Lamb wrote that the current 28-year-old arrangement is "an anachronism that does a disservice to the institution and to the public…Congressional technicians are limited to taking static, head-on shots of the representative who's speaking at the podium."
Rules and established practices prevent cameras from taking individual reaction shots or from panning the chamber, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of what's happening in the House," he added.
"Kofi Annan has been a shameless appeaser of dictators and tyrants on the world stage and he was fundamentally opposed to the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq,".
Hmmmm, There is Something Missing….
What makes this slide extremely interesting is as much about what not shown as anything else, so we will give it special attention. While this slide is used as a simple attention-getter in preparation to the AF’s next point, it gives hints about so much of what has happened to the AF since 1989, while it avoids giving any information that would take the audience ‘off-message’. Indeed, the missing information must surely be considered ‘counter-message’ by HQAF.
As presented, this slide is little more than factoids on a timeline. To be useful as anything more, one needs to have a good grasp of the ‘whys’ behind the numbers. But an understanding of the ‘whys’ would also tend to subvert the AF’s message. Remember: The ‘message’ the AF is trying to sell is that 'force reshaping’ -- AKA force(d) reductions -- are necessary”!
There is a major intermediate ‘conceptual’ step that occurred between 1989 and 2006. Although a pure cynic might think it was skipped over only because it would be ‘counter message’, it was most likely not mentioned due to a combination of slide space considerations and the fact that in implementation, the intermediate step became little more than a whistle stop on the way to current force constructs, which would have made it harder to couch comparable numbers for that step on this slide. Therefore, I will generously chalk the omission up as due to chartsmanship and sloth instead of intent. As the AF suffered a major purge in 1993-7 (discussed below) it is also entirely possible that the 'functionary' that built the slide is a ‘newbie’ and has little or no awareness of what is missing.
Fact: Today’s ‘2006’ force construct is largely an outcome of Les Aspin’s (Clinton’s first SecDef) efforts to gut the military.
It is quite remarkable how much of our current perspectives on defense spending can be traced all the way back to Clinton, Aspin, and a Democrat-controlled Congress that was salivating at the thought of meting out the ‘Peace Dividend’ to their various pet projects and constituencies. If anything, the current force posture and the predicament the military is in are more than anything a clear statement about how disastrous and lasting the impact of an incompetent ideologue such as Aspin can be. This is what happens when a twit is given free reign over the DoD for even a short tenure (9 months!) by a feckless ‘party boy’ in the Oval Office.
Now: On to the missing piece!
The ‘step’ that is missing was ‘The Base Force’ (previously mentioned here, and for Lorna Jaffe’s definitive paper on the topic see here. What became "The Base Force" can be largely credited to then-JCS Chairman Colin Powell, and a few visionaries who picked up early on the decline of the Soviet Union and the impacts of President Reagan’s direct confrontation with the Evil Empire. Gen. Powell may not have been the originator, but he sure recognized the need and provided the horsepower that developed the Base Force concept.
The ‘Base Force’ construct was conceived as a rational way forward to draw down the size and composition of the post-Cold War military in a way that also allowed for future defense need uncertainties that the U.S would face as the sole remaining ‘superpower’. It wasn’t perfect of course, but it was at least based upon reasonable assumptions and prudence. At the time, Aspin was HASC Chairman---or rather I should say “was a HASC Chairman who envisioned that he alone understood what kind of military that was needed in the future”. Powell’s run-ins with Aspin on the subject were public and loud. I dare say it was one of the main reasons Aspin got the SecDef job, much to the chagrin of too many troopers in Somalia a short time later.
Overshadowing even his 'Blackhawk Down' moment in lasting impact, Aspin implemented what he called the ‘Bottom Up Review’ (BUR) which gamed all the analyses to arrive at the (his) predetermined conclusions. If Aspin got information he didn’t want, he ignored it: nothing would stop him from slashing the military to well below the levels required for the US to fulfill its superpower responsibilities and commitments.
While the objective of saving the almighty dollar was the most 'popular' excuse for this endeavor, in my opinion Aspin was determined to ‘demilitarize’ the US at any cost to our security and safety—and I stand on his voting record in Congress to say it.
Here’s a cheerful thought: The next Congress looks like it is going to be run by all the 60’s retreads who now have seniority, so expect ‘Aspinesque’ idiocy to be issuing forth soon. As far as National Defense needs go, we are entering another dark age. Remember, President George H. Bush lost re-election on the heels of fighting and winning exactly the kind of war the Base Force was designed to handle. But sometime between 1991 and the election in 1992 the winning political battle cry would become: “It’s the ‘The Economy Stupid”.
And so this chart rushes past any mention of “Why” we are continuing what might one day be acknowledged as our largest and longest running defense misstep in the 20th and possibly the 21st century: the gutting of the DoD (and the Air Force as a subset thereof).
There are a couple of gems here as well…
Force Sizing Basis
First, note the particular differences in ‘strategy’ as it is addressed in each column. This is a pretty ‘interesting’ summary of the decline in our national defense objectives over the last 15 years.
Reading across the top we can see that we are expected to believe we have gone from planning against an overarching known threat (threat-based), to a ‘capabilities-based’ planning approach, to a ‘capabilities-based & budget-constrained’ planning approach. If this wasn’t such a serious topic, this little twist on reality would be hilarious. Why? It is because even when we were using ‘threat-based’ planning, we were ‘budget-constrained’ --- as we (properly) have been since the end of WWII. Paul Kennedy’s fantasies aside, as a nation we have not had to choose between guns and butter since 1945.
What the ‘strategy’ line on the slide really tells us is that the AF 'leadership':
1. Cannot or is unwilling to make the case to expand the budget,
2. Cannot or is unwilling to even recognize the need to expand the budget, or
3. There are leadership 'factions' guilty of one or the other.
Basing Concept
I just LOVE this part. Now the AF is telling its Airmen that the ‘expeditionary’ concept so prominently employed today is only ‘semi-expeditionary’! So I suppose things are really going to be ‘expeditionary’ in the future?!
The ‘expeditionary’ idea was conceived as an option to deal with the reduced force structure and projected associated reduced overseas basing footprint (but didn’t have the neat shades-of-Black-Jack-Pershing moniker at the time). It became absolutely necessary in the wake of Aspin’s BUR debacle, and now AF management is calling today’s concept ‘semi-expeditionary’? If the current situation is ‘semi-expeditionary’ then ‘future expeditionary’ has to translate into English as: ‘permanently deployed’. Yep, I can see a lot of people wanting to spend 20-30 years forward-deployed. Good luck with that!
And so now HQAF sets up the audience for the bloody details by first spreading a little pablum:
Whoah!
This slide is…is…-- Well I’ll just hit each point they try to make and you can come to your own conclusions. The second row will be dealt with last because that is the ‘money shot’ as far as I’m concerned.
First Row: Environments
The 20th Century was 'predictable'? Outside of two world wars that were telegraphed to us from a long way off before we got involved, what exactly was predictable about it? The 20th Century was about ‘conventional’ threats? Again, outside the two world wars, what was ‘conventional’ about them?
The only thing that makes the 20th Century 'predictable' is that it is now ‘history’.
Asymmetric threats are a new problem? For reference, here are some asymmetrical threat situations that the US has had to deal with in the 20th Century:
Third Row: “Force vs. Effects Focus”
This line looks like a ‘slide filler’. Either that or a ‘Butter Bar’ with no prior enlisted experience wrote it. We were never ‘geographically focused’ except in the respect that we set our butts in geographic regions necessary to address whatever the national defense needs required. We had forces forward-deployed because the threat they faced was forward deployed AND leaning forward, and we had unilaterally decided to give them the initiative (lest we be thought of as "provacative"!) in any combat scenario: hence the term ‘tripwire’ to describe our (NATO’s) posture. We would give up too much too fast if we hadn’t also been ‘forward deployed’. My fighter squadron wasn’t in Iceland because of the beaches, fiords, or volcanoes. It was there because the Soviets were very keen on sending submarines, Bear bombers, and other players down the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap so they could operate off the coast of the United States (frequently at a surprisingly high tempo), and pull good duty in the Worker’s Paradise. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them as they came by.
“Effects Focus”?
We have always been an “effects-focused” force. We bomb = they die. This is just recognizing that the desired effects we’re looking for are somewhat different than before, or to put it another way: “We bomb = they die but also some other ‘they’ is ALSO terribly inconvenienced”. This is actually still an awfully abstract concept to be touting as a solution to anything. This concept has very vocal defenders and opponents in DoD, and what an “effects-based” air campaign looks like is still evolving. But it IS a really cool sounding concept so the term gets bandied about quite a bit.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ‘effects based’: the better we define the desired effects we wish to achieve, the better we can execute the mission to meet our objectives. But this represents less a paradigm shift than a six-sigma quality effort in force employment. Structuring one’s forces so that they are perpetually stressed by the "ops tempo" hardly promotes the ability to ‘adjust’ the force employment and deployment patterns in pursuit of the current desired ‘effect’, much less address new needs that can and will pop up.
‘Garrison Based’?
Operationally, the only advantage of forward deploying over forward basing is the cost savings from not having to move households and other infrastructure overhead, but even that isn’t a one-for-one-savings. Everything pretty much just changes ‘cost buckets’. For example, we can either pay to store bombs where we will operate or we pay extra to store them on pre-positioning ships or pay extra to ship them where we need them, when we need them.
We can pay to put the infrastructure in place where we need it, or pay a lot more to put less in
place when and where we need it. We could also pay more dearly in other ways when we don’t get it in place in time or at all. Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m actually for the US basing and forward deployment scheme as long as there is ‘enough’ Air Force to do the job over the long haul. The current path is only a good one as long as the world behaves in a way that is known and ‘hoped for’.
Fourth Row: “Trim the Fat”
This almost made the top of the list for reasons I will go into covering another slide later in the brief. At this time, just let us observe that for this aspect of the AF, the ‘20th Century’ ended about a decade earlier. Also please ask yourself the question: “If forward forces are ‘reaching back for support’, who are they reaching back to, if AF management is also gutting the home stations?”
The punch line at the bottom of the slide is good as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. It
should read:
This is a different Air Force we’re building…not “the same, but smaller”, and also a heck of a lot less capable and not nearly good enough to use as a
deterrent.
Seriously, this is eerily reminiscent of the early 90’s when we were looking at the post Cold War environment and were told something to the effect of:
In the past, it was ‘do more with less’, this time we’re going to ‘do less with
less’.
At least in the 90’s, AF ‘Leadership’ openly acknowledged the impact of the course we were taking. What a stark contrast to today’s AF ‘Management Team’.
And finally…..The Second Row: “Force Structure”
This is the most frightening bit in the whole brief, as it is an explicit admission that the AF on its current path will in the very near future NOT have the essential element of ‘mass’, and are consciously choosing to dispense with it. I’ve been on the bleeding-edge of operations research and have performed a ton of force employment studies. The number one question that is always asked is:
How many aimpoints can we service in X amount of time and how long can we keep it up?
To do well with either half of that question, the AF needs to be able to bring ‘Mass’ against it’s foes. Now the concept itself has changed somewhat in the sense we no longer need (for now) hundreds of platforms going against an industrial center in the hopes of hitting a couple of factories. But we still need the capability to strike many places at once, and do many missions at once, and do it over long distances. For all the above you need to have "mass".
To get the most out of any aerospace force, you need flexibility, precision, lethality, speed (airspeed, a subset of speed is only better to a point), and survivability/sustainability. If you want to be able to operate over a sustained period of time, or really press an advantage quickly, you need sufficient ‘numbers’ ladies! This slide tells me the AF is only planning on fighting wars against greatly inferior forces, which of course will only encourage undesirable behaviors in near-peer competitors, (or petty despots when they see us occupied elsewhere).
This line on the slide tells me that the 'leadership' either thinks we do not need mass anymore, and/or they really don’t understand the modern definition, or (most likely) is betting they can keep the hardware costs at bay until they can ‘afford it’ in the future. Any of these three beliefs should be completely unacceptable to any real commander of warfighters.
As Vegitus asserted "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." (loosely translated: “if you want peace, prepare for war”). It appears AF 'leadership’ has decided they want a ‘little peace’, so they’re only preparing for ‘little wars’.
Part 5 will be the last substantial post on the subject. If this had been an ‘external’ brief, instead of a sales pitch to the thousands of service men and women affected, most of the slides after this would have been ‘backup’ slides, but I will present those without a lot of comment to keep the full impact and thrust of this briefing in full view for posterity.
Check Six!
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" --Larry Niven
Given what we know: a. we’ve been hit before and b. we don’t always see them coming, I can think of no reason to characterize the near-term risk of a killer asteroid in any way other than ‘low probability – dire consequences’ = taking no preparation against a possible ‘killer asteroid’ should be considered ‘High Risk’.
Too many Republicans acting like Democrats,The good news (I suppose) is that there is no way Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her gang will behave for the next two minutes, much less the next two years. Like I noted above: Snakes just gotta be snakes.
Too many Liberals masquerading as Conservatives,
And the Media Snake (big media) was a Snake because that is all it knows how to be.
It was a horse race to be first with FAA certification, and in these past few months, some of the contenders crossed the finish line, while others reminded the market that they were very close.
"Very Light Jet" is a term that is pretty loosely defined at this time. Use of the label spills over into describing jets much larger than the Eclipse or Cessna entries.
A ‘dark-horse’ jet company suffered a major setback.
A Surprise ‘Big Business’ player appeared
‘Safety’ and ‘Capacity’ articles started appearing more regularly. Part in response to the challenges ahead, but also in response to the airline trade industry’s group, the ATA jockeying to ensure VLJs don’t create any more instability for their industry than already exists. (Good luck with that!)
Sweeping speculations on the relative safety of different forms of air travel have started making the rounds, in part because of the involvement of high profile pilots and passengers in some corporate jet incidents the last few years.
People are suing over reserved spots for delivery orders. I take this as a positive development as nothing attracts lawsuits like ‘success’!
Eclipse nearing FAA certification
…The Eclipse 500 -- a twin-engine, six-seat jet aircraft that will cost about $1.5 million -- is on track for FAA certification by the end of the quarter, Eclipse said Tuesday in a news release.
…Eclipse said its test fleet has exceeded 2,000 flight hours.
…The FAA has estimated 100 "very small jets" -- also called VSJs, ultra light jets or microjets -- will be produced by the end of the year and that in a decade nearly 5,000 such airplanes will be flying, an estimate the FAA says is "relatively conservative."
Eclipse building jets, hiring staff27 June 2006
...After years of work, and building five test jets to win Federal Aviation Administration certification, the first production jet is being built for delivery to a real customer. That customer is one of more than 2,000 people or companies who have already ordered their own jets and made deposits with Eclipse.
...“We'll be exiting the end of this year with production aircraft of just over one aircraft per day,” Eclipse CEO Vern Raburn said. “So we'll build about 86 planes this year and then about 606 airplanes next year.”
...The company plans to hire more than 300 more employees by the end of the year.
FAA announces next-generation air traffic control
…The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has announced that it is backing plans for new satellite technology to improve the safety and capacity of air transportation systems.
…The aviation industry as a whole welcomes the move, but the system will be introduced slowly in order to fully integrate processes and ensure a smooth transition, with passenger safety at the top of the agenda.
There's A BRS Chute in D-Jet's Future
…During a lavish and ornate Saturday night public unveiling of Diamond Aircraft's single-engine Williams FJ33 powered D-Jet GA jet, Diamond CEO Christian Dries (pictured below) confirmed to ANN that they have entered into an agreement to develop a BRS emergency aircraft parachute system for the D-Jet.
…First announced by Diamond Aircraft in January 2003, the single-engine Diamond "D-Jet" is powered by a single Williams FJ-33 turbofan, an engine also used in the upcoming twin-engine Adams A700 and ATG Javelin. The five-passenger D-Jet is expected to cruise at a maximum speed of 315 knots, at an altitude of 25,000 ft while offering a range of 1,351 nm -- which translates to a decidedly un-jetlike fuel burn around 34 gallons per hour.
…..The composite aircraft features a Garmin G1000 glass cockpit, which in basic configuration features a dual screen PFD/MFD with integrated GFC 700 autopilot. The optional enhanced avionics package adds a massive 15" MFD to the two 10" PFD's, a glare shield mounted autopilot controller for the GFC 700 and a center console mounted FMS controller.
Eclipse successfully tests first customer aircraft
…Eclipse Aviation has successfully tested the first production aircraft that is slated for delivery to a customer.
…Until now, Eclipse has operated a fleet of five test aircraft, accumulating more than 25-hundred flying hours. F-A-A certification was expected by late June, but delays by suppliers have pushed the date back twice this year.
Honda to Sell Commercial Jet
…The HondaJet cruises 10 percent faster, has a cabin that is 30 percent larger and a range that is about 40 percent greater on 14 percent less thrust than Cessna's CJI+ model, according to Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's AOPA Pilot magazine.
…The company began studying aeronautics to honor the memory of founder Soichiro Honda, who dreamed of building aircraft before he died in 1991, Koichi Kondo, chief executive of officer of Honda's North American unit, said in a January interview.
…"There was no grand strategy. It was kind of an emotional decision,'' Kondo said.
Experimental plane crash kills two in Spanish Fork1 September 2006
… An experimental plane crashed at the city airport Tuesday after takeoff, killing two people who worked for a company building the lightweight aircraft in Utah County.
…"This was the only one. We have to determine what went wrong," Blue said. Spectrum employs about 80 people in Spanish Fork. Blue said it was too early to know the impact on future production. Rocky Mountain Composites, Inc. of Spanish Fork and Spectrum Aeronautical in June celebrated the first public flight of the plane.
…The plane's composite carbon-fiber skin, produced by RMC, is what makes it different from other similar planes.
…Comparable jets weigh around 13,000 pounds, while the Spectrum is about 7,000 pounds. With the cost of fuel, the lightweight spectrum will be more appealing to pilots than similar planes.
Victims In UT Spectrum Jet Crash Identified
...Austin Blue, president of Spectrum Aeronautical LLC, identified the two victims of Tuesday afternoon's crash of the Spectrum 33 prototype as Glenn Maben, director of flight operations at Spectrum Aerospace LLC, and vice
director Nathan Forrest.
...The plane that was lost was the sole prototype of the very light jet, introduced last November at the NBAA Conference in Orlando, FL.
…About the same cabin size of Cessna's Citation CJ-2+ and offering up to 10-place seating, Spectrum Aerospace told ANN in January its VLJ entry offers top speeds in excess of 415-knots, non-stop range of 2,000 nautical miles yet weighs in at a low 7,300 pounds gross takeoff weight. At maximum weight, the 33 can reach its typical cruising altitude of 45,000 feet in a direct climb of only about 20 minutes.
…Linden Blue, CEO of Spectrum Aeronautical, told ANN at that time he had high hopes for the Spectrum 33 commenting, "Citations are out of my range, and Lears are certainly as well. So is the King Air. I figured if we could make something significantly different in terms of weight and cost, it was worth doing. If all we could do was make a Citation that was maybe 5 or 10 percent better, that's just beating your head against the wall -- you've got to make a substantial improvement or it's not worth doing."
...It is not yet known what impact Tuesday's loss of two valued members of the Spectrum team... and the prototype... will have on the program.
Update: Preliminary Report Identifies Improper Maintenance
Honda Partners With Piper!
…Not only has Honda committed to production of the innovative Honda TwinJet, but Piper has been named a a partner in a venture that will in part, result in the production of that aircraft in the United States.
…Honda confirmed their plans to enter the innovative HondaJet in the growing very light jet market, with the process of accepting sales orders expected to begin in the U.S. in fall 2006. Toward this goal, Honda will establish a new U.S. company to hold FAA type certification and production certification. Honda's goal is to complete type certification in about 3-4 years, followed by the start of production in the U.S.
…"Aviation has been an important dream of Honda for more than four decades," said Satoshi Toshida, senior managing director of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. "Our goal is consistent with the philosophy of other Honda products -- to provide convenient and efficient transportation that will make people's lives better. We are excited now to enter a new dimension of mobility."
….To date the prototype six-to-seven seat HondaJet has completed more than 240 hours of flight-testing since December 2003. So far, the prototype HondaJet has achieved an altitude of 43,000 feet and a speed of 412 knots and is on course to meet or exceed all of its design specifications.
More information on the Honda Jet here.
Eclipse Expects Fed Blessing; Full FAA Certification To Let Buyers Claim
Their Jets
...Eclipse Aviation expects full Federal Aviation Administration certification of its twin-engine jet within the next two weeks, president and CEO Vern Raburn said Tuesday.
...The company, which received provisional certification from the FAA in late July, had expected full certification of the $1.5 million Eclipse 500 by today.
...Since July, the company has been working on a handful of "IOUs" with the FAA, including the design and installation of new aluminum wingtip fuel tanks to replace composite tanks that failed a lightning test. The FAA still needs to complete testing of the Avio avionics system from Eclipse supplier Avidyne, which Raburn has said faced software development delays.
..."We're done except for one last thing," Raburn said.
...Upon full certification, customer delivery will begin "almost immediately," he said.
Eclipse Rival Cessna First VLJ with Full FAA Ticket
...Cessna Aircraft Co. reported Monday that it has received full Federal Aviation Administration type certification for its $2.6 million Citation Mustang jet. The certification, awarded about a month ahead of schedule, makes Cessna the first company to receive full FAA certification for a so-called "very light jet."
..."Market expansion is what we're all about," Broom said of Cessna's certification announcement. "A new avenue for people to utilize private aviation is nothing but good for the industry."
...Many believe VLJs, generally defined as jet aircraft weighing less than 10,000 pounds, will revolutionize aviation by bringing jet ownership and operation within reach of pilots and owners who previously would have been limited to prop-driven aircraft.
...Cessna first unveiled its Citation Mustang in 2002. The company plans to build and deliver 50 planes in 2007, and reports it has 250 orders on the books, which will sell out production through 2009.
...For comparison, Eclipse says it has about 2,500 orders on the books and plans much higher production - eventually up to 1,000 planes a year. The company has said volume production is key to the Eclipse 500's comparably low price.
Adam Aircraft Receives FAA Production Certificate
…the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Production Certificate to Adam Aircraft, giving the company approval to manufacture and deliver its A500 aircraft under an FAA-approved type design. This allows Adam Aircraft to accelerate production of the A500 by being able to inspect and apply standard airworthiness certificates under a system approved by the FAA. The FAA Production Certificate substantiates that Adam Aircraft's Quality System and manufacturing procedures meet the Federal Aviation Regulations.
…The A500 twin-engine piston aircraft has been Type Certified by the FAA, and the
A700 AdamJet is currently undergoing flight test and development.
Honda to Start Taking Orders for Small Business Jet Next Month
…Honda Motor Co., the world's largest engine maker, starts taking orders next month for a new small business jet as the Japanese company diversifies from its main auto, motorcycle and power products businesses.
…Sales of the seven-passenger HondaJet begin Oct. 17 at the National Business Aviation Association show in Orlando, Florida, spokeswoman Alicia Jones said today. Honda will announce the price and specifications for the jet then, she said.
…``It will be priced under $4 million,'' said Jones, with Honda's U.S. unit in Torrance, California.
…Competitors include Textron Inc.'s Cessna, Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica
SA and Eclipse Aviation Corp.
FAA, GA Leaders Agree On Impact Of Very Light Jets
…Jack Pelton, Chairman of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Chairman, President, and CEO of Cessna Aircraft Company, addressed recent concerns regarding the effects of the introduction of VLJs.
…"The introduction of VLJs will be at a rate in which they will be transparently and smoothly absorbed into the system.”
…"FAA officials, Nicholas Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, and Michael Cirillo, Vice President of Systems Operation Services within the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, agreed. They told the committee that the FAA has the capability to safely introduce all aircraft into the system, no matter the size, speed or performance. “VLJs will be assimilated into the system in an orderly fashion,” said Sabatini. Cirillo added, “Major airports will not be inundated with VLJs.”
…"This hearing has also completely discredited the myth propagated by the airlines that VLJs will place an undue burden on the national airspace system.”
Eclipse Aviation Gets E500 Certification3 October 2006
…Eclipse Aviation Corp. said its E500 "very light jet" has been fully certified by the Federal Aviation Administration - meaning the small aircraft are cleared for delivery to customers.
NBAA's Bolen Blasts ATA For 'Unfounded' Comments On VLJs
…Disputes Assertion Jets Will Be "Significant Burden" On NAS On Monday, the National Business Aviation Association came out swinging against allegations made by the Air Transport Association the emergence of very light jets (VLJs) would impose a burden on the nation's aviation infrastructure.
…As Aero-News reported, an official with the commercial airline lobbying group contended last week VLJs would be a "significant burden" in the aviation system, interfering with the operations of the commercial airlines. NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen (right) says ATA's statements simply don't hold water -- and what's more, several government officials have already said as much.
…"The unfounded comments by the ATA fly in the face not only of public statements by Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion Blakey but also congressional testimony by top FAA officials," said Bolen. "The fear-mongering by the airlines may be part of their broader strategy to pay less for air traffic services even as they try to seize control of the system."
…"The development of VLJ aircraft is good news on many levels," Bolen said. "Their introduction produces high-skill manufacturing jobs. They will help make many small and mid-sized companies more competitive. And, they will strengthen aviation services for many small communities. Those benefits should be the focus of discussion about VLJs."
Eclipse Aviation Sued By Swiss Customer
…Says VLJ Maker Delayed, Then Cancelled Order Despite great news from Eclipse Aviation in the past few days... there are a few flies in the ointment at the Albuquerque, NM-based planemaker. Aviace Limited -- a Swiss start-up jet charter company, and what would have been one of Eclipse's first big customers -- is suing the company, after it says Eclipse first delayed, then cancelled, a 112-plane order supposedly made four years ago.
...Aviace alleges the situation is all about money -- that Eclipse deliberately cancelled the order, so it could sell the same planes to another customer at greater profit.
...On Tuesday, US District Judge Christina Armijo denied a request by Aviace
for a temporary restraining order, according to the AP.
New Bizjets
…Calif.-based Spectrum Aeronautical is vowing to press ahead with the Spectrum 33 program, despite the fatal crash of its sole prototype on July 25.
…The NTSB found no evidence of any pre-existing failures of the airplane’s structure. However, “examination of the translation linkage on the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead revealed that it was connected in a manner that reversed the roll control…the linkage was connected such that left roll input from the sidesticks would have deflected the ailerons to produce right roll of the airplane, and right roll input from the sidesticks would have deflected the ailerons to produce left roll of the airplane.”
…“The nature of the accident didn’t call the Spectrum 33’s design characteristics into question,” Blue said. The next test aircraft will be closer to a “production configuration” and will be designed to ensure that the controls can never be misrigged, he noted. This aircraft is expected to fly next year.
…Spectrum plans to release more details at the NBAA Convention this month, where it will begin taking orders for the $3.65 million twinjet.
NBAA 2006: Meter's running - The air-taxi era in the USA
…At next week’s National Business Aviation Association convention in Orlando, Florida, the potential of the air-taxi sector will be one of the biggest themes, as the most talked about air-taxi operator and air-taxi aircraft – Florida’s DayJet and the newly certificated Eclipse 500 – get ready to begin service.
….The “air-taxi” epithet is convenient, but confusing. Each of the major services so far operating or planning to launch has a distinctive business model. Not all even call themselves air taxis. Only DayJet – which has 239 Eclipses on order – intends to immediately offer services on a per-seat basis. Although all of them plan to eventually operate VLJs, SATSair has built a successful regional business around the Carolinas and Virginia using SR22s. Linear Air, based near Boston, Massachusetts, has launched its service with Cessna Caravans, although it has 15 Eclipses on order. Some shun the air taxi moniker: Magnum, in Stamford, Connecticut – which has ordered 110 Adam A700s and 50 Embraer Phenom 100s – markets itself as an “air limousine” service; Point2Point of Bismark, North Dakota, another SR22 operator, insists it is a “personal airline”.
…Of all the new air-taxi business models, DayJet’s is the most radical – and risky.
…Iacobucci – a former associate of Eclipse Aviation founder Vern Raburn – has no doubt he has his sums right. Announced in 2002, DayJet plans to set up bases at a network of underused local airports, called DayPorts, from where it will try to match travellers who want to go from one to the other at roughly the same time.
href="http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/10/Navigation/177/209710/NBAA+2">16 October 2006
Spectrum Aero has some good news! I like what they're doing at the 'larger-VLJ' (for the lack of a better term) This is a pretty positive development from them that only adds to their credibility…GE-Honda Venture Gets First Customer for Jet Engine
…GE Honda Aero Engines LLC, a joint venture between General Electric Co. and Honda Motor Co., said plane maker Spectrum Aeronautical will be the first customer for its small, Honda-designed jet engine.
….Spectrum begins taking orders for its Freedom jet and the smaller, $3.65 million Independence model at the National Business Aviation Association convention in Orlando, Florida, starting tomorrow, Blue said.
….Honda will use the convention to start taking orders tomorrow for the HondaJet, its new entry in the light-jet market. Tokyo-based Honda also has said it may sell a small engine for propeller-driven aircraft.
Eclipse Wins Collier Trophy
Air Taxis: a Work in Progress
Eclipse Starts Production
The Air Taxi: Disruptive Innovation
The Air Taxi: Disruptive Innovation Part B
Air Taxis: The Players
Air Taxis: The Contenders
FAA Changes Improve Air Taxi Prospects
May-Oct 2006 Roundup on Very Light Jets & Air Taxis
'Those Hateful Airplanes'Now, 1) with a name like Demetra Delía, 2) living in Frisco, (they hate it when you call it ‘Frisco’) and 3) with a demonstrated penchant for carping about jet noise [aka the Sound of Freedom Baby!] I just KNEW Ms Delía had to have a good, even if somewhat short internet spoor trail to follow.....and I was right.
More fun from the letters column of the San Francisco Chronicle (fourth letter):Thank you, Fleet Week. My preschool-aged daughter, having heard your airplanes overhead all week, is now completely traumatized and afraid to go outside. She just heard a commercial airliner in the sky and ran inside shrieking, shaking, and trying to close all the windows and doors. We tried to have a fun family weekend enjoying free music in our park, but it was ruined by the thundering sound of those hateful airplanes overhead, forcing her (and most of the other children I saw) to throw her hands over her face and cower.Taranto notes:
If there is ever an opportunity for me to vote on any proposition keeping this ridiculous event and huge waste of resources from marring the skies of my city again, you can bet I'll be the first in line to get it voted in.
DEMETRA DELÍA
San Francisco
Apparently Demetra's little girl also is afraid of commercial planes, not just "hateful" military ones. Shouldn't parents try to help their children overcome such fears rather than wallow in them?
