Did the FAA rush through the Eclipse?

Keith Lane

Keith Lane

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
1,637
Location
Conyers, Georgia
Display Name
Display name:
Keith Lane
An internal review completed earlier (last week?) found that the processes were followed but that internal communication was poor.

I note that the grievances filed that kicked this whole review off were filed by NATCA (who represents the airworthiness guys as well as controllers).

Looking forward to more comments.
 
Not surprisingly, I tend to agree with Tim.

The problems that have surfaced so far in the operation of the airplane have not been anything that doesn't plague pretty much all airplanes in the early going. In the case of Eclipse, the data logging function is actually making it easier for Eclipse to detect potential problems than the tombstone engineering we've come to expect in aviation.

While the designers have made some choices I perhaps would not have made, I have seen no evidence that it does not meet certification standards in the U.S. Now, there may be some second-guessing with respect to things like electrical failures and backup instruments, but that is, as far as I know, limited to issues that the certification standards did not address, given that those standards were written at a time when an all-digital airplane was the stuff of science fiction. Can't blame Eclipse for that.
 
Shouldn't some of these issues have been foreseen given glass cockpits have been under design and redesign for several years? The concept is really only new to the lower end GA aircraft.
 
Does the funny stuff at the end (of the cert process) pass the smell test? After two years, shouldn't they be delivering, or at least flying, one that is completed to the normally accepted definition of completed? I have no bone to pick with Eclipse, other than that their credibility regarding anything regarding the airplane has long since evaporated.

Ken Ibold said:
Not surprisingly, I tend to agree with Tim.

The problems that have surfaced so far in the operation of the airplane have not been anything that doesn't plague pretty much all airplanes in the early going. In the case of Eclipse, the data logging function is actually making it easier for Eclipse to detect potential problems than the tombstone engineering we've come to expect in aviation.

While the designers have made some choices I perhaps would not have made, I have seen no evidence that it does not meet certification standards in the U.S. Now, there may be some second-guessing with respect to things like electrical failures and backup instruments, but that is, as far as I know, limited to issues that the certification standards did not address, given that those standards were written at a time when an all-digital airplane was the stuff of science fiction. Can't blame Eclipse for that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Does the funny stuff at the end pass the smell test? After two years, shouldn't they be delivering, or at least flying, one that is completed to the normally accepted definition of completed? I have no bone to pick with Eclipse, other than that their credibility regarding anything regarding the airplane has long since evaporated.
Click to expand...
There are several flying though I don't know how many are actually in customer's hands. The FAA database shows 263 Eclipse 500 registered. I've seen two separate birds show up at the FBO over the last few weeks.
 
I am reminded that by the time something gets to a congressional hearing - it's normally as rigidly controlled as a Kabuki play. Everyone is going to speak their piece, and nobody is interested in learning anything new. They should really call them "speakings".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top