I wrote this a while back:

http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/2 ... new/36117/

Where does the Phenom 100 fit into these comparisons???

Not my league either but I would have a real hard time keeping my mouth shut! Don't all those noise makers have a kill button that leaves you with some independent air data with which to fly the plane? What about reliable redundancy? After your episode in life with the Baron ditching in the GOM I think I would be looking for something a little more sane. Personally I like straight and level with few potential distractions. Just one AP kick out and I went looking for fixes in my plane. I can't imagine having to put up with that sort of idiosyncrasy in a plane. PL

I filed a NASA report, and called Eclipse, as I recall.

For the lawyers in the group, would these practices pass legal muster if challenged based on antitrust or monopoly or price fixing grounds??? May be a stupid question but I'm no Ben Matlock.

Thanks.

It's actually a great airplane. You just need to pay attention, because you never know when it's going to throw a little fit. I enjoy the excitement.

Also, FWIW, a respected member of BT (Kent Ewing) and former Eclipse Test Pilot said that the AOA tube problem is due to EAI seeking out the lowest bidder. Apparently Harco keeps delivering a garbage product. That makes sense to me because I have seen bad ones out of the brand new box! (~$10k as I recall, but prices change daily with Eclipse.)

I have been watching this thread silently with keen interest. Without a doubt, the Eclipse Jet with all the upgrades and improvements, is a great airplane.

I also know first hand that the tech support from Eclipse is good (I know a few techs that work there). The company is small enough that you can develop relationships with folks that work there and they have been known to give out their cell phone numbers so you can call them with problems at night or on weekends.

However, it appears to me that the issue we are talking about is a response to some of the changes we are seeing throughout the industry and not something that is exclusive to Eclipse Aerospace.

A majority of the Corporate Jet OEM's have already begun to institute similar policies and procedures. A certain OEM (which I will not name) has begun to charge customers for simply calling them to ask a question. They ask for your account number when you call!! Want to call the manufacturer of the part direct to get support? Sorry no can do! Did you "re-dye" the leather on your cabin seats using an FAA Approved shop and procedures? Sorry that is not approved - aircraft is grounded at the manufacturers service center, and all the seats need to be redone (No S..H..I..T) And these are NOT Eclipse examples!

This is really about legacy aircraft and the "old" way, versus new airplanes and a "new" way of doing business. All I am saying here is that things are changing - the OEM's are run by accountants and analysts and not aviation enthusiasts of the past. They are looking to rub two pennies together just like you are in your own businesses.

My point is that If you are into tinkering, and hot rodding, or simply enjoy the aspect of shopping around and telling folks how you got a great deal on this or that part (Like Me!!)….I recommend sticking to older legacy aircraft (especially Bo's and Barons!!!) where a tertiary support infrastructure already exists.

But if you want the newest, most efficient, and most technologically advanced aircraft - with the most modern capabilities and safety features - this may well be the price of admission. If the OEM charges more for this or that, but reciprocates with top notch 24/7 service and support - then it may be a fair deal.

And if the OEM of your choice has not instituted these types of policies yet - it may be only a matter of time.

Legacy or New - Vote with your dollars!

No, price fixing requires control of a market. Defining the market is sometimes hazy. (A famous case hinged on whether saran wrap and waxed paper were part of the same "market") In this case, presumably the SETPs, Mustang and Phenom 100 would be substantially similar enough so that Eclipse does not control the market. People have opportunities to vote with their feet and take their business elsewhere. They don't HAVE to buy an Eclipse or go without anything that can fly an Eclipse mission.

Mr. Coleman- That is an excellent post. It seems the same has also proven true with auto manufacturers. One car I own, the service manager at the dealership actually told me that if I purchased tires elsewhere (the same model Pirelli tires- different according to him) that it would ruin the differentials! Do I look stupid?? It reminded me exactly of when the CEO of Eclipse told me that if you take a part off another Eclipse, it will not work. (an outflow valve, specifically?!)

Why are you unwilling to share the name of this manufacturer?

Ted,

If the part was in good working condition and appropriately removed from the donor aircraft, and the repair station that is working on your aircraft has the capability of inspecting the part and determining that the part is serviceable prior to reinstallation on your aircraft then you would be correct.

Dave

He said "would not work"
You're talking more about paperwork and legality. Not functionality.

Of course there is a redundancy. The Eclipse has three completely independent air data systems. By design, when one of them fails, the system notifies you with a caution. You use the other two to fly, and there is a procedure to kill the caution messages once you determine which air data system has failed, which typically is done by referencing the third, or standby, system.

It does indeed make some noise (the caution tone for the air data failure--you can instantly suppress that; the stall warning if the air data failure leads to a false stall indication). The AFM procedure tells you how to isolate the bad system and turn it off, suppressing any false stall warnings it was generating.

As with all things aviation, you fly the airplane first, then diagnose the problem using the standby air data probe for reference, then fix the problem.

BTW notice in Ted's picture that the attitude indication is completely appropriate. In a way, the Air France crash did us all a big favor by highlighting that in the presence of erroneous air data information, the pilot has to be able to fly pitch and power.

Ken

And when you AP kicks off and you are hand flying in RVSM airspace you are supposed to notify ATC that you are now negative RVSM and to descend out of RVSM airspace.