Message

, and on more than a few occasions, I've been convinced that one idea or another wasn't the best choice. As I said before, anyone on this list should feel perfectly comfortable asking = anyone else to inspect, or allow them to inspect each others projects. With or without the organization, that only works if you have someone relatively close, so I see no advantage to having the organization. =20 =20 As for accident inspections, didn't PL just do this? If so, then an official organization is clearly not required. I do think there could = be merit in having a knowledgeable rotary person look over the engine and systems after an accident, but I'm not convinced it will make a = significant difference. For the most part, we tend to survive our accidents, and I haven't seen one person yet who wasn't perfectly honest with the list as = to the cause, even though it meant admitting to a bad choice or mistake. = In the (thankfully) very rare case such as Paul's, the actual reason will likely never be known, unless it was really obvious, and then the NTSB = folks will catch it. =20 =20 Sorry folks, but that's the way I see it. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (in trouble now) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_01C9_01C55F72.882F0320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

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 = with "old"=20 ADs is a different mind set entirely. I think every builder should be = encouraged=20 to 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

Hi=20 Jerry,

Well, you've=20 been the only "voice", but you're not the only one who opposes this = idea. I've been sitting back and just hoping this fizzles out on = it's=20 own.

I for one,=20 will not follow the recommendations of any one person, or group of = people,=20 unless I personally agree with that recommendation. The thought of = having=20 a full fledged, tax exempt, card carrying organization that essentially = tells=20 the insurance company what's right and wrong just rubs me the wrong = way. =20

The list=20 already allows us to get other's opinions, far more than the roving pack = of=20 inspectors <g>, and on more than a few occasions, I've been = convinced that=20 one idea or another wasn't the best choice. As I said before, = anyone on=20 this list should feel perfectly comfortable asking anyone else to = inspect, or=20 allow them to inspect each others projects. With or without the=20 organization, that only works if you have someone relatively close, = so=20 I see no advantage to having the=20 organization.

As for=20 accident inspections, didn't PL just do this? If so, then an = official=20 organization is clearly not required. I do think there could be = merit in=20 having a knowledgeable rotary person look over the engine and = systems=20 after an accident, but I'm not convinced it will make a=20 significant difference. For the most part, we tend = to=20 survive our accidents, and I haven't seen one person yet who wasn't = perfectly=20 honest with the list as to the cause, even though it meant admitting to = a bad=20 choice or mistake. In the (thankfully) very rare case such as = Paul's,=20 the actual reason will likely never be known, unless it was = really=20 obvious, and then the NTSB folks will catch = it.

Sorry folks,=20 but that's the way I see it.

Cheers,

Rusty (in=20 trouble now)

------=_NextPart_000_01C9_01C55F72.882F0320--