X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com ([64.136.55.15] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with SMTP id 3578743 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:25:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.55.15; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com (webmail14.vgs.untd.com [10.181.12.154]) by smtpout03.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABE8FRW5ARLW6Y2 for (sender ); Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:24:59 -0700 (PDT) X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkBVeqLMeszVh4oZDeaIKVqOUDeZZfy+FWw== Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by webmail14.vgs.untd.com (jqueuemail) id PDZJK666; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:24:49 PDT Received: from [10.181.11.40] by webmail14.vgs.untd.com with HTTP: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:24:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [10.181.11.40] Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "al wick" Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:24:06 GMT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Rotary Engines X-Mailer: Webmail Version 4.0 Message-Id: <20090412.212406.6614.0@webmail14.vgs.untd.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="--__JWM__J7605.4d86S.4f45M" X-ContentStamp: 2:3:1076518812 X-MAIL-INFO:545c11b5919c781525d5b1d59cfcf5a1b12d3d19552d4191b56cfc6da50cbd3c193c81c14c6549002d4199b8b8392c58a588cde19d X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.12.154|webmail14.vgs.untd.com|outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com|alwick@juno.com ----__JWM__J7605.4d86S.4f45M Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 If your goal is to measure risk, estimate reliability, or improve safet= y, it's important to include on the ground failures. They are excellent = predictors of flight risks. Ed's woodruff key ommision is good example. = Just good fortune it showed up before flight. Could have easily occured = mid flight. BTW Ed, what a great report and solution you came up with! I= n fact, I believe you've implemented the best possible solution for that= failure. = Al, when you guys rate your risks using FMEA methods, a number of the on= the ground failures will wash away. That's because they have high chanc= e you will notice before flight. I think that will satisfy your concern.= = It's reasonable to feel uncomfortable reading about the failures. But wh= en you guys start recording the permanent solutions, it will be worth it= . Future builders can read the incident, follow proven solutions for the= most significant items. = -al wick Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru 230+ hrs tt from Portland, Oregon ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Al Gietzen" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:22:26 -0800 = Well, now you are getting into non-incidents. That list is inexhaustibl= e. Yes; I=92d suggest if we are going to do this at all; how about restrict= ing to =93engine related failure causing sufficient loss of power render= ing the aircraft unable to maintain altitude.=94 = Al G ----__JWM__J7605.4d86S.4f45M Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

If your goal is to measure risk,  estimate reliability, or= improve safety, it's important to include on the ground failures. = They are excellent predictors of flight risks. Ed's woodruff key ommisio= n is good example. Just good fortune it showed up before flight. Could h= ave easily occured mid flight. BTW Ed, what a great report and solution = you came up with! In fact, I believe you've implemented the best possibl= e solution for that failure.

Al, when you guys rate your risks using FMEA methods, a num= ber of the on the ground failures will wash away. That's because th= ey have high chance you will notice before flight. I think that will sat= isfy your concern.

It's reasonable to feel uncomfortable reading about the failures. But= when you guys start recording the permanent solutions, it will be worth= it. Future builders can read the incident, follow proven solutions for = the most significant items.


-al wick
Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru
230+ hrs tt from Por= tland, Oregon

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Al= Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Cas= ey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:22:26= -0800

 

Well, now you are getting into non-incidents.  Th= at list is inexhaustible.

Yes; I=92d su= ggest if we are going to do this at all; how about restricting to =93eng= ine related failure causing sufficient loss of power rendering the aircr= aft unable to maintain altitude.=94

 =

Al G

----__JWM__J7605.4d86S.4f45M--