ABQ - GNV Revisited
The now famous Albuquerque to Gainsville flight was terribly important because as gunner noted in a previous comment:
"... I'd like to point out that the significance of this announcement is not so much the cloudy math and lack of detail, as the fact that Eclipse seems to be claiming to Depositors that these two flights meet the Default Event guarantees. ie: Depositors would now be at the point of no return."
Now, bambazonke has had a couple of days to analyze the data and offers the following:
"EAC data has always quoted NBAA reserves...
In order to establish NBAA reserves and CLAIM them, the NBAA have a specific format that was not followed by EAC. Firstly the flight needs to be carried out at MTOW. Next the aircraft is to fly to it's destination, descend, shoot and approach, climb to 5000 feet, (this is known as the K-L leg) loiter for 5 minutes, climb to optimum altitude for flight to the alternate, fly 200 miles (not 100) and descend at 3000 feet per min to sea level and land with adequate fuel. The fuel on board is then stated as landing with IFR or VFR reserves.
NBAA have a standard form that is available for performing this test and verification of the claim of NBAA range. There is no place on the form for 'Air Miles' or any of the other terms that EAC use to stretch the truth, all speeds are to be calibrated to ISA and zero wind conditions.
From where I read the report from EAC and where I think they failed in their representation of NBAA reserves;
1. They do not state that the flight was performed at MTOW.
2. They did not perform an approach and loiter at 5000 feet, and they did not perform the NBAA JET alternate which is 200 miles. (The 100 nm alternate is a Turbo Prop alternate). Admittedly they claim to have held at GNV, so I am not sure that this is a big deal other than not following the NBAA protocol. EAC say in their missive that the flight was 1333 miles, but this is probably counting the circles they did in their 5 minute loiter, that is simply not the way it is done folks, the miles are calculated as the airway distance between the way points. IF they flew the airways from TLH (which I doubt looking at the funny little map that they issued with the missive) the distance would have been 133 miles from TLH to GNV, add this up, giving them the benefit of the doubt the total distance was 1212 miles, not 1330.
3. They have not normalized the values to zero wind. Taking the prevailing winds reported by NOAA and other credible sources on the day, the average tail wind component for the 3hr 42 mins was 74 knots. If they had calculated 'Air Miles' if such a thing exists, it would have been necessary to reduce the distance between ABQ and TLH to 905 miles to accommodate the winds.
4. This means that the pilot had this plane throttled way back, his TAS would have been 244 knots with these winds. The climb distance I notice on the graph was 200 miles, this also indicates that they were using a cruise climb configuration for the climb. The NBAA requires the range to be calculated at Normal Cruise Power, so again here I believe is another area where they are misleading their shareholders."