Standby Vacuum?

On 8/30/2005 8:55 PM, wrote the following:
Real intelligent. I guess I have my answer.


Actually, I was laughing because the only explanations I could come up with for
your cheap shot were either that (a) you have recently arrived here from another
planet or (b) that you are one of the bloodsuckers yourself. But I guess (c)
ignorance is always an option on the news groups.

But to answer your question more directly, in addition to many years experience
as a manager and business owner that has led me to understand these things,
consider the fact that the two companies have addresses 5.5 miles apart:

63354 Powell Butte Road Bend, OR 97701
1947 NE Curtis Bend, OR 97701

and

from the Precise Flight press release:

"... This new agreement will create an offsite facility for manufacturing,
customer service, order fulfillment and all marketing procedures..."

The keyword being, of course, "offsite." No one is saying "independently owned."

also The Vacuum Source's president was "a key member of the Precise Flight
sales team for the past 4 years"

and from The Vacuum Source:

"The company [The Vacuum Source] was established to offer products and
educational items dealing with primary vacuum source failures ... "

and

both companies TRACERT to the same ISP:

OrgName: OLM,LLC
OrgID: OLM
Address: 1980 University Lane
City: Lisle
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60532
Country: US

Kind of a coincidence that two totally independent companies in Bend, OR would
select the same hosting service in a couple thousand miles away in Illinois,
don't you think?

If you are really curious, you can go he

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_w...&p_print=FALSE

and order copies of the articles of incorporation. Then compare the names for
matches to:

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_w...&p_print=FALSE

That should be pretty definitive on whether they are a purpose-created shell or
not. My guess, as stated, is that they are. And for a good, logical reason:
Protection from the bloodsuckers.

Yes, I am a lawyer. As such, I am attuned to looking for logical proof
of an assertion. You have provided none. Being a manager and business
owner for "many" years qualifies for nothing other than something to do
with the specific area of your business. Your professed knowledge of
"these things", whatever "they" are, is so vague and general as to
render your opinion even more suspect. Moreover, your logic, if it can
be so charitibly characterised, is utterly backwards. If there were a
motive to insulate themselves from responsibility (i.e., liability) for
a defective product they would have been independently owned and not
have the nexus to the other company. The issue, however, is not that,
anyway; what and where are there ANY, ANY facts to support your rather
tired accusation that the actions were a reaction to so-called
bloodsuckers (and unsupported) allegations of overeaching by the
American justice system? If you truly knew anything about business,
you would know that these type of dual company setups are done
routinely for, primarily, tax and financial reasons way beyond the
scope of this newsgroup's interest area (which I entirely understand
and agree with), and too numerous to discuss, especially with people
who are more interested in generalities than cogency.

ROFL

wrote:
Yes, I am a lawyer. As such, I am attuned to looking for logical proof
of an assertion. You have provided none. Being a manager and business
owner for "many" years qualifies for nothing other than something to do
with the specific area of your business. Your professed knowledge of
"these things", whatever "they" are, is so vague and general as to
render your opinion even more suspect. Moreover, your logic, if it can
be so charitibly characterised, is utterly backwards. If there were a
motive to insulate themselves from responsibility (i.e., liability) for
a defective product they would have been independently owned and not
have the nexus to the other company. The issue, however, is not that,
anyway; what and where are there ANY, ANY facts to support your rather
tired accusation that the actions were a reaction to so-called
bloodsuckers (and unsupported) allegations of overeaching by the
American justice system? If you truly knew anything about business,
you would know that these type of dual company setups are done
routinely for, primarily, tax and financial reasons way beyond the
scope of this newsgroup's interest area (which I entirely understand
and agree with), and too numerous to discuss, especially with people
who are more interested in generalities than cogency.

Thank you for conceding the merits.

Which is why the Precise Flight standby systems include a low-vacuum
annunciator light.

Which merely gives you a false sense of confidence as the vacuum stays
on and the AI fails.

Since AI's fail as often as dry pumps (and far more often than wet
pumps) the low-vacuum annunciator light really doesn't help much.

The real solution would be a tiny magnet integrated into the vacuum
gyro and a tiny coil fixed in place. This would act as a generator,
and would likely make enough juice to keep an LED lit. LED goes out -
problem. Doesn't matter whether it's a failed AI or failed vacuum.

Now good luck getting that certified for GA at any sort of reasonable
price.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Now good luck getting that certified for GA at any sort of reasonable
price.

In looking at some AIs and TCs, I did note at least one product where the
flag is based not upon power but upon the rate of spin of the gyro.

This was the Mid Continental 1394T100-7A according to my notes.

- Andrew

Wound a little tight, are we? Remember in high school how they told you to
break your writings into paragraphs to improve readability? Oh, and in law
school when they told you about sticking to the facts? I made no accusations.
I simply said it was likely. And I continue to believe that.

Your response is like us standing together in the rain and you asking me to
PROVE that it is raining. As I said, ROFL.

But -- please post again. Tell us how all the PI lawyers are really members of
the Mother Teresa Society and are unwittingly getting rich out of selfless love
for humanity. Challenge me to prove that it is not so. This is getting to be
hilarious.

On 8/31/2005 9:36 PM, wrote the following:
Yes, I am a lawyer. As such, I am attuned to looking for logical proof
of an assertion. You have provided none. Being a manager and business
owner for "many" years qualifies for nothing other than something to do
with the specific area of your business. Your professed knowledge of
"these things", whatever "they" are, is so vague and general as to
render your opinion even more suspect. Moreover, your logic, if it can
be so charitibly characterised, is utterly backwards. If there were a
motive to insulate themselves from responsibility (i.e., liability) for
a defective product they would have been independently owned and not
have the nexus to the other company. The issue, however, is not that,
anyway; what and where are there ANY, ANY facts to support your rather
tired accusation that the actions were a reaction to so-called
bloodsuckers (and unsupported) allegations of overeaching by the
American justice system? If you truly knew anything about business,
you would know that these type of dual company setups are done
routinely for, primarily, tax and financial reasons way beyond the
scope of this newsgroup's interest area (which I entirely understand
and agree with), and too numerous to discuss, especially with people
who are more interested in generalities than cogency.