Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.164; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42AD9E69.1060308@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:55:37 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Paul Conner
References: <list-1000175@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1000175@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dale,
My own observation (at some distance and not having all the information 
available) was that Paul had LOTS of "peer review" after his first 
failure.  Trouble is, there were many MANY suggestions put forth and he 
couldn't incorporate (or even properly evaluate) them all.  He had his 
own ideas and it appeared to me that the solution he incorporated 
involved those ideas that came from the sources that he regarded as most 
reliable, and which were compatible with his own.  This is not of 
course, the ideal way to approach the issue, but I think this is 
probably exactly what every damned one of us would have done under the 
circumstances.  I'm not at all certain Paul had the engineering prowess 
and certainly not the test resources to do a truly methodical study of 
various solutions.  He did the best he could under the circumstances.  A 
very large factor in the outcome in my view had to do with all of the 
very well deserved accolades he got for successfully getting the 
airplane back on the ground after his first failure.  There were 
universal pats-on-the-ass and attaboys as well there should have been 
for an incredible display of airmanship.  What was missing was pointing 
out his great good fortune and particularly the vast amount of pure dumb 
luck that made that maneuver successful.  I've seen this before.  
Putting myself in his place, I'm sure that after the accolades from 
recovering from a partial power loss at 350' - 400' would have driven my 
decision to try it again with a complete power loss at 200' - 300' even 
knowing there was lots of survivable terrain straight ahead if I was 
willing to risk the airplane..  I point this out in all due respect to 
Paul and the rest of us, and stipulating again that I'm telling you what 
*I* would have done under the circumstances.

I don't think too little peer review was so much an issue as too much of 
it ... Jim S.

Dale Rogers wrote:

>Perry,
>
>   I got the impression that you think that the peer-review 
>process here may have failed Paul C.  That may be so, but 
>IIRC, all too often we weren't even told about what he was 
>up to until it was a ~fait accompli~.  I'd never seen the 
>photo of his sump tank until after the crash.  My personal 
>archives show only one photo this year - of his snorkle 
>scoop.  The others that I've saved - which is darned near 
>everything put up on the list, or pointed to - were all of 
>his engine compartment, or things therein.
>
>   I'd have to go search to verify it, but didn't someone 
>catch the weakness in the location of his fuel pumps - 
>strapped to a strut on his engine mount?  IIRc, that was 
>right after the first engine out landing (the photo file 
>is dated Mar-04)
>
>   It's true that our informal process isn't especially 
>efficient; but no process can work if a piece of work isn't 
>submitted for review.
>
>My $.002,
>Dale R.
>
> 
>  
>
>>From: "Perry Mick" <pjmick@mail.viclink.com>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>He made a couple of errors in my opinion that no one caught. 
>>[snip]
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>> Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>