Saturday, February 03, 2007

Customer Concerns

The following was posted on the owners forum and sent to me by a reader. I have no way to vouch for its authenticity but have no reason to doubt it either.

"Although most of the delivery status conversations on this board focus on Eclipse receiving their Production Certificate (PC) as being the critical path for volume deliveries, it has occurred to me (and I'm sure to many others) that there really are several parallel critical paths required for volume production, delivery, and perhaps equally importantly, customers being able to get trained and use their jets and get service & support, all facing delays and uncertainty.

The completion of the (FAA) Flight Standardization Board (FSB) review last week led me to think that even if 5, 10, or 25 planes had been delivered last year, as previously promised, there would not have been an FAA approved program to train the pilots, therefore we may have received planes but not have been able to use them. So I'll call an approved, complete and ramped up training capability the first critical path item that received a major step forward last week but still is not in place for large scale training (1-2 planes delivered/day = 2-4 type ratings needed per day, which is a big operation.)

The second obvious critical path item is receiving the PC, required for volume production and deliveries; the latest post with real information seems to be this one:

Quote from: 555ej on January 22, 2007, 03:01:13 PM

The FAA team that is doing the PC will be back on Feb. 5th and will take about 6-10 business days to hopefully finish it, this time. Dan McElroy Co-Chair E5C

And the third rumored problem area that seems to at least be critical path for Part 135 operations (including DayJet), and full avionics functionality, is Avidyne's deliverables (software) for Avio.

So the objective of this post is to have conversations and share information on whether these are the only critical path areas, and speculation (since that's all we can do without much communications from Eclipse in the past month) on which of these will get solved, or perhaps get worse before they get better."

And more from Bob Broders:

"I just received a customer update e-mail from Eclipse with some results from their performance improvement program. On the surface these results seem fantastic: 372kts max speed, and 1156 NBAA IFR range. However, both numbers seem dubious.

Max speed of 372kts is reported at 5290lbs and ISA-7. The "guarantee" is at ISA and 4950lbs. I can't be sure how much 7degrees C will effect the speed, but in the Model A preliminary data, the E500 loses 19kts between ISA and ISA+10 (at FL300). That is nearly 2kts/degreeC. This would imply a max speed of only 364kts at ISA. The demonstrated value was at 300lbs over 4950, so there will be a weight credit, but will only be three or four knots. The "demontration" data doesn't leave me with a lot of confidence in the 370kts at ISA and 4950 gaurantee.

The NBAA 1156 number is based on a flight from ABQ to GNV(1155nm) and a miss to TLH (116nm). It seems like a perfect flight, but winds aloft are not discussed. However, there is a graph of efficiency versus Air Distance. This graph implies that the E500 reached TLH after travelling an air distance of only 1025nm (which jibes with a typical westerly wind). Further, the airplane landed with only 205lbs of fuel. Does this meet the NBAA IFR criteria?

Finally at the end of the customer update, Ken reminds us that though they have exceeded the targeted performance guarantees, the guarantees are not changing and we will most likely see better than "book" performance in our aircraft. Does this mean the E500 AFM will be based on the model B predicted performance instead of its actual performance? I wonder what the FAA with think of that.



Gunner said...

"Finally at the end of the customer update, Ken reminds us that though they have exceeded the targeted performance guarantees, the guarantees are not changing and we will most likely see better than "book" performance in our aircraft."

Again, 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.

Again, if my understanding of the import of that press release is correct, it is one hell of a way to claim, "We've delivered on our promise".

Looking forward to seeing how this story unfolds.

Anonymous said...

My only complaint so far, the link is for owners only. Gotta be a friggin owner to log in.

Unless somebody knows a good hack.....

Anonymous said...

Yea, Gunner, that's so the money can't be refunded now. They can put the shoebox back in the closet now, cuz this BS effort to make their depositors liable for the rest of the moolah has just hit paydirt.

The numbers will never jive, even if you used them all at once, but that won't work either, according to the owner-spy who said you can't compare all the numbers at once, which I never saw it being done here.

But, hey. It's only money.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Not really directly related to the post from the Owner's Forum but saw this on AeroNews earlier and found it noteworthy -

"Top News

Aspen Avionics Announces Settlement With Eclipse Aviation
Sat, 03 Feb '07

Eclipse Releases Claim Against Company, Receives Stock

Late Friday night, representatives with Aspen Avionics told ANN it has reached a favorable resolution of its litigation with Eclipse Aviation.

"We are happy to have this matter with Eclipse behind us," said Peter Lyons, Aspen Avionics Co-Founder and CEO. "This settlement frees us from the distraction and expense of litigation, and allows us to focus on developing new, breakthrough products for the General Aviation market."

As Aero-News reported, Eclipse filed suit in October 2006 against Lyons and Aspen co-founder Jeff Bethel, claiming the men developed the AT300 Hazard Awareness Display (shown above) while they were still employed at Eclipse. Bethel and Lyons claimed they worked with other engineers to develop the AT300 in 2001, and submitted the device for FAA certification in March 2002. The men were hired by Eclipse later that year.

Under the settlement agreement, Eclipse releases Aspen from any and all claims that were or could have been asserted regarding the company's co-founders' past employment at Eclipse, and assigns any rights under their competing patent application. Aspen will provide Eclipse with a one-percent common stock interest in Aspen, making them a beneficiary of the company's future success.

Bethel, who also serves as Chief Technology Officer at Aspen, says resolution of the lawsuit removes a cloud hanging over Aspen.

"All eyes are on the horizon now," Bethel said. "Our R&D is in full swing, and we can devote all our efforts to building avionics systems that make aircraft safer and easier to fly."

"We are thrilled to be a part of the emerging aviation industry hub here in Albuquerque (NM), alongside Eclipse Aviation." said Lyons."

So maybe Eclipse can finally see when they ought to focus on the issues their own loyal owners are bringing up in their forum rather than wasting precious time and resources on blatant intellectual property grab attempts.

From what I remember of Aspen's counter-suit according to the media, going forward would likely been a significant embarrasment to Vern and his buddies. Curious that the Eclipse Media Manipulation juggernaut has nothing to say about this.

Now if Eclipse could get around to actually being transparent (instead of just giving it lip-service) and stop with the smoke and mirror shows, there might be hope yet for the Kool Aid Brigade at KABQ.

airtaximan said...

E-clips (1,000 employees, been in business 9 years, spent $1 billion) grabbed a 1% interest in Aspen (a start up with an interesting product)

Aspen settled for nuisance value.

The scummiest of companies and lawyers act this way...need I say more?

Gunner said...

"Aspen will provide Eclipse with a one-percent common stock interest in Aspen, making them a beneficiary of the company's future success."

Agreed. That is unconsciousnable when the odds are a Billion Dollar company vs two individuals. Stake holders really need to ask themselves, "To what end?"

gadfly said...

As the "Gadfly", I have very little to lose, one way or the other. The "Gadfly" irritates and stirs up controversey . . . that's my job! And to help you get your "fix" for the weekend at this website!

For almost seventy years, I have had a keen interest, and "up-front" view of serious aircraft technology. From my earliest memories, I have been close to those things that have literally changed the way you and I travel . . . having seen, first hand, the "hand drawn sketches" of the inventions that keep all of us safe on modern aircraft . . . often on the margins of a bulletin, Sunday mornings in church. Yes, the very systems that keep you safe aboard commercial aircraft were designed in this manner.

Therefore, I feel an obligation to "speak" when someone has a "new idea" that may have major impact on the aircraft industry. It is easy to criticize. It's not so easy to take a new idea, and get it "to market". In fact, it's almost impossible!

In the present discussion, I have nothing riding on the success of Eclipse, one way or the other.

As a business owner of a successful manufacturing company in Albuquerque, since January 1, 1976 . . . on the "bloody" leading edge of technology, and based on my own designs, inventions, etc., I am keenly interested in the success of legitiamate new companies. Hopefully, Eclipse will prove itself to be in that category.

And as a business owner, and a manufacturer of tooling for jet engines (although for a competitor of "Pratt & Whitney" . . . P&W is "small potatoes", frankly), the minimal competition has no effect. Whether Eclipse is powered by "P&W", or rubber bands has no effect at all.

For amusement sake, this website is more entertainment than any real substance. It appears that most who visit this site have no serious investment in Eclipse . . . but I may be wrong. And yet, I'm hooked on a daily basis.

However, for the sake of the reputation of the Albuquerque industrial community "at large", and in empathy for those who have invested so much in this enterprise, I sincerely wish to see the folks at Eclipse come clean with their many "owners", and the general public. The business of keeping investors leashed to contracts base upon a single success has me concerned for their financial welfare.

All this reminds me of an old story . . . corny, but it illustrates a point:

A visitor to a small back-woods town noticed countless bullet holes, on tree-trunks, fences, abandoned barns, tree-stumps, shacks . . . almost anything . . . dead center on each target He asked a "local" for the identity of the expert marksman. "Oh that's Jake . . . he can't hit the broad side of a barn! . . . He paints the target after he shoots".

If Eclipse succeeds, we will also benefit from their success. If they follow the path of so many other companies, that have failed to follow through, the Albuquerque manufacturing community will all lose.

You critics are like coyotes . . . attacking a "weak" company . . . and I cannot blame your behavior.

"Eclipse", you have made claims which challenge the credibility of all who watch from day-to-day. Remember, not all of us are the "general public" that believe the report that you have "really" begun deliveries. Some of us know the difference between an announcement in the local paper, and a 6,000 pound aircraft going from point "A" to "B" and back again, day after day, with paying passengers. Your shallow claims will come back to haunt you . . . make no mistake!

For us who watch on the side-lines, "do we laugh or cry"? Success does not come easy. But honesty "MUST" take precidence over all other considerations.

Sooner or later, the books will be open for all to see. And as the "Gadfly" sees it, that day is soon upon us. Maybe the rest of you should back off, and allow everything to come into clear focus.


(Are we having fun yet?)

airtaximan said...


You seem like a cool guy. MOre level than most, especially me. I am passionate about aviation, especially air taxi. I could use the Eclipse plane, or not. If I believed everything I;ve read, or seen it with rosey goggles, I would have jumped in and decimated the competition with this great new plane. Not many (any) real operators have jumped in, and franky, most are more skeptical as each day passes. The opposite should have been true.

Eclipse will likely succeed. Most who've been reading my rants would seem surprised by this prediction, but I think n 20 years from now, Eclipse will still be around. Here's why.

They are not like most commercial enterprises. They have deep, deep, pockets. The well, which by any reasonable account, should have dried by now, is still full. Friends, those who anticipate something from association with Gates, brokers/bankers who have some agenda, investors with deep poakets who seek to protect their past investments (Al Mann already bailed out Vern once when no one else would) and perhaps even suppliers who are knee deep, will all come to the rescue.

This is not like most companies. They literally have money to burn, and have acted this way for a long time. Its new to this industry, but it will probably result in Eclipse being around for some time.

We all better get used to Vern, becasue he has the keys. They are his friends and supporters. They are probably laughing at us, the naysayers, and the depositors.

Even the press is on their side. Nasa and the govenrmnet seem to be helping as much as possible, too.

Imagine, with all this help how crappy a plane they muct really have, if they remain marginal? If they have to pull stunts like Nimbus, flying with Teledyne missle engines, then high tailing it to Gainsville to claim they've met performance guarantees.

It's too bad, because a program guided by market based specifications, realistic performance targets and greater attention to risk, would likly have produced a better product. It would have the appeal necessary for a taxi market, and hence, not rely on the deposits of individual buyers for success.

They'll raise more money. The plane will be re-priced for the private pilot market, and this blog will end.

Just one taximan's opinion.

It's been fun.

bambazonke said...

Gadfly, some thought provoking insight in your post; here is some more..

We must get away from the emotions of wanting a company to succeed, it either is a success because of it's merits or it fails as a result of it's follies, one does not need to feel sorry for them, this is not a Broadway show where these kinds of emotions might have some resonance.

EAC cannot help themselves with their duping of the public, take the delivery of SN-1. This plane has not been delivered to the owner, yes he took the keys, and has done some flying in the plane, but Eclipse is still crewing and maintaining the aircraft. Why? Well the plane would not be accepted by anyone in it's current state. The avionics has limited functionality, there is no DME, there is no RVSM, the mods are not complete, and yes there are a couple of other items like the plane needs to travel with a mechanic because the FAA has mandated that the spar needs to be inspected once a day to ensure that there is no movement of the rear attachment bushing. Shocking isn't it, and I am sure that we will have some of the usual detractors step up and deny this is the situation, but I have one challenge to those that do this, get EAC to deny that publicly that any of the above is not true..

So the point is EAC delivered this one plane with all of these limitations just to say they delivered a plane in 2006. The others won't be delivered for some time yet, there is a lot of work on the PC and other issues to be resolved yet.

I am told that the problem with the rear attach bushing was a little bigger problem than what EAC has let on. Apparently the rear attach mount for the wing is part of the rear bulkhead, which of course is friction stir welded to the entire fuselage section, including the aft of the pressure vessel. The problem was not the sighting of the hole that caused the problem, it was the dimension of the rear attach mount that was wrong, and the bushing which is a tight tolerance fit did not fit properly. The correction to this would have been the installation of a new bulkhead, but this could not be achieved because this is a integral part of the airframe that is friction stir fried in place, it would have been easier to scrap the airframe than change this out. EAC then came up with another fix to get a bushing to fit the oversize attach point, it is for this reason that there is a requirement for a daily inspection of this 'fix'. So again this company tries to hoodwink the world that they are transparent and are doing everything that way they should but they are duping the public and their shareholders by not being forthright with them. Remember the story when this bushing problem became evident to EAC, they lied to the public by announcing that EAC would not attend the AOPA in PSP because they were concentrating on getting the certification on the plane which was imminent, and this was the reason that they were not going to be at AOPA.

KKA was the one that taunted Adam Aircraft on transparency, this has all been lost, position holders are looking to this blog for information because EAC is not forthcoming with the information on the website they created. The promises about information exchange by KKA, even the announcement of the creation of a position to facilitate this has not lead to any improvement in the information flow.

The news just get worse, but somehow they just manage to contain it. A while ago I posted that the plane did not make a public appearance at an event that was planned because of a burst tire, it might be surprising to learn that ABC TV was on the plane at the time, yet KKA managed to contain the spin of the event and this did not come out in the news. I will give him one kudos, he does know how to keep the disciples in check, they applaud every announcement with little questioning of the truth, and he even keeps the lid on newsworthy events from eeking out from people whose job it is to propagate the news...

EclipseBlogger said...

No comment, I am just posting the following from the Eclipse customer web site for your entertainment, posted by Mike Press:

I spent two full days at Eclipse on Thursday and Friday. The purpose was to get an update on the delivery status of our serial number #4 and also to do some training. Here is a report:

Production delivery is progressing. Serial number #4 should be delivered late next week after serial number #2 and #3 earlier in the week. The FAA is inspecting these airplanes and will issue a certificate of airworthiness (CofA) similar to serial #1. Until Production Certification (PC) which is projected mid-late February, all airplanes will need this inspection. I counted about 7 airplanes which have competed production and paint and are ready for delivery pending CofA or PC. Production and delivery people said they (and
FAA) are working seven days a week (except for time off to watch the Super Bowl) to complete CofA and PC. I am confident that Eclipse and the FAA are doing everything they can do to start delivering airplanes as soon as possible.

Regarding training: I met with Tom Norton, Manager of Flight Training and we scheduled our flight training for serial number #4. Training is ready to go and the course material was handed to me on the spot (it is being sent to others next week).

I completed the Emergency Procedures Training (Hypoxia and L-39 Upset Training). Both course are outstanding and well worth the time and money. The instruction from Mike Kendall, Physiology Instructor and Randy Brooks, Upset Training L-39 Instructor were top-notch and very professional. Mike is a former Navy Physiology Instructor with years of experience and Randy is a former acrobatic pilot also with years of experience. I can state unequivocally that this instruction has been some of the best I have received from both military and civilian instructors in the past 40 years of aviation training. The L-39 Upset Training is absolutely the best course I have seen to teach the basics of upset recovery. Randy’s explanations of the aerodynamic factors and forces involved and the techniques to recover from unexpected upsets and inverted attitudes is simple to understand and easy to execute in the L-39. Of course, after flying the syllabus profile, we had some gas left over, so Randy and I showed each other some advanced acrobatic and air-combat maneuvers. It was a great day of learning and flying.

Ken MacNamara, VP of Customer Care/Training/Product Support has assembled a great team of professionals. A lot of new faces at Eclipse. Kent Ewing, retired Navy Captain and former skipper of the aircraft carrier USS America, CV66 is now head of Flight Operations. Kent is a hands on leader and responsible for all Eclipse flight operations to include test, production and post-production flight ops. Tom Norton, former Air Force A-10 and Delta Airline Captain is now in charge of flight training. Tom is another top notch professional.

I have visited Eclipse once a month for the last 6 months. On every visit I see tremendous progress. Ken MacNamara promises to provide increased communication and I think we are just now starting see some of it. But in his defense, when he took over there was basically a skeleton staff for training and other functions. Ken has hired some quality people and I am sure these people have and will help Ken and Eclipse meet the expectations of all it’s customers.


Mike (soon to be proudly flying Eclipse N229BW around the US)

gadfly said...

airtaximan and bambazonke

If you can produce a level of confidence in this little jet, such as I had while submerged in a foreign port for thirty days at a time in a diesel electric snorkel submarine . . . or riding out a North Pacific typhoon, with waves coming above eye-level . . . or flying in and out of Wake Island aboard a piston engine aircraft, with the wing swinging out over the surf as we turned back to the hangar for refueling . . . and sleeping like a baby until we pulled up to the ramp in post-war Tokyo . . . then, you will have a money-making "air taxi".

Whether working on light aircraft as a licensed "A&P" (which I am, and did), or doing short-field take-offs and landings on a "grass strip" (Moody Wood Dale Airport) within the traffic pattern of O'Hare, I had a good sense of security, safety, and full confidence in my aircraft. I had full confidence that even if I did something "stupid", the wings would stay attached on the utility category aircraft in which I trained for "bush flying".

Whether designing, machining, or manufacturing, I have a good feel for testing to distruction various aircraft accessories and strutural members . . . been there/done that . . . and have developed a "feel" for things that are "right" or "questionable".

Even the experience as a passenger on a "Lear 25", the thing that kept me awake was looking down from 49,000 feet at "complete circle rainbows" or flying by the Statue of Liberty, at "eye-level" with the scaffolding in place, during the "renovation", or sliding between thunderheads coming in over the Sandia Mountains, for final approach at ABQ. But of course that was a "dinosaur", way back in the dark-ages.

It will be a long time before I feel such confidence in this new jet . . . and, frankly, some major design changes must take place in "airframe", etc., before I climb aboard as a passenger. And from the standpoint of the "public", I firmly believe the it may be a long time before the confidence level will make "this" air-taxi into a viable form of transportation.

In business, whenever someone even has the "appearance" of hiding facts, it is almost impossible to re-gain credibility, once lost. Honesty and transparency is highly "under-rated" these days, but as we all know, once lost, confidence is almost impossible to re-gain.

If the "pockets" behind this company are deep enough, and the "public" has a short memory, or a new aircraft is designed and built, and . . . on and on! . . . I never cease to be amazed at the outcome of what folks find acceptable.

Many years ago, I had the privilege of working in the "model shop" of a major company, that produced my Dad's various inventions, including the cable tension regulators and inertia restraint system that, fifty years after his death (2 March 1957) are still the standard units in most Boeing, McDonnel-Douglas, Sikorsky, Hiller, and older Lockheed aircraft ( and even the X-15 rocket plane). Testing "back then" was far beyond anything I have seen in this present discussion. And I have, personally, designed and built certain units that became part of the C-135 Airborne Laser Lab and the G-2 Gulfstream, etc. Standards were extremely high.

From the little I have seen in pictures (such as the attach points of the wing-spar pictured in the Eclipse official website), I do not have confidence that good design practices were exercised. But there is much that I cannot examine, and I must give others the benefit of the doubt.

However, safety must be both a "reality" and "perceived" by the people who use this equipment. Without "both", there is no product. This little jet may be proven safe, time will tell. Then, to work on "perception".

But they didn't ask me, so my opinion is worth about the cost of this email, and nothing more.


bambazonke said...

EB, maybe he will be, however to put matters in perspective, he made a similar post in December about a trip to the factory and how close everything was then...

Another little tidbit, perhaps you have heard this.. EAC to get the speed numbers have had P&W boost the engine above the original spec, this has a toll though on the back end, because this affects the warranty that P&W offered in the original package...any thoughts?

EclipseBlogger said...

No, I haven't heard that. If true it should be pretty evident when the warrantee info is in final public view and should the TBO be less than the 3500 hrs previously announced.

EclipseBlogger said...

By the way, Mike Press does tend to share a very positive view as he is making a living from the secondary market. What I found more interesting were his comments on the training, which is why I posted it.

Planet eX said...

I've seen no mention of RVSM pilot, maintenance and operation requirements on the Eclipse.

Is EAC assisting future operators of this aircraft in that endeavor? Otherwise, there's going to be a bunch of airplanes cruising around below FL290.

bambazonke said...

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.

Gunner said...

Thanks very much for the explanation and analysis.

Do you read the EAC Release the way I do? That is, do you see it as a claim that they have met their speed and range commitment and the issue of Performance Default is behind them?

bambazonke said...


I read their release a couple of ways. For those waiting on the delivery of a plane it is EAC saying; we have been diligently working on providing you more than you bargained for. The deposits went hard some time back, this is when KKA came out of the closet and told the world the plane did not meet the promised values, deposit holders had until the end of July I think it was to bail or stay in the program.

This latest bs is a cover up for what is really going on in ABQ, I understand the re write of their internal procedures was immense after the first audit, it was so out of kilter. Of course this probably means johnny fed is going to look a lot closer on the second audit.

The question of MCT bothers me. EAC have in the past come out an outright said the MCT range would be 1125 nm. It is clear now that this is only achievable at a low thrust power setting in an average 74 knot tail wind component. If they have indeed upped the thrust rating on the engine to get the 370 knots, what is the range at MCT at FL-330? Using very basic and rule of thumb calculations, I come up with a LRC range of 905 miles. However, event this would be suspect as there are factors that would need to be taken into account , such as would the specific fuel burn be the same in a zero wind condition with 244 TAS? I don't know this is above my pay scale, but I wouldn't mind betting a beer that the numbers don't improve..

One can only assume that they cannot come clean and save the program, all these restrictions on who can see the POH and lack of disclosure on their part, leads to this kind of speculation that we see on this board. When we do get numbers that can be correlated to independent sources and they do not jive, adding to the possibility of a massive fraud underway here.

I heard that the first training class is only scheduled for March, this tells me that there is probably not going to be a PC issued until that time frame. BTW, March 2007 in case these dates are a little confusing ;-)

Anyway as always, just one persons POV and opinion.

Jet_fumes said...

Bambazonke, I agree with your comments except that the NBAA range for part 23 turbofans lists an alternate of 100nm, not 200nm.
That's at least the interpretation of B/CA, which is generally accepted.