Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.166.240.5; envelope-from=jackoford@theofficenet.com
Message-ID: <002501c5219a$99c80570$0200a8c0@jack>
From: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-771368@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary?
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 07:47:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:33 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fuel cutoff valve necessary?


> If the case is rested there will be no more debate.
> So I add data.
> Nothing ever required on certificated aircraft has a reason behind it.  If
> reason was the driving factor then a better counter reason would nullify
it.
> Reasons of the kind I /we are familiar with lay in facts.  Logical
deduction
> combined with probabilities to give Risk analysis.  These tools allow us
to
> choose our poison.
> Regulation however has nothing to do with such.  Perhaps we would like to
> believe it does, or should, or perhaps we want to believe it should.  The
> facts are it does not.

If the auto industry had been taken over (as the aircraft industry has been)
by the government in the '20s we would still be driving Model T type cars,
and saying "If it weren't for the government, we wouldn't be driving at
all". -apologies to Harry Browne-

Jack Ford

> I suggest the excellent resource at www.areoelectric.com for further
> information on electrical systems theory, and excellent IDEAs on how to
> build an excellent electrical system that will sooth your fears.  The data
> suggests your fears of electrical gremlins are not founded in the facts.
>
> I will not debate these points.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>