my input, just as I've enjoyed the fruits of foresight in the family.

Shane

Dave said...

My considered investment advice, for those of you prepared for the longer term?
Get into forestry.
Invest in trees, wherever you are. It's good for the planet, and good for your pocket.


I don't know how sarcastic you are being or if you're not being sarcastic at all, but I couldn't help but laugh. The "paperless office" doesn't exist and you only need more paper for the reems generated by litigation and just business in general. Despite whatever technology comes out, there only seems to be an ever-increasing need for paper.

WhyTech said...

"I for one don't think the risk of liability for an accident is something to be real concerned about."

I dont mean to pick a fight ...., but, I have noticed on the part of more than a few EA500 owners/depositors an attitude that I'd characterize as, "If I cant see the problem, then there isnt one." This has led them down a very difficult path and it is obvious that this aspect of the Eclipse story isnt over yet.

Shane Price said...

Dave,

Not sarcastic at all.

FYI, less than 10% of what you normally handle (day to day) as paper actually comes from forestry.

Timber is used in too many ways to ignore. The 'best' all round aircraft in WWII was made of balsa.

We sell our trees for a huge variety of purposes, to many geographic markets and at a considerable profit.

As an alternative you could, of course, consider an investment in aviation.

I'm told there is a 'huge' market for a 6 place, 1,200 nm, sub 6,000lb twin jet in Russia. They're even building a special factory to produce them.

Fancy your chances?

Shane

airsafetyman said...

"I for one don't think the risk of liability for an accident is something to be real concerned about. But then again I may be more of a risk taker then you."

If you are married with kids you are not the only one taking the risks. You are risking you wife's and childrens' financial future. For what, exactly?

Shane Price said...

Dave,

For the record, my 'investment advice' about a Russian aircraft factory was, well, pretty sarcastic.

But I'm pretty sure you'd worked that bit out for yourself....

Shane

baron95 said...

TBM it is a "murky" bottom ;)

gadfly said...

Shane, Dave, et al

One day, the HMAS Melbourne tied up at the Submarine Base at “Pearl” (‘late 1950's). It’s the only time in my life I set foot on a big ship that could not “submerge”. (Normally, an aircraft carrier has too much “draft”, to get into the submarine base . . . but the “Melbourne” was not big, compared to most aircraft carriers.) The aircraft were, as I recall, “Vampire” jets . . . single engine, with twin booms to the horizontal tail. The little fighters were made of wood.

Wood is a better choice than aluminum in many cases. But working with wood requires a level of craftsmanship that far exceeds the ability of most “fabricators” of aluminum birds . . . so aluminum wins out for reasons other that what would be best for the aircraft.

gadfly

(Imagine . . . using wood and making "carbon copies" in today's economy. Oak-e-dokee . . . I'll leaf it there . . . and let you get back to the root of the matter, fir now!)

WhyTech said...

"it is a "murky" bottom"

Means "who knows?"

Dave said...

I know this is OT, but BusinessWeek did a long article on the stock market. Frankly I'd feel better (depending on who was picked) if Obama cleaned house at the Treasury and got rid of all the Rubinites and put someone in there who didn't help create the mess we are in. Geithner in particular has been a real bust (whenever he talks about his proposals the market goes down instead of up). I believe there are plenty of others who are more qualified and who didn't help create the problems in the first place. Anyway, I see the stock market going lower and that we are in for a rough ride.

airtaximan said...

welcome to the single smartest most important comment ever posted on this blog:

I have noticed on the part of more than a few EA500 owners/depositors an attitude that I'd characterize as, "If I cant see the problem, then there isnt one."

I have asaid the total disregard for the risk side,m in a business/hobby/occupation that is ALL ABOUT risk management/mitigation just astounds me.

YES - they turned a deaf ear to all the risks... thats what it takes to be a Die Hard.
That's why Vern called them this.

Its a sad comment on who will actually bet on, fall for, invest in, buy a product from... EAC.

TBMs_R_Us said...

"Murky bottom", as in, we are in the deep dark stuff now?

eclipse_deep_throat said...

Shane,

Well....I will be up late tonite to see Watchmen. What we need is for Dr. Manhattan, NO, Rorschach(!) to pay a visit to Wedge in a room with no windows. Hmmmm. If I were a cockroach, the things I would dream...

Anyway, what is the next step for Ch7? Do you know what/how long it may take for the Judge to sign the written paperwork for things to move forward?

e.d.t.

Grant said...

Now I hope all of you miserable people will find a new outlet for your childish rants. A devoted team of people tried to do something really hard, and they came up short. While you arm chair quarterbacks have been living your boring and cynical lives, they've been trying to make your world a better place. Sure, they came up short, but they poured their hearts and souls into something they believed in. That's a lot more than we can say about you, as you hide behind your fake names and self indulgent blog posts.

It's easy to be right when you're posting anonymous messages in cyberspace. Perhaps someday you'll try to do something worthwhile and noble, and you'll learn what it feels like to be criticized from afar by an armchair expert. Until then, you're just a coward with a fake name and too much time on your hands.

Now go Eclipse Aviation Critics, and get a life. It might make it less painful to look in the mirror every day.

Dave said...

I have asaid the total disregard for the risk side,m in a business/hobby/occupation that is ALL ABOUT risk management/mitigation just astounds me.

YES - they turned a deaf ear to all the risks... thats what it takes to be a Die Hard.
That's why Vern called them this.

Its a sad comment on who will actually bet on, fall for, invest in, buy a product from... EAC.


I think actually this is to be expected rather than to be knocked to harshly as what you are seeing is early adopters acting like innovators/early adopters. So yes Eclipse owners by virtual of self-selection fit a certain personality profile, but if such personality traits were eliminated, it would hinder innovation.

WhyTech said...

"A devoted team of people tried to do something really hard, and they came up short."

The sad thing is that that it didnt need to end this way. That's what this blog is all about.

WhyTech said...

"if such personality traits were eliminated, it would hinder innovation."

Maybe, but calculated risk taking is one thing, dumb risk taking is entirely another matter.

Dave said...

The sad thing is that that it didnt need to end this way. That's what this blog is all about.

Also the criticism has been pretty limited as to what employees are being criticized. It mostly centered around those who had a C or a V at the beginning of their job titles (and with that there were exceptions), while most everyone else was given sympathy and support. By the way, you realize that you are ranting and are posting anonymously in cyberspace?

airtaximan said...

Grant,

I personally take tremendous personal and financial risk building a new business model every day.

I have laid my life on the line, no joke. For more than 5 years.

I think you are a dumbass for posting what you wrote, not knowing a thing about any of the bloggers.

Its the same lame thinking that got all those position-holders and investors up shits creek... same.

So, perhaps you thnk a little, and understand that your quick conclusions and lack of critical thinking resulted in your bad attitude.

My sense is, you somehow got shafted taking a risk you regret. If you dont, you probably should. If you still don't you should look harder.

I promise you one thing, I will always blame myself for failure to recognize the risks I've accepted.

airtaximan said...

the unmittigated acceptance of risk IS NOT INNOVATVE.

Innovation comes from hard working folks digging and asking questions, looking at risks, critically thinking - not acting like blind followers.

I somehow think if Vern was rejected by some smart critical thinkers, he probably could have morphed his plane, plane, into something that might have worked.

Blind adopters glomed onto some really dumb PR statements, and bought the sham.

Sorry, its just my way of saying, behind every PR statement was a truth that was easy to see. Despite the fact that in almost all cases, the opposite was SAID.

Dave said...

Maybe, but calculated risk taking is one thing, dumb risk taking is entirely another matter.

I think what is a dumb risk is frequently subjective and also people might not understand that they are taking a "dumb risk." Like for me - having been involved in commercial litigation as I am right now with LandAmerica - I see legal risks differently than someone who is less experienced in litigation. Many here would say buying the Eclipse in the first place was a "dumb risk" while others would say it was gamble (Baron frequently made this point that it was a risk that could payoff big by getting a twin engine jet on the cheap). With EA500 he might not have had much experience in litigation and he also might believe in the goodwill of other owners and that might be why his assessment of the situation is different than your assessment (which I agree with your assessment of the legal risks and strongly encourage EA500 to tread carefully in these matters).

Dave said...

the unmittigated acceptance of risk IS NOT INNOVATVE

I agree. I took that term from model devised by Everett Rogers in his highly influential book "Diffusion of Innovation" (he coined the term "early adopter"). I personally was scratching my head at that term and I should have explained where I got it from. The first stage is "innovator" and the second is "early adopter."

WhyTech said...

"I think what is a dumb risk is frequently subjective and also people might not understand that they are taking a "dumb risk"

It's awfully important to try to get a handle on the "unknown unknowns." Because they arent known to one individual doesnt mean that they are unknown to all. I have been told that in gambling, the house always wins. I dont like those odds.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So Grant, what are YOU doing to help displaced Eclipsers find work?

What are YOU doing to help the owners find parts?

What are YOU doing to provide workable business plans to support the fielded aircraft?

What are YOU doing to prevent damage to an industry that employs over a million people which is DEPENDENT on the public trust?

I have dreamed with the best, I have risked and I have lost more than most people will ever do in their entire lives.

I have employed people, hired and fired, I have spent my own money in six figures and a lot of OPM as well improving aerospace.

I have participated in startups and legacy companies in aerospace for the past 20 years now.

I have friends who lost their jobs last week thanks to the mismanagement at EAC. Real visionaries, real geniuses, real talented people, real dedicated individuals, with real families and real lives they put it all on hold to try and bring the dream to fruition despite flawed management and ever changing specifications.

So forgive me if your anonymous rant falls flat with me. We never wished the rank and file at EAC ill - had effective management been in place with a more conventional clientele holding them to a higher standard there would have NEVER been a need for this blog.

airtaximan said...

Dave:

My friend Dave.

You are a bright guy.


I suspect, that you know when you are in over your head.

Guess what, risk requires acknowledgment... many folks here just dismissed the risks.

If you have a product that REQUIRES an ignorant buyer, guess what? Its a short temr prospect at best.

Smart folks will ask, look for advice, seek help...know what they do not know... or suspect they do not have all the asnwers.

Like the heater issue - we heard "move along, it was their simple choice"

GUess what?

It was a real bIg deal... just dumb to follow a company like EAC blindly

Dave said...

If you have a product that REQUIRES an ignorant buyer, guess what? Its a short temr prospect at best.

But what you are saying actually gets to my point that the actions being displayed by Eclipse owners isn't surprising, but rather is predictable. I for instance suspect more than just "Ken's friend" with operating their aircraft illegally in one way or another. I am not remotely condoning anything like that, just its a matter of reality that there are personalities out there like that and that helps move technology along.

airtaximan said...

OK, Dave... my theory on this is simle:

Dumb risk GREAT result - world theory is "world is falt"

Columbus (sags goes) thinks world is round...

Columbus bucks the trend, and is RIGHT.

Dumb risk in the mnds of many, but I suspect their opinion was equally as valid or invalid as Columbus'.

In EAc case, there was industry wide rejection of Verns Ideas, and data to show he was being a moron. I am not a lover of dats, so simply put, when someone claims to invet Air Taxi, and its been around for 50 years, I call BS.

When someone claims to invent air taxi, and ther are 10,000 prop planes providing similar service at 1/4 his stated cost structure, I call BS.

It was easy -just some folks glorified Verns' statements, a did not bother to ask, or look under the kimono.

This was asimple case of blind fait, and ya know what?

This is not good for GA... no way.

Dave said...

In EAc case, there was industry wide rejection of Verns Ideas, and data to show he was being a moron

In history there has been many ideas that have been accepted as valid that have been wrong just as those who were rejected as wrong were later proved right. I think Vern's problem was that he was get-rich-quick fraud, not that it is impossible to show an industry to be wrong.

When someone claims to invent air taxi, and ther are 10,000 prop planes providing similar service at 1/4 his stated cost structure, I call BS.

It was easy -just some folks glorified Verns' statements, a did not bother to ask, or look under the kimono.


I agree and I at the time was hammering Eclipse/DayJet about that, yet the media and press (including the aviation press) were cheerleaders for it for the most part. It is not like this blog had been in the majority as far as the media was concerned.

This was asimple case of blind fait, and ya know what?
This is not good for GA... no way.


I have not said that this was good for GA - I've specifically said otherwise. What I've said in this thread was that the personality traits displayed by Eclipse owners can be explained by self-selection and that being an early adopter/innovator (per the Roger's terminology) is good for innovation. I'm not saying "innovators" innovate nor that I think specific companies that could be cited (from for instance the dot com boom) were good for their industries.

Jackrabbit said...

Grant, Do you feel the same way about the financial "critics" that were warning of a subprime mortgage abuses, lax underwriting standards, a real estate bubble, systemic risk, financial imbalances, rating agency conflicts of interest, a culture of greed, even outright fraud (Madeoff) etc??

All those naysayers that no one cared to listen to when times were good should now "move on", right? Do you have any conception of what the financial mess will cost us all? Do you have any conception of what was lost on Eclipse?

The "critics" didn't cause these problems, they merely shared their point of view. Every critic has their own reasons for doing so but I have no doubt that at heart they share a desire to make the world a better place as much anyone.

Niner Zulu said...

Screwee, sorry you lost your 10% deposit. Many of us here came pretty close to doing the same thing. But look at the bright side - you probably saved 50%. The money you didn't lose on an Eclipse will buy a lot more today than it would have just 1 year ago.

Grant, I have to say I don't understand people like you. You have no problem blaming the critics who actually spoke up when people like Screwee were getting scammed. If you know so much about what was going on at Eclipse, why didn't you say something. I didn't see your name come up anywhere the past 2 years. Sorry, but you missed the party. All that's left is the cleanup.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Both Jeppesen and Garmin have this and you must agree to to their terms or you cannot download the file that updates navagation databases. It basically says they will not be held liable for errors or ommisions and it is up to the pilot in command to verify all data before flight.

I also don't think such disclaimers would provide much security.

After a CFIT or Midair crash, the vultures will go after the money. If you are providing the DB, you would make a good target for a suit. They may not have to win a court case, they just have to have a good enough case to scare youu into settlement.

The Erebus disaster was largely caused by a DB error.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

I am not a lawyer so I could definitely be wrong on that. but if it was me in that situation and I was a coder for Avio I would have taken a copy of the code and compilers with me before turning out the lights for good.

No, not a lawyer, but a potential thief.

Of cause an employee can not legally steal IP, even if the company is bankrupt. The IP along with all the physical assets belongs to the trust, and the trustee will sell it on to the highest bidder, and distribute the profits to the creditors.

fred said...

Monsieur Shane :

your idea about Wood is correct , i have myself some 200 Hectares of such material ...

but , in my humble opinion, you should be careful about your advices ...

as you may know (if you don't = no worries , i'm not that important !) i have been living on both sides on the pond ...

so , my understanding of the matter is as such :

we can define (more or less) 3 groups of investors ...

1° what i would call European :

short term is to go to pub , but more important is what is left behind anyone life ...
we construct our houses in "solid" stuff , not because the weather is worse more because it is inside our genes to leave "something" to our next of kin ...

In this context , planting trees we will see growing slowly but have almost not a chance to see the fruits ... may be an other big delusion if you are psychologically prepared to this kind of length ...

this is where trying to explain that a bottle of Champagne is only white wine laid down for 3 to 5 years but being turned of a 1/4 turn everyday of this period ...

when you explain this to a certain type of peoples , they answer you "why don't you use Carbonating device?"

2° Emerging Economy group :

most of time , they only have such a thirst of consuming ...anything goes as long as they think "it's the real stuff ..."

they are totally at the opposite of the first group ...
they don't lack historical references , but those have been so heavy on them before ... that they are ready to throw them altogether ...

one of the things that is quite annoying (even if less and less, now ) to me in Russia :
if you ask a young German about his future , it is not completely weird to have an answer with a 5 to 20 years time-frame ...
if you ask a French of same age , your answer will be of 2 to 8 years ...
if you ask a Russian of same age "what are you going to do at end of week ?" if your ask on a monday , the answer will be "i don't plan that far ahead !"

they have a perfect idea of what is long-term , but what they want now is to live !

3° the anglo-saxon group

everything is short lived and meant to be consumed as fast as possible ...

the very problems we are in now are coming from the very fact that some "nearly comical" wanted to replace short-term by shorter-term ...

usually "they" jump from one opportunity to an other ... not really taking the time to understand the true nature of things ... we are only nano-seconds in the course of world ...!


so considering all of those explanations :

being myself an European at 110% , your advice sounds like pure Gold to me ...

but like everything , the rule of unity about "Time ,place and mentality" have to be respected ...

so it concern ONLY the ones having a FULL understanding of implications ...! ;-)

julius said...

grant,

Perhaps someday you'll try to do something worthwhile and noble, and you'll learn what it feels like to be criticized from afar by an armchair expert.

what is you job, what are you doing?
You are a teacher, a lawyer, a money loaner, an investor, you are working and interested in your company, an auditor....or an artist,...

Most working people have to live with critics - fair, unfair, without the pressure of the sitiuation etc. They are better off, if they learn to live with them and try to adopt the best of them.
If your are an investor (in terms of money, work force,,,) there had been lot of hints to review your position to EAC. The only problem is, you have to read the blog, review the hints and draw your own conclusion!
But I think then you had a professional adviser who had given all relevant information to you long time before you could find them in the blog.

BTW: If you don't like the blog, just don't read it!

Julius

ea500s said...

FreedomsJamtarts:
I was not aware you are an aviation attorney, thanks for sharing your expertise.
I guess you can now show me all the documented cases where Jeppesson and Garmin have been sued or held liable for aviation accidents.

I am curious though, are you or have you ever been an active pilot?

Real good logic too about calling me a thief, you chastise me for saying theoretically if I was an employee and left with code that belonged to a company that no longer existed in order to look out for the best interest of the customers that this code was made for?
I think you fail to see the light son, the real theives were the ones that took our deposit money and never delivered the product or warranty that I signed a contract for.
Someone try to explain here to this person that the blogsite is called the "Eclipse Aviation critic NG" :)
and not the "Eclipse Aviation Customer Critic" ( unless of course you are talking aboutKen)
You are starting to sound too much like Vern Raburn to me. Hey Shane could we possibly have a mole here ? LOL

fred said...

Ja , julius ...

i always found terribly comical this type of personality (disorder ?)

"i want to know everything about anything , but don't say things that will hurt my beliefs , pride or sensibility !"

fred said...

ea500s

i feel it is time to remind you that we are living apart , in some other part of the world ...

if in your surroundings your way of thinking is ok , in Europe what Freedom said make sens ...

we have a justice system that never give you millions or hundreds of millions ...

in return , they stick to "old rules" ...

like "stealing a thief is not justice ...!"

so even if i understand very well your opinion , different places , different set of minds ....

BassMaster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BassMaster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BassMaster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
julius said...

ea500s,

you ask the now ex-employees to "help" you, is that state of the art?

Remember: Did you pay the price for fpj that was needed to run EAC - or was it just below everything?

Before you start:
Do you have the last but one version of Jeb? Just in case that the current version would result in an erroneous version in the fpj? Are you sure that you can upload an outdated Jeb versions?

Are you sure that you get the right programs - perhaps someone might show to you what means "grounded"?

Any questions...

Julius

julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

Real good logic too about calling me a thief, you chastise me for saying theoretically if I was an employee and left with code that belonged to a company that no longer existed in order to look out for the best interest of the customers that this code was made for?
I think you fail to see the light son, the real theives were the ones that took our deposit money and never delivered the product or warranty that I signed a contract for.


I'm sorry but on this I have to disagree with you strongly and in such case that would be theft. If such software was proprietary to Eclipse then you are harming the very people that you want to help you. I for instance have made it quite clear that I'm not for the Harlow bid and I have questioned some of the things that Steve Reed did while at Eclipse, but under no circumstances am I for depriving them of property from the bankruptcy estate that could help them make a viable Eclipse business. If something is property of the bankruptcy estate it should remain there regardless of what was done by those who drove the company to BK. What you could do is file a motion with the court to try to gain access to the software if it is properietary to Eclipse and alternatively if it isn't proprietary to Eclipse, you could try and buy it elsewhere.

Jim Howard said...

"I guess you can now show me all the documented cases where Jeppesson and Garmin have been sued or held liable for aviation accidents."

Sure, glad to help. Three minutes on google doesn't get them all, but finds:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951220-1

April 2000, American Airlines sued both Jeppesen (for furnishing AA with a database that hid a critical checkpoint) and Honeywell (that made the plane's flight management computer) over a December 1995 accident near Cali, Bogota. (AP)"


Mohamed v. Jeppesen DataPlan - Current case, Jepp is being sued for assisting CIA rendition flights.

"The co-pilot and the widow of the pilot of Comair Flight 5191 have sued the United States Federal Aviation Administration, Blue Grass Airport where the crash occurred, and Jeppesen Dataplan Inc, the manufacturer of the airport charts the pilots were using and a subsidiary of Boeing."

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Comair_Flight_5191_co-pilot,_pilot%27s_widow_sue_FAA,_airport,_chart_manufacturer


I think Jeppensen is sued for just about every major accident these days, since as part of Boeing they are perceived as having very deep pockets.

Orville said...

Interesting - S/N 258 (highest I've seen flying) - apparently AOG for 4 months - finally flying.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

EA500. Good post. No I am not an aviation attourney. I'm just an honest guy, shining the cold, hard light of common sense on the Ecorpse.

So far I see Dave agreeing that what you proposed would be theft. Do you want a show of hands to see how many people agree with me?

Who agrees that the action EA500 hypothetically proposed below would be theft?

I am not a lawyer so I could definitely be wrong on that. but if it was me in that situation and I was a coder for Avio I would have taken a copy of the code and compilers with me before turning out the lights for good.

I didn't call you a thief, I called you a potential thief, as that is what you were proposing.

Yes I am an active pilot. Maybe not active enough as I put on a few pounds lately. How is that relevant to stealing IP?

Ecorpse robbed you blind. We agree on something.

Not like I have any sympathy for you, as we here had been trying our best to warn you for the last few years!

Wedge tried to sue for my identity. Maybe you are right and Vern sued himself. He is a simple tool.

In ten years almost all EA500's will be in Museums or beer cans. The handful that still flight operate under a ver restrictive special flight permit, a bit like warbirds.

Are you going to put yours in a Museum, or just scrap it?

ea500s said...

Jim Howard, excellent you finally made the point for me, I figured it would sound better coming from somone else then coming from me in that you said

"I think Jeppensen is sued for just about every major accident these days, since as part of Boeing they are perceived as having very deep pockets."

Exactly why I would have no reservation making Nav database images avialable to NG owners. It is that simple, I do not have the deep pockets of such large organizations. The lawyers would not want to waste their time for the chance to go after the assets of the corporation I would create to make such data base images.

Some of you guys are looking to argue for the sake of argueing. This blog has been mostly right, I give that a lot of credit, but it has not been always right. I will leave it up to others to drag out the legalities in court, I will fly the plane as long as I legally can and will legally support those that have the same goal. And that is to protect as much as possible our assets.
Just so there are no misunderstandings, I was not an investor in Eclipse, I bought one off the Controller, when I was fairly certain that I would get the jet. There are a lot of people that have been hurt worse then I have, including the employees that gave 100 percent to try to make it a success.
I also think I have cleary expressed my feelings about Eclipse the company and the management in my posts. But I think it is wrong for you guys to be critical (especially those of you who either do not fly, or have never flown an Eclipse jet) of people who own one. Not everyone that bought an Eclipse jet is stupid. Although there are a few that may be *grin*

ea500s said...

Orville:
From the look of the flight track I would surmise that it is an Aircraft Geometric Height Measurement Element flight since Cleveland is one of the AGHME locations

Dave said...

But I think it is wrong for you guys to be critical (especially those of you who either do not fly, or have never flown an Eclipse jet) of people who own one. Not everyone that bought an Eclipse jet is stupid.

I agree with what you are saying in that sometimes I've thought that there have been posts too critical of owners and I also don't think everyone who bought an Eclipse was stupid. However, with the specific matter of theft of property people saying that the theoretical that you laid out is theft is fully justified. In fact to be keeping silent on that matter would be doing you and potentially others a disservice. I think you've been a great contributor here and I don't think you are stupid but when you talk of using something that belonged to Eclipse (and is still part of the BK estate), I cannot help but raise multiple objections to that and it isn't because I dislike you or look down upon you.

WhyTech said...

"Not everyone that bought an Eclipse jet is stupid."

Well,... OK. Lets just say that they were not discerning individuals. So many warning signs both pre Eclipse and during Eclipse.

Jackrabbit said...

Exactly why I would have no reservation making Nav database images avialable to NG owners. It is that simple, I do not have the deep pockets of such large organizations. The lawyers would not want to waste their time for the chance to go after the assets of the corporation I would create to make such data base images.


Even if no one can collect from a judgment against you, I believe that if you steal something that is valuable enough, you would risk felony criminal charges. That would potentially mean some non-insignificant jail time. PLUS, because owners are all over, you'd have to cross state lines, bringing Federal charges, AND those you "help" may face charges of receipt of stolen goods and/or conspiracy, etc.

*Note: I am not a lawyer. If you contemplate doing this you should probably consult one first.*

Jackrabbit said...

The threat to charge owners that you "help" with receipt of stolen goods and conspiracy would be the "stick" used to force them to testify against you.

Also, everyone you "help" would be another charge against you. "Help" 100 owners to update their databases 10 times: 1000 counts against you.

Two wrongs don't make a right. There are legal ways for the owners to get the support they need. Support one of those.

Jim Howard said...

EA500, I'm sure you're not Boeing, but as a person of enough substance to own your own jet plane I suspect you would be sued if your hypothetical nav data product was involved in a crash.

That's what I see in my crystal ball anyway, YMMV.

ea500s said...

WhyTech:
Hey you win some and you lose some. That is the game of life. When I took delivery I was 99 percent sure that Eclipse would fail with in 12 to 24 months. But I also felt 70 percent sure that they would build and deliver close to 400 jets before this happened, and that I would at least get RNP and FIKI. I felt that if 400 jets were built at least there would likely be support. Turns out I was half wrong. That is just the way the game went.

And for those who still want to argue the point about me being a "potential" thief, let me make sure I clarify my point here. I said If I had been the last person out the door, I would have taken a copy with me. And the purpose of that would have been to protect that software from either sabatoge by disgruntled ex managment or loss or misplacement of it after the BK settlement had been handed down. One of my concerns has been that someone would burn down the house prior to closing the doors. And software would be the easiest and most lethal part of the company to destroy.

Jackrabbit: I never said I would charge anyone for database updates, quite the contrary, I said had the database cruncher been made available to me (legally)I would have provided that service for free to other users. I never once said I would steal it.

Shane Price said...

ea500,

Hey Shane could we possibly have a mole here? LOL

What, only ONE?

Call for assistance
I've been contacted by a number of exEclipsers who are anxious to join the 'class action'. Can someone email me a contact name and/or number that I can supply to these people.

Thanks

Shane

FreedomsJamtarts said...

EA 500 wrote

Hey you win some and you lose some. That is the game of life. When I took delivery I was 99 percent sure that Eclipse would fail with in 12 to 24 months. But I also felt 70 percent sure that they would build and deliver close to 400 jets before this happened, and that I would at least get RNP and FIKI. I felt that if 400 jets were built at least there would likely be support. Turns out I was half wrong. That is just the way the game went.

Thanks for explaining the logic behind your purchase.

What I don't understand is why you didn't simply wait that 12 to 24 months? The upside would have been sitting out this train wreck, and protecting your capital. The downside of waiting was what? If things panned out like your expected (Ecorpse BK, with 400 built) you could have still picked a plane cheap. BK was never going to improve the outlook and drive up prices.

Obviously you could not have guessed that the economy would tank like it has, but if you knew BK was coming, we have been talking all along that the unique level of integration of the EA500 would be a huge albatross to resuscitating EcorpseNfG.

Tail.Dragger said...

databases are an interesting bird unto themselves. while the database contents are not approved/certified by the FAA the process to make them is.

as for liability just ask honeywell. honeywell makes their own databases from jepp raw data, but they are not jepp databases. when the AA 767 flew into the mountain in columbia, the root cause was a database error in addition to both pilots going heads down to fiddle with the FMS.

WhyTech said...

"What I don't understand is why you didn't simply wait that 12 to 24 months?"

This is really the core issue in making a decision to acquire the acft. Given the uniformly adverse history (for decades) in acft startups and the stumbles in the EA50 program early on, why wouldnt one wait and see?

TTBOMK, no startup acft manufacturer since Robinson (about 30 years ago)has achieved both a significant market share position AND sustainable, favorable financial results. AFAIK, no startup turbine acft manufacturer has ever done this.

ea500s said...

Freedoms:
You are asking some good questions. First off I wanted the jet sooner then later. I compared it to what was avialable new and used, and for the price and performance the Eclipse worked for me.
Second, as you said, I had no idea the world economy was on the brink of tanking, so I thought the economic stimulus act of 2008 would expire and not allow the bonus depreciation outide of 2008 When I factored in all of that the decision was made to go ahead with the purchase instead of waiting.

As I have stated before, it is not the jet itself that caused Eclipse to fail. It was mismanagement that caused Eclipse to fail.

I would love to see someone like Piaggio aircraft, a company that similiar to Eclipse uses cutting edge and non standard technology to produce aircraft. They took over when the p-180 originally failed back in the 80's and through them production of that aircraft continues. I believe they just recently delivered the 150th aircraft. Now in my opinion a company like that would be perfectly poised to aquire the assets of Eclipse and manage the production of it the way it should have been done the first go of it.
This of course is just my opinion.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 532   Newer› Newest»