Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000501c55e67$456645a0$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-952362@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Quality Assurance / Peer Review ( was: Re: Seized 13b ...)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 20:43:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

There is little doubt that a combination of talents, personalities, and 
experience is what would constitute an ideal team.  Having built an 
installation brings some value to the equation, however, those who have 
never (and perhaps never will) build an installation can provide a perhaps 
more detached viewpoint.  Sometimes new and inexperienced folks bring a 
fresh and unfettered viewpoint that can spot things that perhaps the "elder" 
heads overlook or just assume someone would do correctly.

One of the problems I see, is that since most installations are unique, its 
going to take some rigorous and checklist like checkoff.  A good example is 
what are the critical elements for a "vapor lock free" fuel system.  We have 
a number of different approaches which most of them fortunately work (can be 
made to work).  What would make a teams inspection more useful (my opinion) 
is to develop such a "checklist" and make it available to the builder long 
before the team might be called to inspect.  This is not meant to be a do it 
this one and only way, but hopefully we could identify the root causes of 
problems and point them out.  Just a thought.

Needless to say there area as many ways to approach this challenge as there 
are creative minds on this list.

Ed A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quality Assurance / Peer Review ( was: Re: Seized 
13b ...)


> You're absolutely right, Dale. If I look a little stupid, it's only 
> because I am.
>
> This is a helluva group. I can think of a whole bunch of names that I 
> won't mention, because I know I'll miss two or three out of pure senility, 
> who haven't flown yet or aren't through their 40 hours, who I'd be 
> delighted to confab with in person. Even Al, who brought the subject up, 
> hasn't flown yet. I'd be honored to have him look at my setup before I fly 
> it, and take his every observation very seriously indeed ('course at my 
> present pace, he'll probably be able to fly his rig up here after his 
> first major overhaul).
>
> I think credibility can only be built by consistent success. If enough 
> systems are  reviewed by "the group" and succeed (without major problems), 
> We'll be taken seriously by the outside world.
>
> As far as the immediate safety issues are concerned, I would like to see 
> everybody's installation peer reviewed as extensively as possible. I'll 
> not fly, myself, until that  happens with my system.
>
> Another two cents.
>
> Jack Ford
>
> Jack Ford
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dale Rogers" <dale.r@cox.net>
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 8:32 AM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Quality Assurance / Peer Review ( was: Re: Seized 
> 13b ...)
>
>
>> Jack,
>>
>> Although I agree with you in principle, I don't in the
>> details.  We have a number of very knowledgeable people
>> in the group, who have not yet brought the fruits of
>> their expertise into the air.  That does not mean their
>> observations won't be valid.  Should more weight be given
>> to the observations of those who are flying?  In most cases,
>> I would.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>>> From: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
>>> Date: 2005/05/21 Sat AM 10:39:30 EDT
>>> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seized 13b - accident prevention
>>>
>>> MessageI'd think that a formal organization might need to be in 
>>> existence for an insurance company to take it seriously.
>>>
>>> This may be another step towards making alternative engine installations 
>>> routine and safe (if there's such a thing as safe). A sort of 
>>> self-policing association.
>>>
>>> Now that it's been brought up (Thanks, Al), I wouldn't think of making a 
>>> first flight without some experienced eyeballs taking a close looksee at 
>>> my "perfect" installation. It would be nice to know that the inspectors 
>>> had at least flown successfully.
>>>
>>> My two cents.
>>>
>>> Jack Ford (Rank beginner)
>>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>   From: Russell Duffy
>>>   To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>>>   Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 3:26 PM
>>>   Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seized 13b - accident prevention
>>>
>>>
>>>   Am I way off the mark here?  Could/would this work?  Are there others 
>>> out there who would participate as "examiners"?  Would you welcome such 
>>> "look-over" on your project?  Do you think it would do any good? I'd 
>>> like some feedback on this, and then see whether it makes sense to 
>>> pursue it any further.
>>>
>>>   Hi Al,
>>>
>>>   I think this is a noble effort, but I don't see that anything formal 
>>> needs to be set up.   I'd bet that anyone on this list would feel 
>>> comfortable asking to see someone else's project, or asking to have 
>>> someone look at theirs.
>>>
>>>   Now if you could pitch this idea to the insurance companies, for a 
>>> condition of first flight coverage, or cheaper rates, then you may be 
>>> onto something.
>>>
>>>   Cheers,
>>>   Rusty (balance gear has arrived)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>