Re: Cambridge Aero Instruments

[Ulrich]

As the Canadian Cambridge Dealer I can only echo Paul's comments.

Ulli Werneburg
MZ Supplies

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message news:<KCUVa.21608$YN5.19989@sccrnsc01>...
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking a lot about how to respond to questions about the
> information on the CAI web site about reasons why the business was pulled
> (or attempted to be pulled) from the current managers.
>
> Not wanting to say negative things about a certain individual that I have
> not worked with, I will instead say positive things about my association
> with the current Cambridge managers over the last few months.
>
> I have been a Cambridge Aero Instruments dealer since March, 2003. I have
> sold what I consider to be a large amount of their fine products in that
> time. I have had a very good working relationship with Craig Rogers, Mike
> Nixon, John Riccitello, Peter Rogers, Bryan Rutherford, and Kay Grindstaff.
> They have worked extremely hard to turn the company around and get products
> shipping. They have done their best to support the products, and improve
> them. They worked to get bugs fixed in the products, etc. They have
> treated me with respect and trust, and I have found them to be very
> trustworthy. They have paid me what they owed me on time, every time.
>
> Paul Remde

[Jason Armistead]

(Randy Lervold) wrote in message >...
> Paul and Uli,
>
> As the resident dealers would you mind providing an overview of the
> history of this tangled web? As an owner of CAI equipment I'm
> confused. Who started the company, who was it sold to, how many times,
> and who's running it now? I would think many members of this community
> would appreciate some perspective on this.
>
> Thanks,
> Randy Lervold
> Vancouver, Wa

While Paul and Uli speak of good service, I can only say that my club
has been waiting on a replacement set of units for our 302 and 306
repeater since they were installed in February 2003.

The original screens in both units had the LCD polarisation 90 degrees
out of whack, so that anyone looking at them with Polaroid glasses
can't see anything but a blackened screen. This all comes down to a
manufacturing defect that wasn't picked up by the LCD manufacturer or
by Cambridge. If you look at any other LCD screen e.g. watch, car
radio, etc. you need to turn your head 90 degrees sideways before they
go black - the ones in the 302 and 306 are incorrectly made. The ones
in our 303s are OK.

To replace the screens, one must replace the entire units.

Regardless of who is to blame, we're still waiting for our
replacements to arrive. Nearly 6 months and counting ... Not good
customer service at all.

Jason

[BTIZ]

so why fly with polarized lenses.. I thought I had read somewhere that
polarized lenses were not compatible with flying and some canopies or
cockpit glass. But I'm sure it was many years and many technology changes in
the past.

BT

"Jason Armistead" > wrote in message
om...
> (Randy Lervold) wrote in message
>...
> > Paul and Uli,
> >
> > As the resident dealers would you mind providing an overview of the
> > history of this tangled web? As an owner of CAI equipment I'm
> > confused. Who started the company, who was it sold to, how many times,
> > and who's running it now? I would think many members of this community
> > would appreciate some perspective on this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Randy Lervold
> > Vancouver, Wa
>
> While Paul and Uli speak of good service, I can only say that my club
> has been waiting on a replacement set of units for our 302 and 306
> repeater since they were installed in February 2003.
>
> The original screens in both units had the LCD polarisation 90 degrees
> out of whack, so that anyone looking at them with Polaroid glasses
> can't see anything but a blackened screen. This all comes down to a
> manufacturing defect that wasn't picked up by the LCD manufacturer or
> by Cambridge. If you look at any other LCD screen e.g. watch, car
> radio, etc. you need to turn your head 90 degrees sideways before they
> go black - the ones in the 302 and 306 are incorrectly made. The ones
> in our 303s are OK.
>
> To replace the screens, one must replace the entire units.
>
> Regardless of who is to blame, we're still waiting for our
> replacements to arrive. Nearly 6 months and counting ... Not good
> customer service at all.
>
> Jason

[John Morgan]

Back in April I got a response from John Riccitello about this. He said the
LCD supplier was working on it but with no date given for the availability
of the new screens. He also said that when they were available, there would
be an announcement on the CAI website and the screens would be replaced at
no charge for those pilots who wear polarizing lenses.

Oh well . . .

bumper

"Jason Armistead" > wrote in message
om...
> (Randy Lervold) wrote in message
>...
> > Paul and Uli,
> >
> > As the resident dealers would you mind providing an overview of the
> > history of this tangled web? As an owner of CAI equipment I'm
> > confused. Who started the company, who was it sold to, how many times,
> > and who's running it now? I would think many members of this community
> > would appreciate some perspective on this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Randy Lervold
> > Vancouver, Wa
>
> While Paul and Uli speak of good service, I can only say that my club
> has been waiting on a replacement set of units for our 302 and 306
> repeater since they were installed in February 2003.
>
> The original screens in both units had the LCD polarisation 90 degrees
> out of whack, so that anyone looking at them with Polaroid glasses
> can't see anything but a blackened screen. This all comes down to a
> manufacturing defect that wasn't picked up by the LCD manufacturer or
> by Cambridge. If you look at any other LCD screen e.g. watch, car
> radio, etc. you need to turn your head 90 degrees sideways before they
> go black - the ones in the 302 and 306 are incorrectly made. The ones
> in our 303s are OK.
>
> To replace the screens, one must replace the entire units.
>
> Regardless of who is to blame, we're still waiting for our
> replacements to arrive. Nearly 6 months and counting ... Not good
> customer service at all.
>
> Jason


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/16/2003

[Chip Fitzpatrick]

Serengeti

[BTIZ]

thanx for the explanations/updates, I remember reading the discussion
earlier on blue blockers, yellow tints etc... but after so many years in
dark radar rooms and flight decks, I like my dark lenses.

I fly with my $25 military style, good AO issue, non-prescription,
non-polarized, and as often as I break/lose/bend the glasses, $20 is a lot
cheaper than $150 and I can get them at any military clothing sales. I keep
a couple on the shelf ready to go.

BT

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
> >so why fly with polarized lenses..
>
> Because the sky is polarized and clouds scatter it back
> unpolarized, meaning 1) there's better contrast between
> clouds and sky with your head turned to cut out the
> polarized light from the sky and 2) by changing the angle of
> your head, the illumination ratio changes between clouds and
> sky, making them "blink" in an inverse sort of way.
>
> > I thought I had read somewhere that
> >polarized lenses were not compatible with flying and some canopies or
> >cockpit glass. But I'm sure it was many years and many technology changes
in
> >the past.
>
> Polarizers can show up canopy stresses, but it's usually not
> a problem. They can also cause a problem with some LCD
> display instruments, but not if the instruments are properly
> designed.
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have been a Cambridge Aero Instruments customer for many years. I've been
a Cambridge dealer since March, 2003, so I don't have a complete history of
all the ownership issues. Everything I've heard is second or third hand.

It is a tangled web. Many sources seem to indicate that the tangle comes
from one person. I don't know that person and can't say anything about
that. Below is what I have been told. It is all public knowledge.

Cambridge was owned by David Ellis for many years. I don't think he started
the company. I've always been impressed with David. He was the technical
person who drove the development of new products and used customer input to
help improve the products. The L-NAV, S-NAV, GPS-NAV, 302 and 303 are his
babies. They are great products.

In 2001/2002 Roy Ridgeway bought the company from David. I don't know much
about how involved David was in the company after that. It is my
understanding that both David and Roy have law suits targeted at each other.
I don't know enough about it to say who is in the right. I think it is safe
to say that I hope David Ellis wins. I say that for many reasons.

In 2002 Craig Rogers and Mike Nixon worked out an arrangement with Roy
Ridgeway to run the Cambridge Aero Instruments part of the company. From my
vantage point, they (Craig and Mike) and their team worked extremely hard to
get the company up and running again. I have been impressed with them. I
trust them. They got to the point where they were shipping all the products.
Their team also supported the products and made minor improvements to them.
They also worked toward bringing the "CFR" (simple, low cost GPS/flight
recorder only based on the 302) to market. Roy's new team of people now have
some claims against Craig and Mike's company. His claims are stated on the
current CAI web site homepage. Roy's team has canceled the agreement with
Craig Rogers and Mike Nixon.

I think that CAI technical support is still available from Peter Rogers and
others on Craig and Mike's team. I'm sure the other Cambridge dealers and
myself can also help with some technical support issues. There are one or
two dealers in Europe who are capable of doing repairs and calibrations to
CAI products.

I don't know Roy or his new team. I can't say anything bad about them. I
will not make any recommendations to anyone in regard to him or his team.
However, I think I can say that I don't plan to buy anything from him or his
new team. I don't have any interest in being a dealer for him.

The 302, 303, CFR, and other CAI products are great products that I hope
will be produced again by someone. I don't imagine that anyone will be able
to buy new 302s for 6 months or more. That is my personal guess. It is not
based on any data from any source. I am optimistic that they will be
produced and supported by someone at some point, because they are great
products.

I think everything stated above is common knowledge. I thought it was a good
idea to summarize it here because not everyone knows the history. Please let
me know if I got any of the history wrong.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Randy Lervold" > wrote in message
om...
> Paul and Uli,
>
> As the resident dealers would you mind providing an overview of the
> history of this tangled web? As an owner of CAI equipment I'm
> confused. Who started the company, who was it sold to, how many times,
> and who's running it now? I would think many members of this community
> would appreciate some perspective on this.
>
> Thanks,
> Randy Lervold
> Vancouver, Wa