|
Group
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 the cause of the crash.
Georges B.
-------Original Message-------
Date: 06/13/05 07:56:25
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Paul Conner
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.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>He made a couple of errors in my opinion that no one caught.
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
|