2009 ICS FBM Minutes & Tech Coord Presentation

[Scott Ducey]

Chris, I dont disagree with you. I just think we need to have more people willing to execute these ideas instead of talking about them. I think a shining example of this is what Pat Barry and the Aussie Tribe did with the heavy duty trunions. I know that this was accomplished outside what I outlined in my previous post, but a group of people, felt strongly about something and worked to get it resolved.

Again, I concur that we need to address the issues you speak of. We just need more people to help with them.

Happy New Year to you also.

Best Regards,

Scott Ducey

[jeffrey aryan]

To Scott and All,

I am not trying to just speak so I can hear myself. I am pointing out differences of opinions that I think are a better way for ICS to grow.

I know being a board member is a full time job and I wish I could attend the meetings and do things as a board member. But, unfortunately at this time I can't. That is why I don't run for office. I try to do my part by being available mainly to Hans. He is one of best friends and hanger neighbor.

The point I would like to make is this : With the year of 2010 as Chris Kuyoth has said. " Why aren't we conducting these meetings over the internet ". This would provide more communication and save money on travel. Then we could all attend more social events.

Thank you,

Jeff Aryan

[David Pyle]

Scott,

You and I have our differences and not to open old wounds, but since the foregoing was addressed to Chris, Jeff and me, here is my personal answer.

As far as I know you have never been to a board meeting. I'm not sure about a convention. I have attended board meetings for 12 years (not all), been a tribe chief, a convention planner twice, committee chair, ran for national office, and most recently have offered my services to Bernie for whatever he would like me to do, and that includes helping you and Kristin with FASC. I can not afford to travel the country on ICS business. I am not technically inclined, but I have owned and flown every kind of Comanche except a 400. I am a Comanche salesman and I write. Sometimes for the FLYER.

I am trying not to be critical, but one needs be around a little longer to understand how ICS works and sometimes doesn't work. Historically the ICS BOD doesn't do much and communicates less. A few members and some officers, as you mention, carry the burden. They are the heroes, and do get credit even if they do not aspire to office.

[Chris Kuyoth]

Scott,

I know what you are getting at when say there are too many talkers and not enough doers. When it comes to moving ICS toward a more technical/airworthiness focus, in many ways, talking is doing. It is called lobbying. Not everybody can be a US Congress-person or Senator, but if you want something, you make your voice heard through your representative or ultimately your vote. In the case of ICS, you can make your voice heard as a dues paying member. Since we are a relatively small group, a forum such as this is a great place to do it. If enough people speak up, it will be clear which direction the membership at large wishes to take the organization.

I do feel that our current leadership is doing a great job. I am sure they truly believe they are leading ICS in the direction that satisfies the majority of the membership. I also believe that the input as to what the membership is seeking, comes from a relatively small, close-knit group who seek more of a social focus. In my discussions with fellow ICS members, this is not what the majority is seeking. Perhaps it is a population sampling thing, since we all tend to gravitate toward like-minded folks, but given social gatherings or a reliable supply of replacement parts, social loses 100% of the time within my circle.

Social is fine, (I have come to terms with it), as a secondary focus. Every Comanche owner & ICS member that I know feels the same way. What is fustrating to me is that while everyone wants to hangar talk about it, no one seems to speak up within the ICS.

Kristin is chairing a committee to investigate how ICS can play a larger role in airworthiness support. I have offered to assist her even prior to her presentation at the FBM. Since she has not taken me up on that offer, I feel that I am contributing constructively by letting my voice be heard in support of Kristin's initiative and offering suggestions to the BOD as where to apply scarce resources at thier direction. Is this not better than sitting idle and letting the organization drift further from wants of the majority?

Chris

[jeffrey aryan]

[SLIMDREDGER]

Good Morning Bernie, Kristin, and all Comanche fans:

Last week in one of the Aviation newsletters I saw a brief news item stating that Piper Aircraft had in effect farmed out their parts business to Aviall. My understanding of the article was that this included ALL Piper parts support for ALL Piper aircraft.

It was also noted that Aviall is owned by Boeing.

If Aviall is in fact receiving the legal rights to build and market Piper parts, it would seem that we in ICS have a unique opportunity at this moment to see what type of cooperative arrangement might be worked out to insure that critical Comanche parts (the fuel valves, gear transmissions, horns, etc. that we are all finding difficult to find) will be maintained in their inventory.

Kristin's excellent overview outline of Technical Support issues notes the question of a paid ICS person to work on technical and parts issues. If Aviall is going to be an active Piper parts house, perhaps the parts aspect of this job would be covered by Aviall.

Given the facts noted above, my first thoughts are:

1. Do any ICS officers, technical support committe members, Comanche skilled FBOs, or Comanche Owners have any special access to contact Aviall management ? I think the sooner we can establish contact with them the better chance we have to gain their support in meeting our needs?

2. Would it be worthwhile to join with the Piper Owner's group, Short Wing Piper Club, Malibu clubs, etc. to approach Aviall?

I think it is important that we try to open communications with Aviall on this issue immediately, while they are in their planning stages. I have no contacts at all with them, but hope that somewhere in Comanche land we have the "in" that will let us take advantage of the timing of Piper's apparently changing parts policy.

Hope this is the "Happy New Year" for Comanche parts.

A. H. Powers ICS 2978

[Scott Ducey]

Thanks for the info Al. I was not aware of this, but it is interesting. Would you happen to know which periodical published it? Could you scan and post it here. I agree with you points. Thanks for the update. I am looking forward to hearing more.

Scott Ducey

[Scott Ducey]

Here is the full article. I found it on Pipers web site...

PIPER AIRCRAFT SELECTS AVIALL SERVICES TO DISTRIBUTE PARTS WORLDWIDE

VERO BEACH, Fla., January 4, 2010 — Piper Aircraft today announced the selection of Aviall Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company, to be its global parts distributor, providing supply chain support for the company’s global dealer network and individual customers.

“One of Piper’s primary goals is to enhance every facet of our customer service experience,” said Piper President & CEO Kevin J. Gould. “Aviall’s extensive experience and excellent reputation in parts management and distribution will give our customers world-class service that is fundamental to the total Piper experience.”

Aviall Services -- a unit of Aviall, Inc. – is based in Dallas. The company is a leading solutions provider of aftermarket supply chain management services for the aerospace, defense and marine industries.

“Piper Aircraft has placed its trust and confidence in Aviall Services to fulfill this important role in its business,” Paul Fulchino, chairman, president and CEO of Aviall Inc., said. “With certainty, we at Aviall can say we will provide to Piper customers, dealers and service centers a level of service that is unmatched in our industry. We look forward to this association with such an exceptional company as Piper Aircraft.”

Derek Zimmerman, Piper’s Vice President of Supply Chain and Aftermarket Development, underscored Aviall’s ability to offer customers more than 2,000,000 catalog items available through 39 customer service centers in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.

“Aviall’s strategically placed distribution centers worldwide, coupled with its ability to stock sufficient inventory to meet customer needs in a timely fashion, make it the logical choice for Piper,” said Zimmerman. “We expect our customers to see a quantum leap in their ability to get the parts they need, when they need them and at a price and level of quality that reflects Piper’s standards of excellence.”

About Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Piper Aircraft Inc. is headquartered in Vero Beach, Fla. Piper’s rich legacy is born of 72 years of unparalleled history, with almost 150,000 aircraft brought to market and more than 160 models certified. Approximately 90,000 of those aircraft are still flying and being serviced and supported on every continent by Piper’s 65 service centers, 27 dealers and 2,500 field personnel. Piper is the only general aviation manufacturer to build and offer aircraft for every general aviation mission, from trainers and high-performance aircraft for personal and business use to turbine-powered business aircraft and the PiperJet. For more information about Piper Aircraft and to find an authorized service center near you, please visit www.piper.com.


# # #

For further information, contact:
Mark S. Miller
Chief Corporate Spokesperson
Tel: (772) 299-2900
Fax: (772) 978-6597
mark.miller@piper.com

For additional information or questions about
the general aviation industry, contact the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
(202) 393-1500
www.GAMA.aero

[David Pyle]

Al,

I, too, saw something about this, but was not clear that Piper would cede parts manufacturing to Aviall. I assumed they would just be the master distributor. Makes quite a difference.

Another release notes that the Piper president has left and that a mostly new team has take over. This might be an opportunity for timely contact. In addition further development of the Piperjet is delayed until 2013. It would appear the Sultan would like the company to become profitable.

[Scott Ducey]

Given Kristins involvement with the Technical Support issue, I would humbly suggest she put a call in to Mark Miller of Piper to get clarity on the issue.

Regards,

Scott Ducey

[SLIMDREDGER]

Scott :

Your news item was more complete than what I had seen. I agree that it is not clear regarding manufacturing rights being transferred, but inasmuch as Piper/Aviall are referencing ALL Piper aircraft being involved, it would seem this is the time to find our best person (s) to gain an audience with Aviall management to offer our encouragement and support for them to meet our need.

This has to be the best opportunity that we can hope for to maintain our needed parts supply.

I'm going to remain optomistic!

Regards AHP

[Ben Ayalon]

Chris, Scott.
I read your discussion with interest and I must say that both of you have very strong arguments that support your points of view. I agree that the forum is a very good tool of communication, I also agree that it is a very good tool to start and roll out ideas and to gauge whether there is sufficient support or interest to action it, however there is one big drawback to a forum discussion. The discussion always gets life of its own and after a while loses its focus, as a result there is a need to read many posts in order to follow the subject and many time it is nearly impossible because you don’t know who answers whom and why.
I take part in both forums, the ICS and the COF, I learn lots and get an idea of what people do think and want and sometime I also go into long arguments. This requires time, lots of it, something that not everyone can or is willing to do. However, if you call or send an email to your tribe chief or to any other officer you will have an answer (if you don’t know who is the tribe chief the information is published in the Flyer and in this forum). When you contact your tribe chief you engage with a one to one conversation, your ideas remain focused which help to understand the points that you make. The tribe chief can ask for clarifications and get YOUR answers, not someone else’s answers and opinions.
So, if you want to run a “test case” and gauge opinions the forums are great tools but when you want to move something the personal touch and the focused conversation will achieve much more.
Just my opinion.
Ben

[David Pyle]

[Scott Ducey]

[Ben Ayalon]