Thursday, March 12, 2009

The 'Owners Plan'

The following hit the inbox in the past hour, and I thought it important to bring it to your attention in a prompt manner. The 'translation' from the supplied document format to this blog may have generated some unintended consequences, for which I apologize in advance. Needless to say, I'll correct any that are drawn to my attention as quickly as I can.

Anyway, with that small 'health warning' I'm happy to provide you all with the following, which was dated March 10th:-



THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND REGARDING THEFORMATION OF A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF OWNERS OF ECLIPSE AIRCRAFT AND IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS DOES NOTCONSTITUTE AN OFFER TO SELL OR A SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUYSECURITIES. THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, INCLUDING POSSIBLEFUTURE COURSES OF ACTION TO BE TAKEN, ARE FORWARD LOOKING BASED ON CURRENT EXPECTATIONS AND BELIEFS AND ARE SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OFFACTORS AND UNCERTAINTIES. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE DISCUSSED HEREIN, ARE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS.

Dear Eclipse 500 Owner:
Most of you have received communications over the past month on the state of the Eclipse bankruptcy process. This memo is intended to both summarize what has been previously communicated and to apprise you of the most recent developments.

We believe that the current situation requires a concerted and organized action on the part of all Eclipse owners to guarantee the continued support and airworthiness of your airplanes at a reasonable cost. The pace of the Chapter 7 liquidation process requires that we prepare immediately for this eventuality. If we wait to see what alternatives emerge, it will be too late to take any of the actions that could improve the outcome for all owners.

Objectives of the Owner’s Group

We’re going to present quite a bit of information on today’s call, but it is important to start with a clear understanding of our mission, as well as our relationship to other groups who may be working to buy the Eclipse assets.

I. Our top priority is to protect the key assets of Eclipse Aviation Corporation, and ensure that they are available to enable the support, upgrades, and continued airworthiness of the Eclipse fleet on as attractive an economic basis as possible.
II. We plan to evaluate all proposed plans on behalf of the owners, and would be delighted to find an organization that plans to purchase the assets and provide owners with support and upgrades on attractive terms.
III. The only thing worse than high priced support would be no support. Since no plan that we are aware of has yet raised the capital likely required to buy the Eclipse assets and commence operations, we believe that it is essential to provide a backstop to all of the proposed plans.
IV. Finally, none of the members of this committee has any economic interest in any plan, other than the desire for access to ongoing service and support for our aircraft.

Bankruptcy Procedure

On Wednesday March 4, the bankruptcy court agreed to convert the Eclipse Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 liquidation case. A trustee will be appointed to supervise the liquidation. Most likely the trustee will sell the assets of Eclipse. The note holders will be in a decision making role with respect to whether an auction occurs and its timing. In cases of this type, auctions would typically occur within 7 30 days. We believe all of the assets will most likely be sold to a single buyer.
There is no way to specifically estimate what the noteholders will accept, and it is possible that they might simply hold the assets themselves if the bidding comes in too low. Some of the money a buyer pays for the assets will go to reimburse Al Mann for his $10 million DIP (debtor in possession) loan. We believe ETIRC will likely be forced to forfeit their $10 million DIP loan based upon their failure to close the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Importance of the Eclipse Intellectual Property

We anticipate that all of the assets of Eclipse Aircraft Corporation will be offered at the auction. Among these assets are the Type Certificate and all of the intellectual property required to maintain and upgrade the airplane over time. While some have questioned whether it might be possible to support the aircraft without control of these assets, the Ad Hoc Committee (and other experts whom we have consulted) strongly believes that whoever controls these assets will have a virtual monopoly on the support of the fleet. For this reason, and also from seeing various proposals from groups who propose to bid on the Eclipse assets, the committee is very concerned about the possibility of a group acquiring the assets and charging exorbitant fees for access to service and upgrades.

Some Economic Assumptions

The painful reality of the Eclipse bankruptcy is that everyone involved has been damaged financially. While in some sense the owners are fortunate to have a “hard asset”, many of the things we expect support of the Type Certificate ed from Eclipse, such as upgrades and ongoing, must now be paid for by somebody else, most likely us owners. We are working to minimize those costs because they are substantial.

As part of our work, the committee has investigated what the ongoing requirements are likely to be for any organization that intends to keep the Type Certificate in force. A substantial sustaining engineering organization is needed to respond to technical issues, to source components, to deal with the FAA, and to make ongoing reliability improvements. Our best estimate is that the requirement is approximately 50 engineers, and that the total overhead for such an organization is in the $12M $14M/year range. That assumption appears consistent with some of the projections we have seen from other prospective bidders.

If an existing manufacturer were to purchase the assets, they might well be able to use excess capacity within their own organization to perform these tasks, but we do not believe that any established manufacturer intends to bid. We have had discussions with at least one credible organization that could absorb a major portion of this overhead if they elect to partner with us. Those discussions are ongoing, but certainly not concluded at this point.

Any plan must account for the baseline burden of maintaining the type certificate. These costs must be recaptured in annual fees or through markups on service or other fees. Typical aircraft manufacturers spread these costs over all of their products so that such costs are buried in the price of the aircraft and in the price of parts and service.


Potential Scenarios

Some of the plans we have seen contemplate varying levels of continued manufacturing, ranging from completing the 10 or so aircraft that are well along in the production process to more ambitious plans of ultimately producing up to 100 aircraft per year. A bidder who sees manufacturing as its primary strategy would be incented to keep maintenance and support costs moderate for the existing fleet in order to establish credibility with future potential customers. However the ability of a new entrant to raise the capital required to manufacture new aircraft, and to engage in the level of production engineering required to produce those aircraft at a competitive cost is viewed skeptically by some members of the committee.

More plausible plans involve the purchase of the assets primarily to create a profitable service and support business. The risk in undertaking such a business high return on their it requires will likely dictate that the investors command a very and the capital that investment. Some of the plans that we have seen have contemplated charging on the order of $100,000/year just for access to the service. They also contemplate charging a six figure premium over cost for the upgrades. While these rates look very predatory to an owner, they may well feel like good business to an investor in such an enterprise.

It is worth noting that every additional dollar of upgrade cost likely reduces the current value of your pre upgrade aircraft by a dollar. Similarly, increased ongoing maintenance costs require that the market value of the aircraft be reduced by an amount that makes the total cost of ownership competitive with other alternatives.

Seizing the Initiative

Although some committee members believe that it may still be possible to find investors who will back a production/support plan that would not be considered predatory, time is running out.

The surest way for the Eclipse Owners Group to avoid one of these “predatory” scenarios (or worse yet, no viable scenario of any kind) is to organize as a group and successfully acquire the Eclipse intellectual property in the liquidation. We would do this under the auspices of a non profit corporation (“NEWCO”) set up for this purpose. We are in discussions with a number of existing maintenance and support organizations from which we can choose a partner to undertake the actual engineering and support tasks. NEWCO would employ an executive director and minimal staff to oversee the performance of our service partner. That partner organization could expect to make customary profits on its service and support activities, as opposed to the monopoly level profits that could be demanded by an organization that has gained control of the Eclipse Intellectual Property.

Again, we would be very happy to see a plan emerge that does not require owners to actually put up capital to secure and maintain the type certificate . We are in contact with every potential entrant we are aware of, and will provide you with our evaluation of each of those plans once we have access to them.

However having our own highly visible program in place is the best way to protect owners’ interests and influence the plans of other providers. Sitting back passively will leave us captive to whoever prevails at the auction – a scenario that is unlikely to produce a satisfactory outcome.

Structure and Mechanics

It is difficult to say exactly what bid will be required to prevail at the auction. If we have not endorsed any of the competitive plans prior to the auction, we will likely have made it more difficult for some of those plans to raise the capital needed to bid. This could potentially lower the required bid. For now, let’s assume that the bid range is $10M $20M. In addition, unless we find a partner who can perform the sustaining engineering by using their own idle capacity, we feel that it is prudent to raise the first year’s overhead of$12M $14M as well. This implies a total requirement of up to $35M. It is possible that $10M of this could be supplied by convincing Al Mann to roll his $10M in DIP financing into our bid, in which case we would need to pay him over time. That is not a “done deal” however.

We would like each owner to invest $150,000 per aircraft in the non profit corporation organized to purchase the Eclipse Assets. While this is a significant sum of money, you would likely save more than this just in the cost of the Garmin/FIKIupgrade of your aircraft. Additionally, your ongoing costs are likely to be considerably lower than any proposal we have seen to date.

For owners that are unable to contribute $150,000, we have set $100,000 as the minimum level. To offset any such under contributions, we will offer (and encourage) other owners to purchase interest bearing notes in amounts of $50,000 and up in addition to their base $150,000 contribution. These notes will be secured by the assets of the corporation, and will offer an attractive interest rate. We have not pegged this rate yet, but it will likely be in the 15% 20% range. Those who have contributed less than $150,000 will pay that interest rate on the difference between their contribution and $150,000. Those who have contributed more through the note purchase will receive that interest.

To summarize, the $150,000 contribution will buy you ownership in the Eclipse IP, and support and upgrades at prices that we negotiate on your behalf with our service partner. We will still need to collectively support the annual sustaining engineering(Type Certificate maintenance) costs. The cost per aircraft for that support could be as high as $60,000 $70,000 per year if we have to shoulder the entire burden, or as low as 15 20% of that amount if we can cement a partnership with the right support partner. Upgrades will be performed with parts supplied at cost plus a modest handling charge, and labor for the upgrades will be charged at traditional shop rates. Owners who have contributed less than $150,000 will also likely be required to bring their contribution up to $150,000 at upgrade time, which will enable us to pay off note holders.

We are asking all owners who are capable of doing so to commit $200,000 to the effort, with our commitment that we will develop a fair method, as described above, of compensating you for your increased commitment. You will have the opportunity of reviewing and agreeing to our proposal before your money is released from escrow, so we are not asking you to commit without complete disclosure. However, the larger our “war chest” the more strength we will have in our group.

To summarize the anticipated economics for a $150,000 contributor:
1. $150,000 investment before the Chapter 7 auction. This buys ownership in NewCo, as well as access to the service and support program.

2. Maintenance performed at typical labor rates.

3. Parts supplied at the cost paid to suppliers plus handling charge.

4. Upgrades under similar terms to maintenance.

5. Additional annual expense per aircraft to support the sustaining engineering and type certificate. This could range from $15,000 per aircraft per year in the most favorable assumptions to $70,000 per year under less favorable assumptions.

6. Should you elect to sell your airplane at any point, the ownership would transfer to the new owner of your aircraft, who would enjoy the same status. This should increase the value and salability of your aircraft.


This leaves the question of what to do about owners who choose not to participate at even the $100,000 level. Our guiding principle here is fairness to those owners who do participate. One of the biggest risks this plan faces is securing adequate participation of the owner group, and any owner who does not participate raises the required initial investment and per airplane overhead costs of those who do. For that reason, any owner who declines to participate will need to invest prior to receiving access to the program, and will pay a higher price than those who participated prior to the auction.

The board of directors of NEWCO will ultimately determine that premium, with input from the participating owners. We don’t know today what that group will decide, but least some owners have already expressed the view that late entrants should pay a 2 3x multiple of the pre auction price. Other owners express the view that the premium should be more moderate. Late owners will also be responsible for interest on the $150,000 “par” investment amount, since their non participation likely generates the need for us to raise that amount through the issuance of notes.

One final point on structure is that the $150,000 outlay is an investment rather than a fee. That investment buys pro rata ownership in the Eclipse assets, which have ongoing value. If a profit making venture were to purchase those assets, it would need to build in incremental charges to generate a significant return on that investment. If the owners buy those assets, the return we receive is the absence of those incremental charges as well as the guarantee of ongoing support.

Interim Expenses

All of us understand the value (and cost) of quality professional help. In today’s environment, that help is extremely expensive. The committee has done all of its work on a volunteer basis, but we anticipate the need to spend at least $200,000 between now and the auction for outside legal and financial advice, including forming the non profit corporation, complying with securities regulations, negotiating with partners, etc. We ask that $2,500 of your contribution be used for that purpose. All other monies will be held in escrow as outlined below. There is potentially a need for a second expense tranche, but this will not occur until you have approved the final investment documents and fully committed your contribution.

It is also important t recognize those of you who contributed $4,500 to the original ad hoc committee. The work of that committee formed the foundation for the efforts of the owners group, and those who contributed will be credited with $5,000 toward your full investment amount.

Escrow

Because of the very short timeline on which all of this must occur, we are creating an escrow account with very investor friendly provisions. We ask that you decide on a contribution level and then send 10% of that amount to the escrow agent. The escrow agreement, as well as the formation agreement for the entity, will be emailed to you within the next 24 48 hours. Any money in that escrow account (less $2,500 for interim expenses) must be returned to you unless you approve and sign the detailed final investment documents. The 10% deposit is simply a good faith gesture on your part so that we can gauge the level of funding that we have committed from the group at large. We will need the full amount deposited, (and the final documents signed) before we can bid at the auction. Since this auction is likely to occur in the next 7 30 days, we are on an extremely tight timeline.

Conclusion

We would like to leave you with these key messages:
I. This plan is intended to insure that a funded, viable, customer-friendly bidder shows up at the Eclipse Chapter 7 auction. We do not consider any of the plans we are aware of to have demonstrated all of those characteristics yet.
II. While the initial financial commitment is significant, your $150,000-$200,000 investment may well make the difference between your airplane being worth $1M+ or being nearly worthless.
III. The annual expenses are also significant, primarily because the fleet size is modest. However any plan must deal with that reality. Promises to significantly grow the fleet though new manufacturing are tempting but much more challenging to fund and execute than the creation of a service and support program for the current fleet.
IV. We continue to seek information on alternative plans, and would happily throw our support behind any plan that we believe would be beneficial to the owners.
V. The owners committee does not claim to be qualified to run a service and support company, but will partner with highly qualified and experienced providers.
VI. By controlling the Eclipse intellectual property, we maximize our options not just today, but well into the future. For example, if we were to later learn of a plan or organization that we think could do this better than we can, but which was unable to succeed in the auction, our Board of Directors would still have the flexibility to work with that group. They could even sell some or all of the assets to that group, and distribute the proceeds back to our members, as long as that is consistent with the our mission of maximizing the value of our aircraft and the availability of service and support.

We would like to offer each of you an opportunity to speak one on one with a member of the Ad Hoc committee to address any questions or concerns that you may have with this plan. If you have not sent your contact info to eclipseownersgroup@gmail.com please do so, and we will contact you and arrange a time for a call.

Sincerely yours,

Randall Sanada, David Green, Ron Lebel, Ken Meyer, Mike Boich for the Eclipse Owners Group

257 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 257 of 257
Shadow said...

BEG's post is making me hungry for some fried chicken. :-)

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

Shadow,
Call 1-8-0-0-C-O-L-M-I-K-E
Ask for the Stir Fried Special!
.)

WhyTech said...

"Even if investors think it can't get any worse, the underpinnings of a sustained, healthy rally are not in place yet."

B95, this one's for you - from today's WSJ.

WhyTech said...

"Windshields are expressly designed to withstand birdstrikes,"

You show me the windshield and I'll show you the bird that will be sitting in your lap! "Resistant" to birds - perhaps given small enough birds. Bird proof - naaah!

Unknown said...

Just read some odd responses to the horizontal issue. Maybe I shouldn't have opened my mouth, ONE THING IS FOR SURE! It's a real issue on that jet! The horizontal was removed for over a month before CH 7 while engineers tried to figure it out. I have no idea where the jet ended up after they closed up. Obviously not very far (within tug distance).
Hey folks I have know idea who anyone is on this blog. The guys in ABQ probably feel just like everyone else that worked for EAC. We have families to feed and really don't want to be directly involved anymore. As for filing an SDR if one of you folks want to contact the owner be my guest. How do we think the owner may feel about it? The contact info for N561EA is obviously on the FAA website.

AvidPilot said...

I wonder how many owners have decided to put money into Col. Mike Press' half-baked scheme.

Unlike the other Colonel, this deal is probably not finger lickin' good.

And just like the other Colonel, what you see is not what you get. Is that REAL honey with your biscuit? I don't think so - in fact I don't think the butter is real either. In fact, what is that brown goo on top of the mash potatoes? But I digress...

bill e. goat said...

WT,
Point taken,
But the EA500 windshields are probably more bird resistant than the engines.

(Although I agree- I'd rather have a REALLY BIG problem with an engine, than a REALLY BIG problem with a windshield ;).

I've been trying to get a bird strike with the ERcoupe, but think I need a bigger engine to catch one.
---------------------------------

Hmmmm. Aghhh!! Another attack of
"FUN WITH MATH !!"

Q: How fast does a bird have to be going to pass through a spinning propeller unscathed (in order to have "maximum impact" on the windshield...??)

Okay , ball park 1800 prop RPM
(works out easier).
Shall we say, 24 inches out from center.
(actually, we can say whatever we want to- I'm too lazy to work out individual cases for "fat birds" versus "skinny birds").
And worse case, a 2 bladed prop.
(this one, I do use).

(1800 rev/min)
x(2 blade passing/rev)
x(1min/60 seconds)

=60 blade passings per second

Assuming a "substantial mass" for a 6 inch slice of turkey
(pretty substantial mass indeed!)

= 6 inches / ((1/60)seconds)
=360 inch/sec
=30 feet/second
=45 mph
=38 knots closure speed

Now, let's say we have 5 times that closure rate (190 knots), which results in a 2.5-foot slice of turkey passing through. About the whole bird.

The answer is obviously to put a six bladed prop on the front of your EA500, and run it at 2400 rpm, to get back to 6 inch slices.

I have a strange urge to go to a Subway sandwich shop now.
--------------------------------

exGNVtech,
Please use appropriate caution when towing EA500's, and be mindful of birdstrikes when operating the tug.

Also, please put a "cow catcher*" on the front (for low flying geese, and cows, and alligators which might try to catch the cows or the low flying geese).

(*Perhaps that unused horizontal stabilizer could be fashioned into such a device).

Alternatively, the horiz stab could also be used for a surf board. In which case, please look out for aligators, or surfing cows- remember, cows are quite heavy, so always give them the right of way.

I did not consider a cow passing through the propeller. But I'm sure this has been tried. I would much rather have a goose in my lap than a cow.

Did I mention my favorite sandwich shop serves beer?

(And they serve both turkey, and beef, sandwiches. No 'gator sandwiches though).

Cheers!

bill e. goat said...

AvidPilot,
I agree, if it walks like a chicken, and quacks like a chicken, it's not a goose.

(And no more brown "gravy" for me !! :)

airtaximan said...

theairtaximan"I have a strange urge to go to a Subway sandwich shop now."

sounds like you are the perfect EAC customer.

Do you have coupons?

Maybe free soda?

PS. no reason to basj Col Sanders....

WhyTech said...

"About the whole bird."

I have run this model some years ago with various assumptions (speeds, blades, RPM, bird sizes, etc) and the bird wins (gets through the prop arc untouched) around 90% of the time IIRC.

airtaximan said...

new idea for the owners..

http://www.motoart.com/

these guys might be buyers...

The EA50 FSW briefcase
The EA50 flatscreen mini TV
The EA50 crib
The EA50 wing kids desk
The EA50 high chair
The EA50 toy weelbarrow
The EA50 space heater (uncollared of course)
The EA50 toy kitchen set (optional galley)
The EA50 toy potty (potty option)
The EA50 2nd-row seating (6th seat optional
The EA50 writing tablets (portable)
The EA50 fkae aircraft throttle quadrant (my favorite)

other suggestions welcome

PawnShop said...

Please use appropriate caution when towing EA500's, and be mindful of birdstrikes when operating the tug.

Also, please put a "cow catcher*" on the front (for low flying geese, and cows, and alligators which might try to catch the cows or the low flying geese)...

...In which case, please look out for aligators, or surfing cows- remember, cows are quite heavy, so always give them the right of way.


With all the proposals flying around right now, I'd be more on the lookout for SHARKS!

Would you like the seafood platter?
DI

Dave said...

I wonder how many owners have decided to put money into Col. Mike Press' half-baked scheme.

About 20 customers have expressed interest in buying the Albuquerque, N.M.-based company, said Mike Press, one of the earliest owners of the company.
Customers to buy assets out of bankruptcy

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

And don't forget, there is a King Mackarel swimming around the sharks, ready to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

;^)

bill e. goat said...

CWMOR,
Please look out for the surfing cows!!

WT,
The birds might make it through untouched- but it would have to be one FAST cow!

Thankfully, they don't fly very high though.

(Although some of them wish the ERcoupe flew higher.)

Just "kidding".
.)

(Actually, I have great respect for cows. No cows were harmed in the preparation of this post. However, the same cannot be said for the preparation of dinner).
---------------------------------
Dave,
"About 20 customers have expressed interest"

Dave I.,
"With all the proposals flying around right now, I'd be more on the lookout for SHARKS!"

?? Lots of big fish in a little pond? Or little fish in a big pond??

(I fear the later, and think the water is PRETTY DEEP).

Sounds like of all this bunch, perhaps only our pal CWMOR has already got his feet wet a time or two in this sport.
---------------------------------

CWMOR, are you going for:
a) the factory, or
b) fleet service, or
c) customer conversion to an unspecified platform
d) some combination of the above
e) secretly trying to restart ERcoupe production?

Inquiring minds want to know ??

Hmmm, an ERcoupe with Avio, and the EA400 V-tails and engine on the back- who needs JATO !?! How distruptive!

(But I think I'll stick with the steamgages!)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

The answer is d with a twist plus potential recovery in sense for some of the depositors.

;^)

With details to come very soon.

I want to make the concept as clear and simple to understand as possible and that is taking some time as I continue to learn more about the concerns and needs of the various parties involved.

Since my return to the mobile command center I have been working to identify as many potential questions ahead of time so as to try and answer as many as reasonable up front.

I can say my primary focus is on a comprehensive approach that deals realistically but sympathetically with lifecycle costs for everyone, those who want out, those who want to continue operating, those open to alternate airframes, and even the few commercial operators - who have very different needs and agendas than say the guy flying one or two.

I have been contacted by a wide array of people, I have spent some time visiting one potential partner and hope to visit another very soon.

I am not taking this lightly and want to present a truly comprehensive concept that comes as close to a win-win for everyone involved, recognizing that may only mean limiting losses for some.

I can say categorically it will have nothing to do with attempting to acquire the assets but rather to provide sufficient alternatives to keep any other players honest in their dealings with the owner community if someone ends up with the TC and IP.

My preference would be for the FAA to become custodian of the TC, as that is the best possible situation for long-term support.

It is my belief that by decoupling the owner community from a potential hostage-taker (through what I believe to be a very innovative series of options), it creates a situation where while the owners will be a captive audience of sorts, anyone with the original IP will effectively be a captive vendor - they will simply HAVE to treat the owners honestly given the potential availability of alternatives.

Call it the business equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction.

I hope to get it out very soon but understand I want it to be well enough developed.

---Laughs maniacally with pinky to corner of mouth and turns to black helmeted minion to cut off the transmission---

Dan Swanson said...

It what point does it become obvious that a cutoff wheel and a landfill is the only solution?

Baron95 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

To begin a new business, to produce a viable product, takes extreme effort, talent, and loyal support . . . not to mention a qualified staff . . . and a real life market. Yet comments seem to indicate that if a limited group of “die-hards” can come up with a moderate amount of money, some good intentions, and . . . what? . . . fifteen or so engineers? . . . you’ll have the little birds flying in no time, complete with upgrades and a consistent maintenance program.

Shucks, I’ve had better nightmares after too much greasy food, coupled with too many green chili’s . . . and a touch of food poisoning.

Dream on, my friends, dream on!

A long time ago, I refused to take part in the prediction contest . . . but openly predicted that a complete “Eclipse VLJ” would never be produced. And I’ll make another prediction: A viable enterprise to support the existing jets, and/or expand the operation will never take place . . . not now, not ever. And a footnote to that prediction: Anyone investing in such an operation will lose not only the “up-front” money, but suffer financial pain beyond that, coupled with much grief.

gadfly

(But what would I know? . . . a small bug, with nothing to lose!)

Baron95 said...

BEG,

Perhaps if you researched the issue a bit further, and actually saw what a goose can do to Baron you'd change your mind.

Incidentally, the pilot above was incredibly lucky. Many planes are simply not flyable without the windshield.

And if you, think windshield bird strikes are a problem just for aviators, think again and again ...

Baron95 said...

Of course, some people (not you BEG) think a Windshield Bird Strike on a Baron looks like this this, and maybe inclined to disagree ;)

PawnShop said...

Perhaps if you researched the issue a bit further, and actually saw what a goose can do to Baron you'd change your mind.

Classic B95 misdirection.

Baron, that was no goose, it was a Cessna 180! Did you read the VAF thread on your original post?

( I'd still much rather have a bird take out "my jet's only engine" than have a bird - any kind of bird - get uncomfortable on my windscreen ).

DI

Beedriver said...

Bird strike on the windshield.

As I understand windshields on commercial airliners are designed to take a birdstrike at approach speeds not at cruise and I think there are no certification standards for other airplanes. Does any one know for sure what the regs are?

As for being able to fly the airplane after a bird strike. According to one of my Aerostar brethren after taking a duck through the wind shield, the airplane flew fine and did not seem to have any more drag than usual. however he was glad for the glass deicing plate as that was the only thing left to hunker down behind to land the airplane.

he was really lucky as it came through left of center but he was looking down for a chart at the time. It mad a real mess

Anonymous said...

baron95 said...

Perhaps if you researched the issue a bit further, and actually saw what a goose can do to Baron you'd change your mind.

Perhaps if you researched the issue a bit further, you would learn those pictures are from a midair between a Baron and a Cessna 180.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040124X00105

The pilot of the 180 died after his wing separated.

Incidentally, the pilot above was incredibly lucky. Many planes are simply not flyable without the windshield.

Incredibly, I don't believe there is a single airplane that depends on the windshield to fly. The disruption of the airflow simply isn't enough to make the airplane not fly.

TBMs_R_Us said...

You guys shouldn't be so tough on Baron. Fact based comments have never been his style! ;-)

airsafetyman said...

FAR 23.775 and FAR 25.775 apply. No requirement for Part 23 aircraft unless it is to be used as a commuter aircraft then it has to sustain a 2 pound bird at max flap approach speed. Part 25 aircraft have to sustain a 4 pound bird at a different derived airspeed.

bill e. goat said...

Hi Baron,
Thanks for the pics on birdstrikes.
(In surfing around, I saw some sites listed the Baron incident incorrectly as a bird strike too).

Thanks to Dave I. and Flyger for clarifying it though.

Regarding the Buick- all I can say is, a large propeller instead of the silly hood ornament might have lead to a better outcome. (For the Buick:) Gotta say- POWIE !#@! (ala Batman circa 1960's: that Buick got SMASHED !!).

Same for the motorcycle- yikes- (the caption wryly describes it as the "end of the Hooters racing team"- it was certainly the end of their mascot anyway :)
--------------------------------

Beedriver,
I think your Aerostar buddy "ducked" at just the right time!:)

bill e. goat said...

TBMs_R_Us,
(I hope you cut me the same slack as you do Baron- he's a fowl weather friend !! :0)
--------------------------------
ASM,
Thanks for the FAR info.

"Part 25 aircraft have to sustain a 4 pound bird..."

Okay, so what's a Henway ??
:)

Oh!! This is what a Hen Weighs

Okay, this chicken stuff is serious business!!
.."Handy-Dandy Chicken Chart"..
(Hmmm...I was just looking for one of those).

But, this duck stuff is not !! :)
So a Duck walks into a bar...
(It gets a little better towards the end. A very little :)

bill e. goat said...

musical background:
It's 5 o'clock somewhere.
I think it's Saint Patrick's Day somewhere too!
Cheers to all for a safe and happy one!!
Mug o Luck

Who is this Saint Patrick guy (does he weigh as much as a hen?? How many Saints can dance on the head of a pin?? Or a pinhead ?? (sorry, didn't mean to bring Wedge up again !! :)
Saint Patrick

(Is he the guy who flies around on Christmas Eve in an ERcoupe delivering toys to all the good children ? ...It occurs to me that an ERcoupe with that fatboy and and a heavy bag of toys DEFINITELY needs well colder than standard day conditions to get airborne- guess that's why he operates out of the polar regions. You know, sometimes things are just so obvious when you stop and think about them).

eclipso said...

HAPPY ST. PADDY'S DAY...from Texas

bill e. goat said...

Hmmm,
"You know, sometimes things are just so obvious when you stop and think about them"

I believe that sums up the Eclipse saga pretty well!

Happy St. Patrick's day from (a secret undisclosed location- Cheney's a pretty good poker player you know- and you should hear some of his GW jokes!).

airtaximan said...

no one like the moto art aviation furniture idea for the ea50's?

I thought I would get some creative suggestions for use of ea50s wings, tails, parts, for cool airplane furniture...

Notice, I stayed away from suggesting bunkbeds?

bill e. goat said...

ATM,
I think you just sprung CWMOR's secret plan!

Shane Price said...

I really have lost count.

I think there are now as many as FOUR owners groups competing for the assets.

They should really try to consolidate. The eventual winner will only really want to deal with one representative from the 'owners'.

Just a thought.

Shane
Agus lá Féile Pádraig shona libh gó leár.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

Four owners groups competing for the corpse.

"You take it"

"No, I don't want it, you take it"

"You touched it last"

...

julius said...

eclispo,

HAPPY ST. PADDY'S DAY...from Texas

who can read that on St. Paddy's Day?
Irish people perhaps tomorrow?

It's said that because of some side effect of Saint Patrick's Day
some decision makers didn't understand the situation when the Amoco Cadiz lost the control of her rudder: They argued with tug boat captain about the currency on the bill: USD or YEN...etc.
Maybe that was libel and slander of a water drinker.

Julius

P.S.: That's why Amoco Cadiz became for me a synonym for Saint Patrick's Day. (I drink wine, beer etc. - no misunderstanding!)

airtaximan said...

4 owners groups.

I guess someone figured out the only way to get back into production and have fleet support, is if there's a bidding war?

Baron95 said...

Sorry Guys. I was in a hurry looking for illustrative pictures of Baron bird strikes and didn't do appropriate due diligence.

No excuse. If I were Japanese, I'd be sharpening the sword now.

Anyway, I'll quit while I'm behind, so we don't stray even farther off-topic into the field of birdwindshieldeology.

Baron95 said...

DI said... Baron, that was no goose, it was a Cessna 180!

Well, it is a bird, isn't it ;) Cardinals, Skyhawks, Geese, they all look the same to me.

P.S. I can't believe you guys actually read that LOL

I guess sooner or later the drive by posting would get me in trouble.

Sorry, again.

RAD3 said...

I don't know if anyone else has picked up on this but I just noticed that N85SM is now blocked on FA. And Ken was always so proud of the flights of the Starship Enterprise! I also have been noticing that a lot of NfG birds have been flying at FL280 or below...even on longer trips. Have they lost RVSM?

TBMs_R_Us said...

The 3 in the air right now all filed for RVSM altitudes. One is at FL320, and the other two are climbing to FL360. I heard one on ATC the other day cleared to FL290. So they still have RVSM.

FreedomsJamtarts said...

How do they have legal RVSM? Didn't we hear that the NAVDB could not be updated except by the one tool at Ecorpse (no not that tool!).

No NAV DB -> No Synthetic DME
No Synthetic DME -> No RVSM

was the story wasn't it?

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

FJT, there is a fix available for DME I believe - can't say if everybody has it though.

Also, the Avio OG planes were not effected by the Jepp compilation/loading issue (NG only) - depends on whether the planes on FlightAware have OG or NG.

It's kind of complicated ;^)

TBMs_R_Us said...

I can't find the reference for DME required for RVSM flights. It's not in Appendix G, RVSM. I thought it had something to do with flights over FL240. Or ??? Anyone know the FAR reference?

FreedomsJamtarts said...

I would guess it is wrapped up in the special condition for synthetic DME.

EclipsePilotOMSIV said...

We were limited by not having the Nav database for the past few days, however Mike MacConnell and friends converted the files and posted them for us yesterday. So at this point everything is ok.

TBMs_R_Us said...

So at this point everything is ok.

Maybe not. Mike McC is NOT Eclipse, and the updates have to come from Eclipse, per the FAA. At some point perhaps some other party will have the authority to issue updates, but something issued by Mike McC is probably not legal (even though, I grant, it's probably the exact same thing that Eclipse would have released were they still in business).

Baron95 said...

"however Mike MacConnell and friends converted the files and posted them for us yesterday."

Cool and great customer service, beyond the call of "unpaid" duty.

However, isn't that transferring assets (IP, potential billable revenue services) to third parties without court permission? Don't these things belong to the creditors now? If this was not authorized by the trustee/court it is probably not OK. The trustee needs to price these things very high to increase the value for the creditors.

That is what the Thierlert trustee (admin) did in Germany. Immediately priced any parts and services way up.

EclipsePilot, don't take me wrong, I'm delighted that the owners got the update and I hope you continue to get them for free or as close to contracted prices as possible.

But from a Ch11/Vh7 point of view, the only interest the courts should have is to increase the cash recovered for the creditors.

bill e. goat said...

Hi EPomsiv,
I'm glad the owners have new databases, but have to admit my ears perked up a bit when it was Mike McC that released it- TBMs confirmed my suspicion. Guess it's good enough for a short-term work around though.
I concede that this might be an IP issue as Baron mentions, but for now, I think it benefits the future owners of Eclipse by "keeping customers on board".

airtaximan said...

BillE,

except for liability in case of an acident, I gues its OK, MikeMc provided the updated database.

Now that I think about it, maybe its not OK.

I wonder if there's still an insurance rider in place covering EAC, and IF this would be OK with the provider...

Like someone posted here once before, the insurers would probably prefer the fleet remain on terra firma.

WhyTech said...

"it had something to do with flights over FL240."

91.205(e): If VOR equipment is required for navigation at/above FL240, then DME is required.

So, if EA50's are required to use VOR for navigation due to lack of a suitble RNAV sytem, then DME required.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

For those interested I have sent the plan outline to Shane for a new blog post. Considering that today is a national holiday and not knowing how difficult it will be to post the plan it may be a little while before we see it.

I have also forwarded it to the EclipseOwnersGroup@gmail.com email address for their consideration as well in accordance with their pledge to consider any viable alternatives.

I look forward to comments from all comers as the details go public.

TBMs_R_Us said...

WhyTech,

Perhaps an EA50 pilot could just ask for vectors above FL240, and not require a VOR for navigation. ATC could say "fly heading 123, direct XYZ when able", and the pilot could stay on that heading until either he's below FL240 or gets a new vector. Wonder what happens if they file as EA50/W.

Shane Price said...

It might be Paddys' Day, but I'm not drinking.

Yet...

New post up, all the way from, well, one of our own.

ColdWet has indeed come up with an interesting plan, so let's all sharpen our keyboards and provide him with a little 'critical' analysis.

Shane

WhyTech said...

"Wonder what happens if they file as EA50/W."

What is not clear is whether the EA50 is exempt from any of these regs due to an agreement with the FAA. It has been my understanding that th EA50 does not yet have an IFR approved GPS (RNAV) system, but I may have misunderstood the posts on this topic.

PawnShop said...

EPOMSIV:
We were limited by not having the Nav database for the past few days, however Mike MacConnell and friends converted the files and posted them for us yesterday. So at this point everything is ok.

TBMrU:
Maybe not. Mike McC is NOT Eclipse, and the updates have to come from Eclipse, per the FAA. At some point perhaps some other party will have the authority to issue updates, but something issued by Mike McC is probably not legal (even though, I grant, it's probably the exact same thing that Eclipse would have released were they still in business).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at the moment, EAC still exists, and Mike McC is still in charge of running the debtor-in-possession.

Senior note holders have approved liquidation. But that doesn't mean that it's happened yet ( at last word, it hasn't ).

My sense is that there are likely to be NO issues with McConnell's release of the database binary to owners. Bear in mind, that I'm not a lawyer, I'm not with the FAA, and I'm NOT here to help.

Would you like a Shamrock Sundae with that?
DI

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 257 of 257   Newer› Newest»