Main

June 18, 2007

Fact Checkers Needed at the NYT

U.S. Eyes Antiterror Rules for Small Jets and Boats - New York Times

Many pilots maintain adamantly that their small planes pose only a very modest threat: a four-seat, single-engine Cessna weighs about the same as a medium-size S.U.V. And the industry is represented by a lobbying group — the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association — that is known for its campaigns to preserve liberties and that is indeed sometimes referred to as the “N.R.A. of the air.”

Cessna 172SP Maximum T/O Weight: 2450 lbs (ref)
Acura MDX Curb Weight: 4539 lbs (ref)

Note that I'm comparing the empty weight of the MDX with the MAXIMUM weight of the Cessna. I picked the MDX out of Edmunds list of mid-sized SUVs because 'Acura' is listed at the top. Perhaps lighter mid-sized SUVs exist, but I would guess that the MDX is typical.

Perhaps at the New York Times they think "about the same" and "half as much" are synonyms.

July 8, 2005

Mmm Lust

Aviation Technology Group, Inc.

Maybe if I'm a very good boy Santa will get me one of these for Christmas.

June 14, 2005

Excel Jet

I've recently come across a new player in the VLJ market, Excel Jet. This company is run by the designer of the Maverick Leader, but apparently he is not associated with Maverick any longer. Given the similarities between the two jets I wonder if there will be IP issues between the two companies at any point in the future, or has that already been worked out between Excel Jet and Maverick?

The Excel Jet is different from the other VLJ offerings primarily in that it is a single-engine jet aircraft rather than a twin. I assume that it is this smaller single-engine design, combined with a smaller seat capacity that allows a target price less than one million, compares with Eclipse's $1.3 million dollar price tag.

Press reports indicate a projected certification date by the end of next year and a first flight within this quarter, but the paucity of information on the Excel Jet website leads me to be rather suspicious of this claim.

We'll see.

May 15, 2005

More recent brainstorming

People generally know what the difference is between working at a big company and a startup, but often there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the distinction between a 'small business' and a 'startup'. The difference between a small business and a startup is actually greater than the difference between a startup and a big company, but somehow people think that since startups have the same number of employees as small businesses, they are more alike.

The key distinction, of course, is that a startup will not be a startup for long. It will either be shut down, sold to a bigger company, or become a big company itself. A small business, on the other hand, is a small business forever. The definition then lies in the growth potential. Small businesses have no significant growth potential while startups are created on the premise of growth potential. (Whether or not that growth potential is actually there of course is not always clear.)

I have not had any luck in my discussions and thinking about potential aviation startups. None of the ideas I have had seem promising, nor do any of the startups I have been in contact with seem like they are a good fit for me.

I'm led to wonder then if my temperament really is suited to startups or not. As I've already noted, there is this popular misconception that startups are like small businesses. That you don't have to play the big company game to run a startup. That is of course false. If anything, putting together a startup requires more ass-kissing and politicking than being in a big company. It's just a different kind of ass-kissing and politicking, because rather than kissing ass within one's own organization, one has to kiss ass to investors and politick within the investor community to raise funds. I have noticed that I do not appreciate having to convince other people of my worth. I like making products and selling them to customers, not convincing investors that these products will be sold to these customers. C2Net worked well because all I had to do to be successful was make products and sell them to customers. We were able to self-fund, so I did not have to actually convince investors that the customers would buy the product, I just had to sell the product, which I did well.

So does that mean I should go the small business route? That's certainly quite a change in perspective, because having been in the startup world and having sold my first company for a good sum, I have always expected that my future projects would also be in the startup world and also be in the high-income realm. But if C2Net was an exception and if I am not suited to startups, then perhaps I am better off coming up with a plan that's a small business, not a startup.

April 6, 2005

Personal Jet Roundup

Now that I have to come up with a plan much more quickly than I had previously anticipated, I'll make more detailed posts here about various aspects of the aviation and private space industries as a form of brainstorming. So this post will discuss some elements of the upcoming personal jet revolution and things I have learned recently.

Flight school of course was a quite enlightening conference, both from the manufacturing angle on the aircraft side as well as the service angle on the air taxi side. Vern Raburn and Rick Adam from Eclipse and Adam Aircraft respectively were both there. Raburn is focusing more intently on the high volume air taxi business, shooting for a production capacity in the thousands per year and a one million dollar pricepoint, while Adam on the other hand is looking at lower volume, staying in the owner/operator GA market, and a higher pricepoint of two million dollars. The A700 will be a more luxury-oriented craft, larger, more expensive, while the Eclipse 500, suited to its purpose as an airtaxi, while comfortable, will be more utilitarian.

I was struck by Raburn's confidence. He predicted, with certainty, that the Eclipse 500 will be certified by March 30th, 2006. A conference attendee who has put down a deposit for a pair of Eclipses has told me that Eclipse has actually pushed the promised delivery date for his aircraft forward by six months from the original date he was promised. Eclipse is very much on top of their production schedule.

Adam, on the other hand, promised certification of the A500 (the piston/prop precursor to the A700 jet) within a few weeks. Although the date is scheduled to be sooner, Adam was a bit vague, evoking less confidence. It does appear from a quick overview of the web page, that the aircraft is still not yet certified.

One other key distinction I beleive is that the Adam offering is a composite frame aircraft, while Eclipse's design relies on traditional aluminum construction. Until the recent airbus rudder incident, I would have said that the composite design was better, but more standard aluminum construction could actually result in a lower maintanence cost, if proper inspection of composite airframes becomes a significant issue, as the airbus rudder incident indicates may be the case.

The airtaxi discussions were quite illuminating. It was entertaining to watch Esther badger Edward Iacobucci, President of Jetson Systems, for being vague, hearing him say, "I'm not vague," and then hear him say a lot of very vague things. It appeared from what he was saying that Jetson systems was looking to be an industry analyst rather than an actual player in the air taxi market, and it took a while for me to understand that he actually planned on providing a service of some kind as well.

The most interesting distinction of course in the air taxi business model is the structure of the ownership of the aircraft. I learned that FAA regulations specify that the Part 135 certificate holder be the agent who holds authority and responsibility for the flight, and thus the FAA has been having problems with various air charter consolidators who have been acting as brokers but pretending to own their own fleets, when in fact the broker is not the Part 135 certificate holder. Pogo Jet plans to maintain direct ownership of its entire fleet, while Corporate Clipper seemed to be more agnostic about ownership. One problem that had been discussed was that if the broker/aggregator/dispatch did not own the fleet, then an individual operator could bump a fare for a higher-paying direct purchase. I failed to understand how that made sense, as such a problem could easily be resolved by a strong contract between the dispatch/consolidator and the operator or even an exclusive relationship. Not knowing enough about the FAA regulation, however, leads me to suspect that such a relationship may violate the relevant regulation relating to authority and responsibility for the flight, as such a contract may give that authority to the dispatcher, who is not the actual certificate holder.

I very much enjoyed Bruce Holmes's discussion of the future of general aviation and the challenges that the spread of personal jet travel will create. I agree that because most people using personal jets will be flying into primarily GA airports, in the short run these jets will not create a significant additional load on the already-overtaxed ATC, but of course we have to continue to be mindful of scalability issues and try to reform the ATC and airspace such that things do become scalable. He brought up too the fact that hypersonic suborbital travel would further complicate matters, because the trajectories of these spacecraft would be very different from traditional aviation flight paths. The confluence of IT people with aviation was particularly worthwhile in the case of scaling ATC because it seems pretty clear that ATC needs to shift from a centralized command-and-control architecture to a more scalable peer-to-peer architecture, a concept IT people are of course very familiar with. Translating internet concepts to aviation while also making sure we do not translate internet reliability to aviation will be a challenge.

I had great discussions with other people at the conference about the technology they have been developing and discussing as well. More about that later.