If your goal is to measure risk, estimate reliability, or improve safety, it's important to include on the ground failures. They are excellent predictors of flight risks. Ed's woodruff key ommision is good example. Just good fortune it showed up before flight. Could have easily occured mid flight. BTW Ed, what a great report and solution you came up with! In fact, I believe you've implemented the best possible solution for that failure.
Al, when you guys rate your risks using FMEA methods, a number of the on the ground failures will wash away. That's because they have high chance you will notice before flight. I think that will satisfy your concern.
It's reasonable to feel uncomfortable reading about the failures. But when you guys start recording the permanent solutions, it will be worth it. Future builders can read the incident, follow proven solutions for the most significant items.
-al wick
Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru
230+ hrs tt from Portland, Oregon
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:22:26 -0800
Well, now you are getting into non-incidents. That list is inexhaustible.
Yes; I’d suggest if we are going to do this at all; how about restricting to “engine related failure causing sufficient loss of power rendering the aircraft unable to maintain altitude.”
Al G
|