|
If it becomes "Safety Police", I'm with you,
Jerry.
My concept was a group of folks who know advising,
first hand, other folks who know. The operative word is
"advising".
Return to the concept of "peer
review".
I think that credibility will come with a record of
success, not affiliation with Big Brother.
My two bits.
Jack Ford
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 5:33 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical
Advisor
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,
rx7ez@yahoo.com writes:
Dear friends,
Your plan to offer technical advise to builders is certainly
a
noble one. 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.
George Graham
An
association of qualified counselors would 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, are two motivating principles behind the movement for
forming an association.
EHkerr
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
|