|
|
Ernest Christley wrote:
Jerry Hey
wrote:
I realize I am the only voice that is not
enthusiastic about the formation of the safety police. Jerry
You're not alone in that concern, Jerry. But I believe we can avoid
the role of 'safety police'. It is very much a matter of attitude.
I agree 100%. I am not looking to be a
hindrance.. rather I want to be a resource to others... More than
anything else, I want to take the existing interaction we have now, and
give it some legitimazy in the eyes of those who might judge us: The
NTSB, The Insurance Underwriters, the Kit Manufacturers, prospective
builders....
The time for
involvement is while the builder is still mulling.
Again, I agree. The earlier, the better.
Advocacy, again, is a major goal.
If there are
any willing souls, I'd like to volunteer to be the guinea pig and
explore the format and methodology of how 'inspections' would work.
How will information be presented (verbal, written report, ???) to the
builder? How will the results be fed back to the organization (will
the results be fed back to the organization)? It's not hard to forsee
the inspectors having concerns about an novel technique, but the
builder either finds it excellent in practice or it's a dud like the
inspectors say. How will the concerns and results be archived.
Good questions.. I would like to say that it
would be comprehensive, but also rotary specific.
AC20-27F, AC20-106, AC90-89A, and if you really feel froggy, there
are numerous AC's in the 20 series that deal with certification.. no I
dont advocate pursuing certification, but I am sure some inspection and
testing techniques are equally applicable. lets not re-invent the
wheel. AC90-89A is the flight test handbook that the FAA provides for
guidance. I think that is an excellent starting point.
Authoring a "boilerplate" powerplant section of a POH is another area
we can fill a need. I honestly believe in a POH even if the aircraft
will only be flown by one person. Having a description of the aircraft
specifics on paper (and a copy safely on the ground) can be helpful
after the fact. I have some introductory material already written in
this vein.
Expanding the "best practices" list/page based on some of the data
would be a beneficial outcome.
I also think the group needs a motto to keep attitudes in check.
Something to keep people from thinking they ever have police powers.
Something to be stated before and after an inspection, just to set the
mood and make the purpose clear to everyone. I propose:
"What ya' gonna' do now?"
Roving teams of inspectors? Maybe.. Maybe not...
Our focus is to be constructive. Build on safety. Plan your build.
Build your plan, TEST your build extensively. A few sets of "cheap"
test equipment - an optical prop tach, MP gauge (if the A/C dont have
one), temp probes that can be placed in-line on oil, fuel and water
lines, compression gauges. Be able to have someone RUN their engine,
break it in, SEE the data and make corrections based on it or at least
be able to see actual values (and not opinions).
I would like to see Dave Leonard or one of the West Coasters be able to
get worked over by CAFE.. literally. Their reputation is impeccable for
objective, factual testing. Their approach would be a good model for us
to use, even if they are "over the top" by some peoples standards.
Dave
|
|