X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [216.52.118.220] (HELO cluster1.echolabs.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 960388 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 May 2005 09:23:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.52.118.220; envelope-from=ben@gmpexpress.net X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com Received: from [72.9.22.171] (HELO ben22d25bef6f7) by fe2.cluster1.echolabs.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with SMTP id 49378785 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 May 2005 09:22:28 -0400 Message-ID: <001001c55f9a$7c7630d0$ab160948@ben22d25bef6f7> From: "Ben Baltrusaitis" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical Advisor Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:22:34 -0400 Organization: Biper Marketing Company MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C55F78.F441BBB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C55F78.F441BBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree with Jerry on this one. To have an AD system in place would = extend liability on our "advisors" to the point that a liar (my spelling = of lawyer) would come after our group saying that we deemed a ship = airworthy. I want to stay as an advisory person, not a certification person. I also want to look at projects with an open mind that when someone does = something different, before I would say it won't work, I would like to = check with the group to see if this new technique may be a better way of = doing something. Ben=20 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release Date: 5/20/2005 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C55F78.F441BBB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree with Jerry on this one. To have an AD = system in=20 place would extend liability on our "advisors" to the point that a liar = (my=20 spelling of lawyer) would come after our group saying that we deemed a = ship=20 airworthy.

I want to stay as an advisory person, not a=20 certification person.

I also want to look at projects with an open = mind that=20 when someone does something different, before I would say it won't work, = I would=20 like to check with the group to see if this new technique may be a = better way of=20 doing something.

Ben

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG=20 Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.14 - Release = Date:=20 5/20/2005
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C55F78.F441BBB0--