X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.223] (HELO priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1000356 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:58:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=199.185.220.223; envelope-from=echolakeresort@telus.net Received: from boucher-oddle24 ([207.194.26.131]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with SMTP id <20050613155733.KMHL3710.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@boucher-oddle24> for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:57:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <42ADACE6.000009.03148@BOUCHER-ODDLE24> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:57:26 -0700 (Pacific Standard Time) Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; boundary="------------Boundary-00=_QN51MY50000000000000" X-Mailer: IncrediMail (3001609) From: "Echo Lake Fishing Resort (Georges Boucher)" References: To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Paul Conner X-FID: FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000 X-Priority: 3 --------------Boundary-00=_QN51MY50000000000000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Group=0D IMO Out of respect for Paul & his family until we know the actual cause = of the accident we should refrain from speculating. Some parts of his installation may look questionable but there is no proof that they were t= he cause of the crash.=0D Georges B.=0D -------Original Message-------=0D =0D From: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Date: 06/13/05 07:56:25=0D To: Rotary motors in aircraft=0D Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Paul Conner=0D =0D Dale,=0D My own observation (at some distance and not having all the information=0D available) was that Paul had LOTS of "peer review" after his first=0D failure. Trouble is, there were many MANY suggestions put forth and he=0D couldn't incorporate (or even properly evaluate) them all. He had his=0D own ideas and it appeared to me that the solution he incorporated=0D involved those ideas that came from the sources that he regarded as most=0D reliable, and which were compatible with his own. This is not of=0D course, the ideal way to approach the issue, but I think this is=0D probably exactly what every damned one of us would have done under the=0D circumstances. I'm not at all certain Paul had the engineering prowess=0D and certainly not the test resources to do a truly methodical study of=0D various solutions. He did the best he could under the circumstances. A=0D very large factor in the outcome in my view had to do with all of the=0D very well deserved accolades he got for successfully getting the=0D airplane back on the ground after his first failure. There were=0D universal pats-on-the-ass and attaboys as well there should have been=0D for an incredible display of airmanship. What was missing was pointing=0D out his great good fortune and particularly the vast amount of pure dumb=0D luck that made that maneuver successful. I've seen this before.=0D Putting myself in his place, I'm sure that after the accolades from=0D recovering from a partial power loss at 350' - 400' would have driven my=0D decision to try it again with a complete power loss at 200' - 300' even=0D knowing there was lots of survivable terrain straight ahead if I was=0D willing to risk the airplane.. I point this out in all due respect to=0D Paul and the rest of us, and stipulating again that I'm telling you what=0D *I* would have done under the circumstances.=0D =0D I don't think too little peer review was so much an issue as too much of=0D it ... Jim S.=0D =0D Dale Rogers wrote:=0D =0D >Perry,=0D >=0D > I got the impression that you think that the peer-review=0D >process here may have failed Paul C. That may be so, but=0D >IIRC, all too often we weren't even told about what he was=0D >up to until it was a ~fait accompli~. I'd never seen the=0D >photo of his sump tank until after the crash. My personal=0D >archives show only one photo this year - of his snorkle=0D >scoop. The others that I've saved - which is darned near=0D >everything put up on the list, or pointed to - were all of=0D >his engine compartment, or things therein.=0D >=0D > I'd have to go search to verify it, but didn't someone=0D >catch the weakness in the location of his fuel pumps -=0D >strapped to a strut on his engine mount? IIRc, that was=0D >right after the first engine out landing (the photo file=0D >is dated Mar-04)=0D >=0D > It's true that our informal process isn't especially=0D >efficient; but no process can work if a piece of work isn't=0D >submitted for review.=0D >=0D >My $.002,=0D >Dale R.=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >>From: "Perry Mick" =0D >>=0D >>[snip]=0D >>=0D >>He made a couple of errors in my opinion that no one caught.=0D >>[snip]=0D >>=0D >>=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=0D >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html=0D >>>=0D >>>=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D >=0D =0D >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=0D >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html --------------Boundary-00=_QN51MY50000000000000 Content-Type: Text/HTML; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 Group
IMO Out of respect for Paul & his family until  we know the= actual cause of the accident we should refrain from speculating. Some pa= rts of his installation may look questionable but there is no proof that = they were the cause of the crash.
 Georges B.
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 06/13/05 07:= 56:25
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: Paul Conner
 
Dale,
My own observation (at some distance and not having all the informat= ion
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. &nbs= p;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 t= he
circumstances.  I'm not at all certain Paul had the engine= ering prowess
and certainly not the test resources to do a truly methodical study = of
various solutions.  He did the best he could under the cir= cumstances.  A
very large factor in the outcome in my view had to do with all of th= e
very well deserved accolades he got for successfully getting the
airplane back on the ground after his first failure.  Ther= e were
universal pats-on-the-ass and attaboys as well there should have bee= n
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 b= efore.
Putting myself in his place, I'm sure that after the accolades from<= /DIV>
recovering from a partial power loss at 350' - 400' would have drive= n my
decision to try it again with a complete power loss at 200' - 300' e= ven
knowing there was lots of survivable terrain straight ahead if I was=
willing to risk the airplane..  I point this out in all du= e 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 muc= h of
it ... Jim S.
 
Dale Rogers wrote:
 
>Perry,
>
>   I got the impression that you think that the peer-r= eview
>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 pers= onal
>archives show only one photo this year - of his snorkle
>scoop.  The others that I've saved - which is darned n= ear
>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 some= one
>catch the weakness in the location of his fuel pumps -
>strapped to a strut on his engine mount?  IIRc, that w= as
>right after the first engine out landing (the photo file
>is dated Mar-04)
>
>   It's true that our informal process isn't especiall= y
>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/
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
 
>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
--------------Boundary-00=_QN51MY50000000000000--