David Staten wrote:

As we have just seen with Paul, the participants in such a group would have to agree to confidentiality for at least the short term.

He had to agree to not discuss things in order to participate. I can understand why that would be required. Once the NTSB final is issued then perhaps he can discuss what he saw.

Final report could take quite some time

 
As for purchasing the engine and airframe to conduct our own inspection.. if it was uninsured, the family might very well just DONATE it since a plastic plane with a car engine agreeably would have little salvage value. They might say "come and take it". As for conducting our own inspection.. well.. several things come to mind.

I think that's a distinct possibility.

1) the crash site has been disturbed. Significantly. Marks that might indicate that the engine was actually making power may have been disturbed. Parts that may have separated in flight may have been retrieved. Alignment of components on the ground can no longer be determined. A scene survey would reveal little to us now.
NTSB handles this part really well.  Like it's what they do.
2) Almost certainly, the engine has been disassembled, and the components removed. Looking for things such as seal/rotor interfaces, tolerances and wear indicators may not be able to be reliably determined any longer unless EACH part remained indexed to EACH identifiable location.
I seriously doubt there was any failure in the block.  Fuel delivery is almost certainly the cause, but that's also the toughest to identify accurately or definitively.
3) I would expect that the ECU has been removed and sent to the manufacturer to have it's programming at the time of the accident retrieved. I am unaware of Paul having data-logging, but if it was available, that memory likewise would have been sent out for analysis.

Sounds like a no-brainer, but I wouldn't bet the farm on this happening (except perhaps at the insistence of PL).

4) I would expect (maybe expecting too much) that the removal and disassembly had been videotaped for later review and analysis but in our current state of organization we likely to never see it without the explicit consent of the next of kin.
I don't think that matters since there's very little chance anything in the block failed.
I am not saying that we CANT conduct our own investigation, but I am suggesting that we would be akin to entering into a boxing ring blindfolded and with one hand tied behind our back. Regardless of what you think of Paul and his penchant for Theory and Analysis over actually DOING it, he was the closest thing we had to an industry representative on scene.
True enough.  He'll prevent a mis-diagnosis of the magnitude of Ed's anecdote, but will he get us any closer to the truth?  I tend to believe it will end up being closer to HIS "truth".
My suggestion is that WE.. the rotary community.. need to incorporate and establish ourselves.. just like any other type-club. We need to establish ourselves as a bonafide entity, with qualified individuals who are 1) intelligent 2) educated 3) detail oriented 4) OBJECTIVE and 5) able to drop what they are doing for 3 or 4 days and travel on their own nickel to perform a role similar to what Paul did. Hell.. even INCLUDE him.. but make sure the "go team" aspect of this organization is able to focus on the FACTS of the situation and not draw premature conclusions. We would need to petition the NTSB and FAA to make them acutely aware at the regional level in EACH region that we have representatives on hand to assist with investigations of rotary powered aircraft. WE would be the experts on wether something was acceptable or not (oil premix, for instance) in the rotary community, and would be able to render input to the board reps/investigators but we would have to be able to BACK IT UP WITH FACTS in any case. 
Sounds like a great idea to me.  Making it happen will not be easy.
I am interested in being in a position to assist in the formation of such a group, and gawd forbid, if I have to be a leader then I'd do it. As of yet, I would have to admit that I am unqualified for a role on a "team" that I am depicting: I havent got the motor running yet, nor the plane flying. Folks who would? Ed Anderson... Tracy Crook (and also from a PSRU, ECU standpoint)... Dave Leonard (when he's not too busy being a resident MD).. Paul L... (dont shoot me.. ok?.. He has the resources and engineering data, and the ability to comprehend it).

If there is interest in creating a formal organization, analogous to the T34 association or the Cessna Pilots Association, then this would be the place to get it started. We could plan to hold annual meetings at OSH or SNF... you name it..
 
This is not a flash in the pan BS offer.. If you want to do this, its not to further yourself.. its to further the cause of safety for our powerplants, and advocate on our behalf. Professional Volunteers.
Right now I'm thinking something like this (and the tech councelor / inspection "team(s)" could easily be the best thing to come out of this tragedy.
Prospective Member of "The Rotary Powered Flyers Association" (or insert another good name here)
David Staten

 

David Leonard wrote:

I agree with Ed and Todd. 

BTW, He has just confirmed on the ACRE list that he was indeed there
but no word on what he found.  Hewever, there was a mysterious warning
from him about Andar fuel valves in low wing aircraft....

Dave Leonard

On 5/21/05, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote: