Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=Dastaten@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
  s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
  h=Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=e3hMPek0E99HcHmZgTehsx2KyLhAxL+LLCASkpqlSb/mizqiDZcZ+z0vX2Qk8HZ7;
Message-ID: <42934034.2020206@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 09:54:44 -0500
From: David Staten <Dastaten@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Group status.
References: <list-960699@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-960699@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Bill Dube wrote:

>
>         Instead of duplicating much of what the EAA has already done, 
> I think it would be wise to write up proceedures, checklists etc. that 
> speak only of the differences one needs to address for a rotary 
> engine. You can make these an appendix or addendum to the existing EAA 
> procedures, checklists, etc. 


Excellent point. I apologize if at any point I advocated "re-inventing" 
the wheel. Much of the "reference material" i was alluding to could 
serve as a template for our "product". I don't advocate re-authoring 
entire POH's.. rather.. come up with powerplant sections (and how they 
integrate to other relevant systems). Likewise, "test" recommendations 
could focus on the rotary engine specific aspects and be presented as an 
"addendum" to existing recommended industry literature.
 
I'd much rather write a few chapters than a whole book....
 
With regards to "making a Rotary Engine" version of the EAA. That is 
both close to, and far from.. the truth. Organization and structure give 
credibility, and reliable results. Unfortunately, structure can be 
misused to oppress innovation.. so we all must be wary that we dont 
become "the safety police". On a personal note, I would think that 
simply forming an "online" EAA chapter focusing on rotary engines, of 
which anyone could be a member (after joining national) would not really 
be all that bad, regardless of how you feel national EAA is. There are 
certain benefits to being "in" EAA, and having our flight and technical 
advisors wear the EAA hat would give them some of the credibility that 
we seek (of course, we would still have to have our facts in place... 
but every little bit helps..). Those already in a chapter, this is not 
intended to compete with that chapter, rather it would/could complement it.
 
43 persons have opted in. As many have noted.. we are spread out across 
the country. The benefit is, we can cover a lot of ground. The problem 
is.. thats a lot of ground to cover.  I am off for a few days. I intend 
to do something I havent done in weeks.. go build on the engine at the 
airport. I will sift back through the posts and start looking for 
volunteers and clarify any points that I may have erred in.
 
While I am posting, I wanted to share something with you guys. Dave 
Leonard will probably recognize the following material, most of you will 
probably not, but the concept is sound. The American Heart Association 
sets guidelines for emergency cardiac care and resuscitation.. I know 
this because I use these guidelines QUITE frequently at work as an ICU 
nurse and former/inactive paramedic. They review the research and 
amend/update their guidelines every several years.

A few years ago (read: sometime in the last decade), they came out with 
a recommendation system:
Class 1 interventions: Universally accepted and beneficial - "Very Good 
Thing" and "proven"
Class 2 interventions: Not proven, or.. "may be helpful, may be harmful"
    Further broken down into 2a: probably helpful
     and also into 2b: probably harmful.
       Usually this means that its something that has been "usual 
practice for a long time, but no real studies to PROVE it works".
You would be genuinely surprised how much of modern medicine falls into 
"class 2 interventions"
Class 3: May be harmful, doesn't work, doesn't improve survival.
 
As a whole, these designations are proposed by committees. I readily 
admit that politics and egos have sway in the medical end of things. 
Someone on the committee who did pioneering work 30 years ago may DEMAND 
inclusion of his "intervention" that he developed, even though NOW it 
would no longer be considered appropriate or first-line therapy.
 
Without opening up the whole can of worms about "safety police" I want 
to just leave this idea with you.. every thing we do (group, non-group, 
regular aviation, whatever).. think about what we are doing.. are we 
doing something because its proven? because thats the way we've always 
done it or because someone very convincing came along and said "DO IT" 
even though it doesn't look all that great. Wether we formally rate 
things, or not.. apply that test on a personal level to things we do. I 
am not advocating overburdening analyses, and ignoring practical 
experience... just sharing a point of view that may or may not be helpful.
 
Goodnight(morning)
Dave