Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
  s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
  h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer;
  b=O/I3QlTUQC2+6K8ctIOqc9LMLBoCZl+L77vU+5k4txxOJK6LY9xgpSgI26/dVdW9;
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 07:33:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical Advisor
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--1042035354
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-960332@logan.com>
Message-Id: <D95DCDFB-CB86-11D9-8975-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net>


--Apple-Mail-2--1042035354
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


On Monday, May 23, 2005, at 06:55 AM, Ehkerr@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 5/23/2005 6:35:09 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
> rx7ez@yahoo.com writes:
>
> Dear friends,
>
>
> =A0 =A0 Your plan to offer technical advise to builders is certainly
> a noble one.=A0 However, I have had little success with that idea.
> I think that the people who build there own airplanes are a very
> independant lot, and those who develop an auto engine conversion
>
> are even more so, myself included.
>
> =A0=A0=A0
> George Graham
>
> An association of qualified counselors=A0would warrant the =
consideration=20
> of insurers and could lessen the negative effects of rotary incidents=20=

> because, to earn the best insurance rates, builders will ask for the=20=

> Safety Inspection Signoff of this association. Such endorsement would=20=

> require that the ADs cited be complied with before approval.=20
> Insurance, and consequent improved safety,=A0are two motivating=20
> principles behind the movement for forming an association.
> EHkerr

Sounds stifling to me.  At this point, the rotary installation is still=20=

evolving rapidly and new ideas appear all the time.  Trying to comply=20
with "old" ADs is a different mind set entirely.  I think every builder=20=

should be encouraged to follow Georges' recommendations, especially=20
about ground testing but beyond that is is up to the builder.  I=20
realize I am the only voice that is not enthusiastic about the=20
formation of the safety police.   Jerry

--Apple-Mail-2--1042035354
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1


On Monday, May 23, 2005, at 06:55 AM, Ehkerr@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt>In a message dated 5/23/2005 6:35:09 AM Central Daylight
Time, rx7ez@yahoo.com writes:


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param>Dear friends,


=A0 =A0 Your plan to offer technical advise to builders is certainly

a noble one.=A0 However, I have had little success with that idea.

I think that the people who build there own airplanes are a very

independant lot, and those who develop an auto engine conversion


are even more so, myself included.


=A0=A0=A0

George Graham</fontfamily>


An association of qualified counselors=A0would warrant the consideration
of insurers and could lessen the negative effects of rotary incidents
because, to earn the best insurance rates, builders will ask for the
Safety Inspection Signoff of this association. Such endorsement would
require that the ADs cited be complied with before approval.
Insurance, and consequent improved safety,=A0are two motivating
principles behind the movement for forming an association.

EHkerr

</excerpt>

Sounds stifling to me.  At this point, the rotary installation is
still evolving rapidly and new ideas appear all the time.  Trying to
comply with "old" ADs is a different mind set entirely.  I think every
builder should be encouraged to follow Georges' recommendations,
especially about ground testing but beyond that is is up to the
builder.  I realize I am the only voice that is not enthusiastic about
the formation of the safety police.   Jerry  =20


--Apple-Mail-2--1042035354--