Unfortunately Jesse can’t respond in this forum even if he wanted to.
Sure he can. As I said back in October 2018 when the thread started, he isn’t banned.
I’m not discussing other users’ accounts other than to say he isn’t banned and wasn’t in October either.
The owner didn t understand Jesse s need to have an EASA form 123 signed to accept a relocation of an antenna, something very straightforward, and from there, everything went downhill.
I’m afraid Jesse didn’t tell you the complete story and certainly you didn’t take the time to read my story. Did you?
Just for clarification than: Everything went downhill when Jesse tricked the owner into paying 20 000 Euros for equipment with no STC in sight. And at the same time promising completed installation within 1 to 2 months.
Even people at Aspen Avioncis were surprised that someone purchased the equipment without the STC
Then Jesse tricked the owner into paying him even more, then happend this:
Coming back to the antennas. In September 2017 Jesse promised to owner that he had filed EASA minor change for GTN installation in DR253. Same approval as you have for DR400 but for DR253. In march 2018, Jesse changed his mind and decided that GTN would be installed as per CS-STAN and forced the owner into accepting same approval for antennas.
“On 21 Mar 2018, at 19:32, Jesse, JP Avionics <[email protected]> wrote:
The EASA approval is not been received yet.
Op 21 maart 2018 om 19:28 schreef XXX
I m under impression that you filed minor change request long time ago. You told me there were several versions of the request and the last one according to my notes was filed at the and of January this year. At least that s what you told me.
At the end of February I asked you to call EASA and inquire what s the status of this minor change. I even sent you the appropriate phone number. Guys at EASA would not tell me anything because I don t have the project number which you received when you filed the document.
3 weeks have gone by since I asked. Did you take action? What is the status of minor change?
On 21 Mar 2018, at 18:56, Jesse, JP Avionics <[email protected]> wrote:
I think you misunderstood my question, based on your question on EuroGA.
You asked for a time frame and who is responsible for what. Without your approval, I can not perform the CS-STAN. It requires both the signature of the installer, as well as the signature of the aircraft owner.
Basically it works like this, I propose this location, if you agree you can sign the CS-STAN document, your responsible for that on a time scale figure. I am still responsible for the work performed.
The alternative is that you don’t sign the document, then EASA must approve the antenna location, using classic minor change approval. However they will charge you 290 Euro for this.""
The owner was not expected to approve location of antennas as per EASA for 123. Jesse was expected to get EASA minor change approved including location of antennas. What’s more, Jesse got paid upfront for installation of GTN.
The owner was not expected to approve location of antennas as per EASA for 123.
I may be stupid, but why couldn’t you just sign the document? It is cheaper and faster to have work done according to CS-STAN compared to a change approval from EASA.
From an e-mail to me from Peter in March 2017:
[ posting contents of private emails is not permitted by forum rules ]
pilotmark has posted several.
My email to wigglyamp contained nothing sensational, however. All he needs to do is read this thread, and the answer (re Jesse not being banned) has been posted several times. I have just timed it. It took me 55 seconds to see ~ 5 posts stating that Jesse is not banned. If there is some unknown technical reason why he is not responding, he knows how to get in contact.
A very sad story indeed and it shows that one cannot be carefull enough in selecting maintenance facilities and especially checking their reputation. It will propably take a lawyer several months and a sizable investment in legal costs to get the aircraft back and sue Vliegwerk for damages.
why couldn t you just sign the document? It is cheaper and faster to have work done according to CS-STAN compared to a change approval from EASA.
I do not know why such and not other decisions were made by the owner of the aircraft, but if I had to guess, the answer seems to be simple:
To not degrade the aircraft to Day VFR only.
Would you pay 35 000 Euro and fly your aircraft 600+ NM to downgrade it to Day VFR only?
If you would look at Jesses offer for GTN here:
it contains 3 approval modes:
1. STC which as Jesse stated has been in development at that time
2. EASA minor change
The last option was like the backstop. Never, ever to be used because it would render the aircraft Day only VFR. And we are talking about this installation:
In any case Jesse promised, that he successfully pushed several minor changes through EASA and getting a minor change for GTN for a Robin was was not something that others would not do before.
Time passed. The project stood still. At some point, Jesse suggested that he would get approval for the entire installation (Dual Aspen + GTN + GTX ) through EASA minor change. It was supposed to be Plan B in relation to the STC created by DOA.
On March the 8th Jesse confirmed that EASA approved location of RSM antennas also for his minor change.
A few weeks later, however, Jesse changed his mind, demanded approval of the GTN installation and antennas as CS-STAN. When the owner reminded him of the arrangements and stated from the very beginning expectation to get IFR capable plane, Jesse accused the owner that he was holding the project. And that he will bear the costs. As a result, the owner, having a gun aimed at his head, signed all the documents.
It will propably take a lawyer several months and a sizable investment in legal costs to get the aircraft back and sue Vliegwerk for damages
Depending on how you value your time, it is likely cheaper and will yield better results than to spend hours anonymously slagging someone off on the internet.