|
|
Doug:
Thank you for helping to bring this critical problem to the attention of those most concerned. We at EPI are glad that EngineAir has decided to take some action on this important problem.
There is certainly no argument from me about Al Joniec having brought an excellent powerplant package to the marketplace.
A primary interest of EPI is that your powerplant package will continue to accumulate a good safety record. To that end, on June 30, 2002, EPI decided to GIVE EngineAir the design for the improved input shaft (p/n 790056) and amend the service bulletin. The drawings and process sheets for that shaft were delivered to EngineAir today (July 3, 2002) at 10:26 AM EDT.
There is no argument that certain of EngineAir's vendors have made improvements to our design. No reasonable person expects any complex new design to be flawless in it's first incarnation. As the product matures, you will doubtlessly find other improvements, just as you have had to do with your engine implementation.
And, as you said, Unexcelled Castings did a super job improving on our initial batch of 15 castings. (Remember, you paid me to go there to help?) Your supplier Perry Gear is recognized as one of the best gear houses in the entire country. Theirs were not the products to which I made reference.
Regarding your statement:
<<<...This posting occurred without any prior discussion with anyone at Engine Power Systems LLC and without any knowledge of the company's actions concerning the issues raised in the e-mail...>>>
Let me remind you that in a letter to you dated 5/21/2002, I plainly stated my concerns about the shaft (as detailed in the SB) and stated explicitly that I would issue a service bulletin and public notice if I was not made aware of EngineAir's action to address the issue. Six weeks later, having received NO notification, I did what I said I would do.
You also state:
<<<...you should communicate (your concerns) to the individuals using the gearbox, not in a public forum like the Lancair Mailing List...>>>
For the record, EPI has not been mady privy to your customer list, and therefore, the LML seemed to be an appropriate way to get the word out. With your help, it seems to have worked.
Later, you state:
<<<...Your belief that you can place a posting on the web, declare YOUR product
unairworthy, and then suggest that all parties should come to you with money
in hand for the fix borders on extortion...>>>
In point of fact, neither the LML notification e-mail nor the Service Bulletin makes any statement, explicit OR implicit, about "coming to us with money for the fix". In fact, the exact text of the recommendation was:
Contact EPI off line (jack@epi-eng.com) to obtain information about how to get the replacement part.
It was our intention to make an offer to replace the shafts in service, but since you claim that EngineAir is now handling the issue, we defer to your judgement.
(BTW, since November 2000, it has been YOUR product, and you have acknowledged modifying the design, so that is yours as well.)
We at EPI commend EngineAir's straightforward offer to act like Chrysler, Ford or GM and stand behind your product and issue the recall.
As you know full well, the reason we wanted to inspect the prototype every 100 hours is because a prototype, being the first one in existence, needs to be inspected regularly to try and catch any problems before they become failures. That's what prototypes are used for. Any responsible entity would want do at least that level of inspection on a prototype product.
You also know full well that the only significant difference between Zedaker's gearbox and the others we built is the gear ratio. Why you claim otherwise is a mystery to me.
I'm glad EngineAir has now decided to handle the issue.
Have a safe trip to Oshkosh.
Jack Kane
|
|