Lu, I am going to examine your statements to shed light on why people are siding with Nick on these issues:
YOU SAID: >>The subject that was being discussed that prompted his comment was gyroscopic precession and retreating blade stall. Having conducted training classes for US Army helicopter mechanics and Aviation Maintenance Officers (AMOC) I taught these subjects as a part of POF. I can only assume that these same subjects were taught in the training syllabus for Army Aviators<<.
TRUE: Your assumption is correct, and we have stated this at least six separate times, why is it still only an assumption? In addition, I repeatedly addressed the flawed elements of your teachings to help you gain an understanding of your subject matter – but you ignored all.
YOU WENT ON TO SAY: >> Based on this I addressed the subject as it was taught in a technical school<<.
FALSE: You consistently argued your opinion and then used the way they teach it as evidence that your theory was correct. If you were simply addressing the concepts as they were taught, you would have accepted the initial explanations that it is taught this way for ease of understanding to entry level American pilots, and you would have been open to the reality of the situation.
THEN YOU SAID: >>As Nick implied I didn’t use college level text material to explain the subjects. I would assume the only place that text material of this nature would be used is in the university, The Air Force academy or, test pilot school<<.
FALSE: Several British, NZ, and Australian pilots repeatedly told you they learnt it during basic training. Why do you cling to this assumption? And if in fact they do teach it that way at University, The Air Force academy or, test pilot school, do you think that this is because those levels require a more factual understanding of the concepts, or do you imagine that all these institutions should simply disregard anything other than gyroscopic precession? Don’t you ask your self why?
YOU THEN SAID: >>This level of training material is beyond most pilots<<.
FALSE: Several British, NZ, and Australian pilots repeatedly told you they learnt it during basic training. Why have you not taken it on board?
AND: >>[it] far exceeds what he / she must know to understand how his machine flies<<.
DEBATABLE: The US agrees with you, the rest of the world seems to think that the extra level is required. It is a mute point.
FINALLY, YOU SAY: >>The mechanic must understand this material in order to understand how problems manifest themselves in the dynamic system<<.
WHAT? After all the arguments you are finally saying the mechanic MUST understand the higher level explanations!! Then why don’t YOU understand them, especially if you are teaching other mechanics?
LASTLY, YOU SAID: >>Would this Nick Lappos have received the many awards or would he have all of the patents and most of all would this Nick Lappos be receiving all of the adulation from the participants on these threads. I could even ask if he would have a similar website that is full of self-praise and imploring the individual who stumbles across the site to see how important a person he is<<
THE ANSWER IS YES. But the website would be dedicated to professional engineers, you do have some I presume? A site where “this Nick Lappos” you have created could share the benefits of a lifetime of high level study and expertise, maybe “Justengineers.com” or Professional Engineers Rumour Network” or even the engineers forum, but he might possibly learn from experts on other subjects on other sites, such as this one, just like we all saw when Heedm posted his fantastic explanation on gyroscopics (which you ignored).
Does this explain to you why people are frustrated?
You earn a great deal of money each year and we are all impressed. I will never earn that sort of money, nor will most pilots. Seeing as how you are focussed on the dollars, I suggest you could make another fortune contacting the victims of one of Frank Robinson’s “flawed” machines and presenting your theories in court. I just wonder how much the lawyer on the other side might be willing to pay for a rebuttal of your theories?
Edited to add this: There is now a thread on HUMS. As you probably were involved with HUMS Lu, that is a subject we might all be able to benefit from your knowledge. I look forward to your post on HUMS...
[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: helmet fire ]