X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from relay1.mail.twtelecom.net ([216.136.102.250] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 961173 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 May 2005 17:44:32 -0400 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.136.102.250; envelope-from=hsanders@bellsouth.net Received: from herbhehbdwmte2 (66-162-168-98.gen.twtelecom.net [66.162.168.98]) by relay1.mail.twtelecom.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF614802 for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 16:42:36 -0500 (CDT) From: "Herb Sanders" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical Advisor Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 16:43:22 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c55fe0$7a320a60$1900a8c0@herbhehbdwmte2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55FB6.915C0260" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55FB6.915C0260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can see it coming together - we get an organization, some authority, = ADs, some roving bands of inspectors and become known as "The Underworld of Rotary Disciples". I think I'll have some T shirts made (;-). You = guys take a few deep breaths and come on down to Charlie's fly in this week = end. Herb =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of David Staten Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:18 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical Advisor =20 Ernest Christley wrote: Jerry Hey wrote:=20 I realize I am the only voice that is not enthusiastic about the = formation of the safety police. Jerry=20 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.=20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 =20 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. =20 Expanding the "best practices" list/page based on some of the data would = be a beneficial outcome.=20 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:=20 "What ya' gonna' do now?"=20 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). =20 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.=20 =20 Dave >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55FB6.915C0260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can see it coming together = – we get an organization, some authority, ADs, some roving bands of inspectors = and become known as “The Underworld of Rotary Disciples”.  = I think I’ll have some T shirts made  (;-).   You guys take = a few deep breaths and come on down to Charlie’s fly in this week = end.  Herb

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of David Staten
Sent: Monday, May 23, = 2005 9:18 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Technical Advisor

 



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

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55FB6.915C0260--