-----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