|
|
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
|
|