X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.196] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.2) with ESMTP id 963715 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 26 May 2005 00:25:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.162.196; envelope-from=wdleonard@gmail.com Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 34so339302nzf for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 21:25:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=b2E6m9iMcaH12aEoFY+XoIyrEthRlsaWzpSFNN3aW09Txkml3kf8o7tPKvmGawKdJxMjGiu5rSR9vVsjcYmNcTnEX7Lz5wIkPSJ4EnT7LIqR+x66979YC2iwVco081t1fhMrEu5Py9yybhCSyhsexzEqwJWZ9KpBzFD2Zg9s3RU= Received: by 10.36.147.5 with SMTP id u5mr446722nzd; Wed, 25 May 2005 21:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.9.4 with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2005 21:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1c23473f05052521253aa160dd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 21:25:13 -0700 From: David Leonard Reply-To: David Leonard To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Technical Advisor and official rotary association In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_436_24491616.1117081513741" References: ------=_Part_436_24491616.1117081513741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline You guys are making great points about rotary tech advisers not having=20 authority and creating bureaucracy. Of course that is the way it should be.= =20 When I build my aircraft I had the opportunity of inviting an EAA tech=20 counselor. The requirement was that a "knowledgeable person" inspect the=20 aircraft on 3 occasions. No definition of what qualified as a knowledgeable= =20 person. On one of thoes three occasions I chose an EAA tech counselor. He= =20 had no authority to make me do anything. He had no authority to hinder my= =20 first flight. He simply came out and gave me his best opinion on things he= =20 recommended fixing or changing. He signed my log book and filled out a form= =20 to send to the EAA (not FAA). He was helpful. It was free. He came just=20 because I asked but was not required to do so. I owe him many beers....=20 Thank you Fred.=20 I used an EAA counselor because he was supposed to know about many of the= =20 things that were important and he did. The EAA verified that he was=20 knowledgeable, and I could tell that to the FAA. He WAS knowledgeable, and = I=20 fixed 3 things based on his recommendations. I could have found other=20 knowledgeable people who I trusted to come take a look. In fact I did that= =20 every chance I had. But somehow, having someone who handsome sort of=20 endorsement do a more formal inspection made me feel better. He had a list= =20 of things to take a took at, and did the most through job of anyone who=20 inspected the plane. But, he took one look at the engine compartment and said "Hmm, wow, thats= =20 really interesting. Good Luck." I don't blame him. I think it would have been nice to have someone who knew about rotary=20 engines do a similar inspection. And that is what we are talking about here. Dave Leonard =20 On 5/25/05, Jim Sower wrote:=20 >=20 > Russell Duffy wrote:=20 >=20 > Sounds stifling to me. At this point, the rotary installation is still=20 > evolving rapidly and new ideas appear all the time. Trying to comply with= =20 > "old" ADs is a different mind set entirely. I think every builder should = be=20 > encouraged to follow Georges' recommendations, especially about ground=20 > testing but beyond that is is up to the builder. I realize I am the only= =20 > voice that is not enthusiastic about the formation of the safety police.= =20 > Jerry=20 > Hi Jerry, > Well, you've been the only "voice", but you're not the only one who=20 > opposes this idea. I've been sitting back and just hoping this fizzles ou= t=20 > on it's own.=20 > It will. > I for one, will not follow the recommendations of any one person, or grou= p=20 > of people, unless I personally agree with that recommendation. The though= t=20 > of having a full fledged, tax exempt, card carrying organization that=20 > essentially tells the insurance company what's right and wrong just rubs = me=20 > the wrong way.=20 > I think that's to your credit > The list already allows us to get other's opinions, far more than the=20 > roving pack of inspectors , and on more than a few occasions, I've bee= n=20 > convinced that one idea or another wasn't the best choice. As I said befo= re,=20 > anyone on this list should feel perfectly comfortable asking anyone else = to=20 > inspect, or allow them to inspect each others projects. With or without t= he=20 > organization, that only works if you have someone relatively close, so I = see=20 > no advantage to having the organization.=20 > A list of specific things that *were tried* and *did not work*, dicumente= d=20 > in sufficient detail would be helpful. For all our independence, we would= =20 > all most likely honor such a list. > As for accident inspections, didn't PL just do this? If so, then an=20 > official organization is clearly not required. I do think there could be= =20 > merit in having a knowledgeable rotary person (according to who?) look=20 > over the engine and systems after an accident, but I'm not convinced it w= ill=20 > make a significant difference. Nor am I For the most part, we tend to=20 > survive our accidents, and I haven't seen one person yet who wasn't=20 > perfectly honest with the list as to the cause, even though it meant=20 > admitting to a bad choice or mistake. True enough, but that's not really= =20 > the point IMO. In the (thankfully) very rare case such as Paul's, the=20 > actual reason will likely never be known, Agreed unless it was really=20 > obvious I doubt it will be, and then the NTSB folks will catch it. Not a= =20 > chance. > Sorry folks, but that's the way I see it.=20 > Everyone owns up to his mistakes. Trouble is, seven different solutions= =20 > coming from seven different directions (as was basically the case with Pa= ul)=20 > will have a strong tendency to lead one to pick attributes of several of = the=20 > [conflicting?] solutions and not necessarily solve the problem, or perhap= s=20 > (as was Paul's case?) create another in its place. Not much progress ther= e.=20 > I guess that's why they call it "experimental" ... Jim S. > Cheers, > Rusty (in trouble now)=20 >=20 > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >=20 > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >=20 >=20 --=20 Wm. David Leonard ------=_Part_436_24491616.1117081513741 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline
You guys are making great points about rotary tech advisers not having= authority and creating bureaucracy.  Of course that is the way it sho= uld be.  When I build my aircraft I had the opportunity of inviting an= EAA tech counselor.  The requirement was that a "knowledgeable p= erson" inspect the aircraft on 3 occasions.  No definition of wha= t qualified as a knowledgeable person.  On one of thoes three occasion= s I chose an EAA tech counselor.  He had no authority to make me do an= ything.  He had no authority to hinder my first flight.  He simpl= y came out and gave me his best opinion on things he recommended fixing or = changing.  He signed my log book and filled out a form to send to the = EAA (not FAA).  He was helpful.  It was free.  He came just = because I asked but was not required to do so.  I owe him many beers..= ..  Thank you Fred.  =20
 
I used an EAA counselor because he was supposed to know about many of = the things that were important and he did.  The EAA verified that he w= as knowledgeable, and I could tell that to the FAA.  He WAS knowl= edgeable, and I fixed 3 things based on his recommendations.  I could = have found other knowledgeable people who I trusted to come take a look.&nb= sp; In fact I did that every chance I had.  But somehow, having someon= e who handsome sort of endorsement do a more formal inspection made me feel= better.  He had a list of things to take a took at, and did the most = through job of anyone who inspected the plane.
 
But, he took one look at the engine compartment and said "Hmm,&nb= sp; wow, thats really interesting.  Good Luck."  I don't bla= me him.
 
I think it would have been nice to have someone who knew about rotary = engines do a similar inspection.
 
And that is what we are talking about here.
 
Dave Leonard
 


 
On 5/25/05, = Jim Sower <canarder@fron= tiernet.net> wrote:
Russell Duffy wrote:=20
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 polic= e. Jerry   
 
Hi Jerry,
 
Well, you've been the onl= y "voice", but you're not the only one who opposes this idea= .  I've been sitting back and just hoping this fizzles out on it's own= .  
It will.
I for one, will not follo= w the recommendations of any one person, or group of people, unless I perso= nally agree with that recommendation.  The thought of having a full fl= edged, tax exempt, card carrying organization that essentially tells the in= surance company what's right and wrong just rubs me the wrong way. =20
I think that's to your credit
=
The list already allows u= s to get other's opinions, far more than the roving pack of inspectors <= g>, and on more than a few occasions, I've been convinced that one idea = or another wasn't the best choice.  As I said before, anyone on this l= ist should feel perfectly comfortable asking anyone else to inspect, or all= ow them to inspect each others projects.  With or without the organiza= tion, that only works if you have someone relatively close, so I = see no advantage to having the organization.  
A list of specific things that were tried and did not work, dicumented in sufficient detail wo= uld be helpful.  For all our independence, we would all most likely ho= nor such a list.
As for accident inspectio= ns, didn't PL just do this?  If so, then an official organization= is clearly not required.  I do think there could be merit in having a=  knowledgeable rotary person=20 (according to who?) look over the engine and= systems after an accident, but I'm not convinced it will make a = significant difference.  Nor am I&= nbsp; For the most part, we tend to survive our accidents, and I = haven't seen one person yet who wasn't perfectly honest with the list as to= the cause, even though it meant admitting to a bad choice or mistake. = ;=20 True enough, but that's not really the point IMO.  In the (thankfully) very rare case such as Paul's, the act= ual reason will likely never be known, Agreed unless it was really obvious=20 I doubt it will be, and then the NTSB folks = will catch it.  Not a chance.
 
Sorry folks, but that's t= he way I see it.  
Everyone owns up to his mistakes.=   Trouble is, seven different solutions coming from seven different di= rections (as was basically the case with Paul) will have a strong tendency = to lead one to pick attributes of several of the [conflicting?] solutions a= nd not necessarily solve the problem, or perhaps (as was Paul's case?) crea= te another in its place.  Not much progress there.      = ;         I guess that's why they call it "experim= ental" ... Jim S.
Cheers,
Rusty (in trouble now)&nb= sp;  

>>  Homepage:  http://w=
ww.flyrotary.com/

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




--
Wm. David Leonard=20 ------=_Part_436_24491616.1117081513741--