Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

How to lose your plane and 35 000 Euro

mh wrote:

So… you think your experience weighs more than that of another customer?

I’m afraid you are missing the point. But lets start with the facts. Here is your post:

mh wrote:

Katamarino wrote: to warn people to do very thorough due diligence before any agreement with this installer

… or with this customer. Hard to decide, if you get to know only one side.

You were not talking about your professional experience with Jesse, You attacked an innocent person whom, for all I know, you have never met and had no direct relationship with.

mh wrote:

Jesse is not on this forum and can’t possibly defend himself

Jesse can publish whatever he wants and whenever he wants. I will not point my finger at who posts for him. Some of these people are honest enough to admit that Jesse kindly asked them to publish this and that. So they did it.
Aspen Avionics can publish “the other side of the story” too. They can defend their installer, dealer and commercial practices

But as we are chatting so enjoyably, let me show you something:

Jesse was very busy and together with the Robin’s owner they discussed when it would be possible to start work. It was your plane that was shifted and thanks to you the whole project started almost 3 weeks earlier then planned

LFCL, France

Emir wrote:

I’m not sure this is correct. Maybe I missed it but @Peter and @David will know more.

Maybe he is not anymore, but he was.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_again, I’m not sure what axe you have to grind here, but you don’t seem to be adding much to the actual discussion. As has already been stated very clearly, Jesse certainly wasn’t banned at the time this thread started and still isn’t. S/he can respond whenever they like.

EGTR / London, United Kingdom

ch.ess wrote:

We dont put someone in a pillory based on a single complaint, in particular where the length of the story and its complexity suggests that there may be more aspects to it.

I think I owe you an explanation. I tried to present all aspects and source documents, so the description took up a lot of space, but the story can be told literally in a few points. Here:

ch.ess wrote:

The faxt alone that the legal route was apparently easy for JP and not possible for you makes me cautious.

Let me ask you a couple of questions:
how many freelance Part 66 mechanics / installers do you know. I mean personally?
how many of them established and conduct business through several companies?
Among them, how many established a holding on top of those companies?
I personally do not know any such person, but I know that this is how Jesse operates. I already published the relevant link to the Dutch business registry.
Now add to that the fact that Aspen Avionics in official, I mean signed letters maintains that the equipment was sold through their official dealer. If you would click on the dealers name on Aspen website, you would be redirected to Jesse, not the dealer

The fact is that the Aspen manufactured equipment is sold by one of Jesse’s companies. As far as I know, the lawyer hired by the owner checked those companies and stated that there is no capital in them.
Does this mean that a legal route is impossible?

One last point:
The Robin flew +600 miles from his base to the EHMZ airport. Another country, a different language, a different legal system.
Fire up your Sky demon or Easy VFR and find some grass airport located more than 600 NM from where your base is. Make sure it’s not near any major city. Now imagine that this is where the very friendly avionics installer operates. Now try to fight a legal battle over there

LFCL, France

I don’t want to make any judgement or take any side in this sorry state of business.

If the customer is a private consumer and not a business, he has certain rights as a consumer that the small print of the general sales conditions of the supplier cannot negate. I suggest you take a look at the website: They are the Dutch Consumer Protection Authority and you can ask them directly for help or information about your rights.
If the delivery of the goods is not within reasonable time at the agreed price, you , as a consumer, have certain rights.


Very interesting thread. A couple of observations:
1 All parties that are involved should unmask themselves and not speak behind fake names. We in the US have become very sensitized to faking. In Europe you too should become sensitized to it as well. Perhaps the injured individual does not want to be sued and waste more money on a problem already costing him dearly.

2 All parties that have a business relationship with Jessie should make it known that they do have such a relationship and exactly what it is when putting their 2 cents into the thread. This will make clear to the rest of us that they have a vested interest or not and we can therefore take what these people say with a grain of salt or not.

3 The injured party certainly has put up proof upon proof to evidence his injury. With email correspondence etc. as proof in the court of public opinion that is good. A complaint without any evidence as to the claim is not very credible.

4 Any shop which has multiple layers of Corp limited lability companies needs to be looked at with great caution. That to me is a major Red Flag.

5 The Accused party not responding bods ill for his case. Why should any of us take a chance and go to a shop that seems, as the Brits say, doggy?


Actually the word is “dodgy” but you make very good points.

Forever learning

Doggy is with an American Accent


C210_Flyer wrote:

The Accused party not responding bods ill for his case.

A cynic might say that there is no need to respond or explain anything if you just sow uncertainty and doubt while making sure that the resulting outcome would be well received by a significant % of readers. Example here:

Cory_Relling_Aspen_Avionics wrote:

I am sure that you are aware that there are two sides to every story

it seems that for many of us here, this simple argument was convincing and sufficient.

LFCL, France

Unfortunately Jesse can’t respond in this forum even if he wanted to.

From an e-mail to me from Peter in March 2017:
[ posting contents of private emails is not permitted by forum rules ]

I tried to assist in resolving this issue with conversations with both Jesse and the aircraft owner. 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 still happy to advise on solutions if either party want to contact me.

Last Edited by wigglyamp at 25 Feb 19:55
Avionics geek.
Fairoaks. EGTF
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top