X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [68.202.132.19] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.1.5) with HTTP id 1803439 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:56:42 -0500 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Safety Czar To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.1.5 Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000001c745b9$54e441e0$bbf107a0@engagethoughtware.com> References: <000001c745b9$54e441e0$bbf107a0@engagethoughtware.com> X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for "John Hafen" : Joe: Many thanks. I admit that I have been biased in certain ways as a result of some military background, and flying certified aircraft after that. This is my first experimental. So please bear with the FNG until he learns the ropes a little better. Having said that, I'm confused about a lack of consistency. It would seem to me that if you have 10 IVPs that all have the same Lancair fast build Continental TSIO 550 and no deviations from the instructions, that they would all run the same. Reading the posts, it seems that 6 different guys operate their boost pumps 6 different ways. Do you have any ideas as to what causes the variations in operating requirements? I do not understand why some guys don't need to use their low boost, others need it on at 6k feet, others at 10k feet, and others only at cruise. Others need high boost pump. Why the variation, with the same plane and same engines? Perhaps "Safety Czar" is the wrong label for the function. But it would be nice to have a repository of safety lessons learned, especially when things go really wrong or when birds go down. Thanks and Regards, John Hafen