X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:25:50 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.110.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with SMTP id 3180186 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:21:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 26673 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Sep 2008 16:21:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=oXK0Oz4q6UYGqLPkzjVQKt0DzyqxN2OrMlMgRniTa2IsbyzGvDonCU+hNri8ilGxspKcr7Gz2nWr5meEv6apwSAC4TEoka0WdBeUAARmNQP/2TbTzOD/07Zh2Ine/WjU4Vb+JYGPbLwuByAI6KSMjYciqpwD8DJhsj5DBkIxGlE=; X-YMail-OSG: .FC93X4VM1lAPcIrvbZ0OK0tHq63JsEC2sZojjmr0QxkufWOEnXpJ_FbdEqBYwL9fnhr3vFEzBnOh5m1.vYV2qfy8IFgoWxtp4rLQP75.r_mN7vtceCCCRUfa.950Tw1AUUJJfUtho425ZVsxQzz.FTkkk8p8OXJazMPEVbiOFUHTJVPWQ-- Received: from [71.31.134.99] by web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:21:31 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1096.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:21:31 -0700 (PDT) From: J H Webb Subject: Eclipse 500 X-Original-To: JH WEBB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1026367780-1221927691=:26497" X-Original-Message-ID: <673974.26497.qm@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --0-1026367780-1221927691=:26497 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was out there when the production certificate was awarded and commented t= hat I had seen better homebuilt aircraft (Experimental Category) and the FA= A has certificated this in normal category? AS someone who had worked for y= ears=A0in Experimental flight test and did primarily certification test wor= k, I found this approval rotten, dangerous, and very unacceptable. Even the= ir training was messed up.=A0My stick partner and I=A0complained to the man= ager of the training section and they shut down the school for a week to tr= y to fix the mess...=0A=A0=0AJack=0A=A0=0AAircraft Ownership =0AEclipse cer= tification premature, House committee says=0ABy Alton K. Marsh=0ADespite a = recent determination by an FAA review panel that the certification of the E= clipse Aviation 500 in 2006 was the =93right call,=94 the House aviation su= bcommittee said it disagreed during a Sept. 17 hearing.=0ABoth the aircraft= type certification and the production certificate were premature, accordin= g to a report from the aviation subcommittee of the U.S. House Transportati= on and Infrastructure Committee. The production certificate was awarded Apr= il 26, 2007, and the type certificate was awarded Sept. 30, 2006 (the last = day of the FAA fiscal year), despite warnings of problems with the aircraft= that continue today, the subcommittee said in a report. The FAA had set th= e Sept. 30, 2006, date as a deadline a year earlier because the agency want= ed to certify a very light jet by the end of the fiscal year.=0ARelated Sto= ries=0AFAA Eclipse certification was =91right call=92=0AEclipse supplier hi= t by AD=0AEclipse reorganizes corporate structure=0AEclipse 500: Typed and = Tried=0AThe report is partially based on interim findings by Department of = Transportation Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel and on research by Transp= ortation and Infrastructure investigators.=0AWhen David Downey, then-manage= r of the FAA Rotorcraft Certification Directorate in Fort Worth, Texas, ref= used to sign off on the production certificate in 2007 because he believed = Eclipse had not met the requirements, he was removed. (Despite its name, th= e directorate also had responsibility for the Eclipse 500.) Downey said he = was hit with a =93humiliating verbal assault in front of my employees.=94 W= hat followed was a seven-page letter of reprimand and a peer review that in= cluded the chief operating officer of Eclipse, the subcommittee report said= .=0ANicholas A. Sabatini, FAA associate administrator for aviation safety, = said it wasn=92t just one official that was booted off the production-certi= fication team=97it was two.=0A=93The management officials concluded that th= ese FAA professionals were frustrated with their interaction with their Ecl= ipse counterparts. Understandably, their frustration may have led to a lack= of objectivity=97a factor that FAA management appropriately considered,=94= Sabatini said. He asserted that the FAA did not certify an aircraft that i= t knew to be unsafe and did not give Eclipse =93...a pass on regulatory saf= ety requirements in order to meet delivery schedules.=94=0AScovel said the = FAA had a =93fill-in-the-blanks-later=94 approach to the certification. He = said the FAA took an =93accommodative approach=94 to what ultimately was a = =93calendar driven=94 certification effort. The certification effort was = =93removed from local officials,=94 Scovel said. He emphasized that his aud= it to date does not allege the Eclipse 500 is unsafe or that the FAA certif= ication process itself is flawed.=0AEclipse President and General Manager, = Manufacturing Division, Peg Billson said concerns about the Eclipse certifi= cation are based on misstatements, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. S= he said the company expects certification in Europe in a few weeks. Billson= told the committee that she did work her way up the levels of the FAA to o= btain clarity on the production certification process and asked FAA headqua= rters for assistance. She did admit to twice providing the FAA with an =93i= mmature=94 airplane that did not meet certification standards. =93We had so= me false starts,=94 she said.=0A=0A=0A --0-1026367780-1221927691=:26497 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A

I was out there when the p= roduction certificate was awarded and commented that I had seen better home= built aircraft (Experimental Category) and the FAA has certificated this in= normal category? AS someone who had worked for years in Experimental = flight test and did primarily certification test work, I found this approva= l rotten, dangerous, and very unacceptable. Even their training was messed = up. My stick partner and I complained to the manager of the train= ing section and they shut down the school for a week to try to fix the mess...

=0A

 

=0A

Ja= ck

=0A

 

=0A

Aircraft Ownership

=0A
=0A

Eclipse certificatio= n premature, House committee says

=0A

By Alton K. Mars= h

=0A

Despite a recent determination b= y an FAA review panel that the certification of the Eclipse Aviation 500 in= 2006 was the =93right call,=94 the House aviation subcommittee said it dis= agreed during a Sept. 17 hearing.

=0A

Both the aircraft type certifica= tion and the production certificate were premature, according to a report f= rom the aviation subcommittee of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastr= ucture Committee. The production certificate was awarded April 26, 2007, an= d the type certificate was awarded Sept. 30, 2006 (the last day of the FAA = fiscal year), despite warnings of problems with the aircraft that continue = today, the subcommittee said in a report. The FAA had set the Sept. 30, 2006, d= ate as a deadline a year earlier because the agency wanted to certify a ver= y light jet by the end of the fiscal year.

=0A
=0A=0A

Related Stories

=0A

FAA Eclipse certifi= cation was =91right call=92

=0A

Eclipse supplier hit by AD

= =0A

Eclipse reorganizes corporate structure

=0A

Ecl= ipse 500: Typed and Tried

=0A

The report is partially = based on interim findings by Department of Transportation Inspector General= Calvin L. Scovel and on research by Transportation and Infrastructure inve= stigators.

=0A

When David Downey, then-manager of the FAA Rotorcraft C= ertification Directorate in Fort Worth, Texas, refused to sign off on the p= roduction certificate in 2007 because he believed Eclipse had not met the r= equirements, he was removed. (Despite its name, the directorate also had re= sponsibility for the Eclipse 500.) Downey said he was hit with a =93humilia= ting verbal assault in front of my employees.=94 What followed was a seven-= page letter of reprimand and a peer review that included the chief operatin= g officer of Eclipse, the subcommittee report said.

=0A

Nicholas A. Sa= batini, FAA associate administrator for aviation safety, said it wasn=92t j= ust one official that was booted off the production-certification team=97it= was two.

=0A

=93The management officials concluded that these FAA pro= fessionals were frustrated with their interaction with their Eclipse counte= rparts. Understandably, their frustration may have led to a lack of objecti= vity=97a factor that FAA management appropriately considered,=94 Sabatini s= aid. He asserted that the FAA did not certify an aircraft that it knew to b= e unsafe and did not give Eclipse =93...a pass on regulatory safety require= ments in order to meet delivery schedules.=94

=0A

Scovel said the FAA = had a =93fill-in-the-blanks-later=94 approach to the certification. He said= the FAA took an =93accommodative approach=94 to what ultimately was a =93c= alendar driven=94 certification effort. The certification effort was =93rem= oved from local officials,=94 Scovel said. He emphasized that his audit to = date does not allege the Eclipse 500 is unsafe or that the FAA certificatio= n process itself is flawed.

=0A

Eclipse President and General Manager,= Manufacturing Division, Peg Billson said concerns about the Eclipse certif= ication are based on misstatements, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. = She said the company expects certification in Europe in a few weeks. Billso= n told the committee that she did work her way up the levels of the FAA to = obtain clarity on the production certification process and asked FAA headqu= arters for assistance. She did ad= mit to twice providing the FAA with an =93immature=94 airplane that = did not meet certification standa= rds. =93We had some false starts,=94 she said.

=
=0A=0A --0-1026367780-1221927691=:26497--