You guys are making great points about rotary tech advisers not having authority and creating bureaucracy.  Of course that is the way it should be.  When I build my aircraft I had the opportunity of inviting an EAA tech counselor.  The requirement was that a "knowledgeable person" inspect the aircraft on 3 occasions.  No definition of what qualified as a knowledgeable person.  On one of thoes three occasions I chose an EAA tech counselor.  He had no authority to make me do anything.  He had no authority to hinder my first flight.  He simply 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.  

 

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 was knowledgeable, and I could tell that to the FAA.  He WAS knowledgeable, and I fixed 3 things based on his recommendations.  I could have found other knowledgeable people who I trusted to come take a look.  In fact I did that every chance I had.  But somehow, having someone 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,  wow, thats really interesting.  Good Luck."  I don't blame 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@frontiernet.net> wrote:

Russell Duffy wrote:

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   

 

Hi Jerry,

 

Well, you've been the only "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 follow the recommendations of any one person, or group of people, unless I personally agree with that recommendation.  The thought of having a full fledged, tax exempt, card carrying organization that essentially tells the insurance company what's right and wrong just rubs me the wrong way. 

I think that's to your credit

The list already allows us 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 list should feel perfectly comfortable asking anyone else to inspect, or allow them to inspect each others projects.  With or without the organization, 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 would be helpful.  For all our independence, we would all most likely honor such a list.

As for accident inspections, 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 (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  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.  True enough, but that's not really the point IMO.  In the (thankfully) very rare case such as Paul's, the actual reason will likely never be known, Agreed unless it was really obvious I doubt it will be, and then the NTSB folks will catch it.  Not a chance.

 

Sorry folks, but that's the way I see it.  

Everyone owns up to his mistakes.  Trouble is, seven different solutions coming from seven different directions (as was basically the case with Paul) will have a strong tendency to lead one to pick attributes of several of the [conflicting?] solutions and not necessarily solve the problem, or perhaps (as was Paul's case?) create another in its place.  Not much progress there.               I guess that's why they call it "experimental" ... Jim S.

Cheers,

Rusty (in trouble now)  

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

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