Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <50226D30.4000800@att.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:44:16 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net>
Reply-To: echristley@att.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Filters. Was: Rotary Forced Landing
References: <list-5697949@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5697949@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Al Wick wrote:
> < might have had an engine failure at 50'
> I don't know what to say Rich. You're convinced a filter with 10 times
> the surface area is more likely to fail? All of the evidence says the
> complete opposite. Why don't you come up with a real world test to prove
> your point?
> You could put your two methods side by side, then start adding debris.
>  
> -al
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* ARGOLDMAN@aol.com <mailto:ARGOLDMAN@aol.com>
>      
>     The benefit of being able to look at a filter element is the ability
>     to take some recourse if problems pop up. Inability to inspect stops
>     one from not knowing (although, for some, there is solace in that).
>     "If I can't see it, it must not be there."
>      

I think the thrust of Rich's argument is in the snippet, which I would summarize as "Don't test and trust.  Instead,
inspect and verify often."

However, it can be argued that inspection is a form of test.  In which case, the viewpoints meld together like the
colors in a 70's rock video and become the one true way of quality assurance zen...Test early and often.