Points to ponder #1

[Linda Lovelace]

This is not the first shot in a war. They are statements of fact and should give you something to think about.

As I have previously posted I have been lurking on this forum for over two years without posting. This will be my first post.

There has been a major firestorm on this forum dealing with one person’s opinions relative to the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44). There were many objections to the ideas offered and many of these objections were very abusive. In examining the responses I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas. I gave a lot of thought to these ideas and whether they had any basis in fact and as a result I did a bit of investigation on my own.

I contacted the NTSB requesting any data relating to 34 loss of control accident ranging from 1981 to 1996. Since that time there were at least five others all after the rulemaking of the FAA and the development of the safety course and the SFAR. I also obtained a copy of the Loss of control report issued by the NTSB. In addition I obtained via the Freedom of Information Act a copy of a private letter issued by Mr. James Hall the Acting Chairman of the NTSB and sent to David R. Hinson the Administrator of the FAA.

The letter to the FAA primarily addressed three specific loss of control accidents. The first accident addressed in the letter occurred in the UK (G-PUDD). It described the hull after the crash stating that both rotor blades struck the fourth bay on the tail boom. In part here are the main findings: An instability of the main rotor, rocking of the mast, and extreme pitch divergence of the main rotor blades appeared to precede all of the fractures of the main rotor flight control system. The reason for the main rotor pitch divergence has not been determined and the investigation of the accident is continuing. This accident occurred on June 8, 1994 and I do not believe they have determined the cause of the rotor divergence.

The second accident occurred on August 10, 1993 in Hawaii; The report in part reads: Examination of the retrieved wreckage revealed that one main rotor blade was bent downward and had entered the left forward section of the cockpit. The main rotor hub exhibited deep gouges where the droop tusks contacted the hub; the droop stop tusks were sheared. The upper transmission and lower mast remained intact; however, the upper main rotor shaft was bent approximately 30-degrees, consistent with an aerodynamically divergent blade striking the body of the helicopter during powered flight. The Safety Board was unable to establish the exact cause of the main rotor divergence.

The third accident described in the letter occurred on June 29, 1992: ….However, a main rotor blade had left its’ impressions on the crushed left side of the tailbooms’s first bay area. Both pitch change links exhibited bending overload failures and the tusks were fractured from each spindle, consistent with damage resulting from the divergence of the main rotor blades from their normal plane of rotation. In the first two accidents the Safety Board stated that they felt the helicopters were operating in their normal specified ranges. This accident provided a tape of the last seconds of the aircraft in controlled flight and proved that the helicopter was not involved in a zero G incident or a low rotor situation.

The letter also addressed quality control related problems. In several cases it was determined that R-22 main rotor blades did not meet quality control standards and that they were allowed to be installed by a signoff from the Designated Engineering Representative who at that time was Frank Robinson.

In the Loss of Control Report the NTSB on many occasions requested that the R-22/44 be grounded until the exact cause of the rotor divergence could be determined. This was never done. The report addressed in many instance that the design of the rotor blades led to their divergent behavior and recommended wind tunnel and computer simulations be performed.

I could go on but it would tie up a lot of space on the server.

These are my thought on this matter. What do you think.


:ok: I thought I would change my smily

[Camp Freddie]

I think Lu has had a sex change !

[Droopystop]

I smell journo.

For what its worth, I firmly believe that a Robinson flown the Robinson way is no more dangerous than any other type of helicopter.

[rotorrookie]

a Robinson flown the Robinson way is no more dangerous than any other type define that please
:confused:
Are there any idications that all these aircrafts involved where not flown the "Robinson way"??

[helicopter-redeye]

R-22/44

If this debates going to flare up again, it would be helpful:-

(a). If we can have the two types split out rather than combined (wrongly);

(b). And by date, as some changes may/ will have happened over time.

Thanks in advance. I have put the kettle on for some more tea.

h-r

[diethelm]

Linda:

Nice bait for the group but this fish thinks there is a hook under that worm.

As you wrote:

"They are statements of fact and should give you something to think about."

But you state no conclusions. What are your thoughts or conclusions based upon the data presented?

[Linda Lovelace]

To: diethelm

But you state no conclusions. What are your thoughts or conclusions based upon the data presented?

By virtue of my background I am unable to offer any technical conclusions that is why I posted the above material requesting the conclusions of those members of the forum. In reading the various reports it is obvious that the NTSB concluded that the Robinson blades suffered from some induced aerodynamic instability. It is also obvious that the NTSB wanted the FAA to cancel the certification of both aircraft. The FAA refused to ground or cancel the certification of both aircraft instead they suggested the performance of various studies to determine why the blades were diverging from their plane of rotation. I don’t know if they ever found out as there have been no design changes or, a massive replacement of the blades. Regarding the blades there are several examples of blades failing due to poor quality control.

It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true. After the Robinson way was developed and flight maneuvers were changed there were still several incidents of loss of control due to rotor blade divergence. The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes. I believe the R-22 as originally designed was to be flown as a Ferrari but due to the input of the FAA it has to be flown as a Ford Station Wagon.

Once again I ask the members of this forum to make their own conclusions.

:ok:

[NickLappos]

Linda,

It has been my experience that the NTSB sometimes makes those kinds of suggestions, mostly as CYA paperwork, with little understanding of the underlying technical facts. Their investigators are typically not trained engineers, they are fact gatherers, like detectives, with training on how to capture those facts. The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)

Many helicopter accidents involve rotor/fuselage contact, unfortunately. The notion that some instability is needed to make that happen is quite flawed, and the ability to detect and classify instabilities is part of the normal certification process, with data that the FAA requires to be gathered and approved by FAA engineers.

Part of the issue here is Lu's unguided missile about 18 degrees of missing rigging, the hook he has hung his hat on for years. Because he is unable to understand delta 3 in its most basic form and his stubborn nature, you now have unearthed a cabal of dastardly nature. This could be the plot of a John Irving novel, where the blind lead the blind happly into new dizzying paranoid heights.

A question: If you mistrust the FAA, why do you let your husband fly anything? Those same black-hearted bastards who you infer buried this problem have surely got others that will get him, N'est-pas?

I am looking up those dates to try and understand the particular accidents. Do you care to post the letter that you paraphrase?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14890&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X13165&key=1

[diethelm]

Linda:

Is a Ford station wagon unsafe, or simply unsafe if asked to perform like a ferrari?

Technically speaking I have no idea. I have yet to figure out how the thermos knows when to keep hot things hot and cold things cold. How do it know? But let us stay on your argument from a non-technical standpoint.

You state that the "The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes" but you do not state it is an unsafe design. Fans of Formula 1 would argue that Minardi or Jordan or Williams need "major design changes" to compete with Ferrari in Formula 1 but that does not mean the their cars are unsafe. Did the measurable outcome of the intended design of the R22 simply result in measurable performance less than the original design expectations or is the result unsafe?

Here is an interesting observation.

If it was truly an unsafe design, why would 4 out of 4 local FAA DE's be perfectly willing to fly an R22 but only one was willing to fly a rotorway?

So, do you believe it is an unsafe design or that the intended attempt to design a ferrari at that price was not successful? Further without regard for the intent of the design but the result, is the resulting product a reasonable compromise between cost of design and manufacture versus performance and limitations?

[Johe02]

Hey Linda. .

What are you trying to achieve?

Why the coy, I'm-too-shy-to-write-anything-on-this-forum-for-two-years entrance - and then you make a serious attempt to get all Robinson Helicopters grounded!!

Kin L!!

Dunno what kind of Ferrari's you've been in but I would (fondly) liken the R22 to a Vespa or one of those Smart cars

. . and could you be more concise? You think the pitch links are too weak, right? Or are you just going for the mystery factor. .



:* By virtue of my background . . Bull. .

[paco]

Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.

This is not to support Robinson or any other manufacturer.

For what it's worth, my take on the Robbie is that it's a great machine within its limits, but should not be used for training. To be fair to Frank Robinson, that was not his original intention.

Phil

[13snoopy]

Linda,
How do you know that the helis in question were being flown the "Robinson Way"? What evidence do you have that supports your statements? I assume you were not witness to the accidents in question so how do you know the fashion in which these helis were being flown in. You really don't, do you? You have a very flimsy NTSB report of these accidents and that's it.
Also, as far as your statement saying that there hasn't been a massive blade replacement: Where have you been the last nine months? There has been a blade replacement AD in the spring of 2004 and now there is yet another Service Bulletin prescribing additional heli blades to be replaced within the next year.
Maybe you'll want to get a little more current info next time before you post wrongs.
Regards,
Mark

[Heliport]

Linda

You say in examining the responses (as a non-technical person): "I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas."
What 'vested interests'?
Frank Robinson? Readers no doubt had in mind his vested interest when reading the explanation he posted. Good reason to be cautious, but it doesn't automatically follow what he said was untrue.
Instructors/pilots/owners? It could be argued they have a strong vested interest in their own safety rather than the success of the model.
Engineers? Why would they have a vested interest in any one model?
Top engineering test pilots? None of them employed by Robinson.

not wanting to accept the ideas offered
Or rejecting them after proper consideration? You make no mention of the numerous informed, carefully reasoned and detailed posts by people well-qualified to comment on the ideas offered. :confused:

personal dislike of the person offering the ideas
It's true there were sometimes signs of exasperation with 'the person'. Whether or not that was justified or understandable in the circumstances is a matter of opinion but, if you assume it was simply because of the 'controversial' ideas offered, you're mistaken.

You say you've posted "statements of fact". And just a few opinions?
"It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true."
Who says?
"The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes."
Do you offer that as a statement of fact?

You refer to "the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44)".
Do you mean that? Your comments seem to relate to the R22.

I'm sure people would be interested to read a copy of the 'private letter' from the Acting Chairman of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA. Will you post it?



Heliport
BTW, no vested interest (or any other particular interest) in Robinsons.

[Av8r]

This provocative post has a distinct smell about it.
Be careful gents, I get the feeling you might find yourself quoted in an article you may not want to be associated with.

[Rotorbee]

I think Av8r is right. Even the name Linda Lovelace is provocative.
Search google for that name and you know why.

[Flying Lawyer]

You're surely not suggesting that new member Linda Lovelace might not be the non-technical wife of a helicopter pilot who decided to post after reading the forum for over two years - as she claimed on another thread?

Hmmm! You might have a point. Linda Lovelace was the name of the 'actress' who starred in the 70's porn movie 'Deep Throat'.
And 'Deep Throat' was the code name of the anonymous informant who helped the journalists expose the Watergate scandal.

Where will this end? We might eventually end up at the Mecca of all conspiracy theory enthusiasts - the famous 'grassy knoll.'

That's a thought. Did the investigators even consider whether the fatal shot(s) might have come from a helicopter?

[Johe02]

Seems like it's gonna be another 2 years before the next post.

Perhaps not a bad thing. . :suspect:

[b.borg]

:ok: Good hijack FL

We don't need to mention the secret R-22 landing site on the Moon, do we ?:E

This thread is ready for JB IMHO :ok:

Edit by B:Borg for typo

[NickLappos]

Paco said:
Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.

Not true, paco, the law is smarter than that, and so are you and me. The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned. It has to be shown that when the design was made, there was reasonable evidence that the design wouldn't work, and that the manufacurer knew or should have known it, and ignored it. same standard that you use when a cop pulls you over, "Gee, is this a 35 mph zone?"

If the court was allowed to consider that improvements were evidence of previous unfitness, it would completely stop all development, a very bad thing for all.

Manufacturers are encorouged to improve their designs, and fear of court reprisals is not an issue.

Flying Lawyer, do I have this right?

PS, this is one of the reasons why buying new rather than "grandfathered" machines is a nice idea.

Regarding Deep Throat, I would be disapointed to find our Deep Throat was less like Linda Lovelace and more like Hal Holbrook!

[paco]

You and I might be smarter than that, Nick, but I doubt the law is, paricularly when a lawyer might argue that "if the helicopter wasn't there, the passenger wouldn't have died", leaving aside the fact that the customer ordered the helicopter in the first place! Watch out for the jury, too - in the States they can overturn the law in many, if not all cases.

I know of one or two cases where improvements and changes have not been made to products precisely because of the possibility of that interpretation. They have to call them enhancements rather than redesigns.

Sad, isn't it?

Phil

[NickLappos]

I was told in court cases I have worked on that such evidence of improvement is not allowed, and if the plaintiff brings it up, it is subject for a mistrial. The court considers the knowledge available when the design was made and qualified, not the wonderful improvements since then. How would a DC-3 ever be allowed to carry pax, otherwise?

[Linda Lovelace]

To: Nick Lappos

It has been my experience that the NTSB sometimes makes those kinds of suggestions, mostly as CYA paperwork, with little understanding of the underlying technical facts. Their investigators are typically not trained engineers; they are fact gatherers, like detectives, with training on how to capture those facts. The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)

I’m very surprised to see that you discriminate between graduate engineers and fact gatherers. I believe that if the NTSB were aware of your comments they would take offence. I would also feel that the NTSB would strongly object to your use of the term CYA. I would imagine that most of these fact gatherers are in fact graduates of some engineering program and most have attended the University of Southern California Aviation Safety Program. An analogy to your statement would be that medical examiners are not the same as doctors even though they may have attended the same med schools. The doctors and the medical examiners although having the same training have taken different career paths. The doctors are trained to cure and the medical examiners with the same educational background have opted to determine cause of death (“fact gatherers at the NTSB”).

The fact gatherers must determine the cause of an accident by in fact reverse engineering from what evidence is presented to them. Through this process they will be able within limits determine what caused the accident to include equipment failure, pilot error, or a design flaw. If it is a design flaw the fault will lie within the design organisation and the certification authorities that approved the design. I believe that there a very few design engineers without special training could perform this function and this applies to the “engineers” in the certification authorities.

I would strongly recommend that you sit in front of your TV and watch the CSI programs. What goes on in these fictional programs is what goes on in the NTSB.


:ok:

[NickLappos]

Linda,

Where is the letter?


Your surprise is no surprise to me. Fact gatherers find out what occurred, scientists and engineers find out why. The distinction is the same as if a police detective studied a homicide, and then told the mayor to ban guns. The NTSB does not reverse engineer, they accident reconstruct, which means they determine the sequence of events, and let the manufacturers and FAA determine the engineering causes. Look at the reports I posted (you have done little here but watch the telly) and see the names of the FAA individuals who were in on the investigations. They, and the manufacturers reps would have the clearest picture of why things occurred.

I am surprised that you think your slurs on the Manufacturer and the FAA (where you accuse them of hiding safety flaws in a certified aircraft) are somehow inoffensive, while you judge my appraisal of the charters and experience of both organizations (borne of a career working with both) meets your disapproval!

The facts are as they are, many times the NTSB makes recommendations, and many times the relevant federal transportation agency (aviation, ships, trains) decides to do something else.

The idea that CSI is somehow true is your biggest error. I suggest that you actually try to know what you discuss! A lousey TV guide article I read about 3 months ago (written by a real CSI investigator) told how very hokey and far-fetched the show was. He scored them a 1 out of 10 for accuracy. Real police investigation does not involve itself with redesigning aircraft, or cars or TV sets, they report what occurred. As one of those engineers who does get involved, at the request of the FAA and NTSB, I believe the case you are trying to make is a very weak one, based on inuendo and little else.

For some FACTS, note the accident report for the 1992 California accident had a running tape recorder that was examined for any tell-tale sounds and none were found. I have personally used this kind of data from CVR's to rebuild accidents. Were there a mysterious unknown and massive rotor instability, it wolld have shown itself on that recorder as the oscillations built, the sounds of rotor speed excursions and drivetrain participation as any flapping instability began would have been unmistakable. None were noted.

Have fun with your witch hunt.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: NickLappos

Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.You and I might be smarter than that, Nick, but I doubt the law is, paricularly when a lawyer might argue that "if the helicopter wasn't there, the passenger wouldn't have died", leaving aside the fact that the customer ordered the helicopter in the first place! Watch out for the jury, too - in the States they can overturn the law in many, if not all cases.I know of one or two cases where improvements and changes have not been made to products precisely because of the possibility of that interpretation. They have to call them enhancements rather than redesigns. Would it surprise you to know there is a law firm based in Seattle that specializes in teaching aerospace firms how to delete incriminating engineering information, how to obfuscate that same information as to make it misleading and how to outright lie if involved in tort litigation. Also how to relocate individuals that could provide information. The system of tort law is far from perfect and this Seattle based law firm tries to make it a bit one sided in the favor of the manufacturers. This firm is on retainer to just about every aerospace and aircraft manufacturer.

I now provide several facts that go to show how aircraft manufacturers operate to include how certification authorities respond to facts presented to them.


Deleted



And that for the uninitiated is how things are really done. If there are cover ups in the major airframe manufacturers I would suggest that the same might be true for helicopter manufacturers.

:E :E


Lu
I'm sorry to delete the major part of your post (almost 2000 words of it) but:

(1) It was nothing to do with helicopters - all entirely about an airliner. Try the Engineers & Technicians forum.

(2) It contained allegations against several named companies which were potentially libellous. Try a website or aviation journal which is prepared (and can afford) to take the risk of publishing your claims.


We've been through this many times. Let's not do it again.

Heliport

[Av8r]

...I think we'll keep him strapped down.

[Dave_Jackson]

Paco said; """Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it."""


Nick said; ""The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned.
""


Deep Throat just about choked on that one :yuk:, he then said; "There dozens of past and present court cases where the delay between the 'learning of the flaw' and the 'admitting of the flaw' has left the manufacture open to prosecution"

He then went on to talk about 'The Zen of Incestuation', saying "Remember, the work of lawyers is to make work for lawyers.'

:D :D

[Gomer Pylot]

"Remember, the work of lawyers is to make work for lawyers." Well, he got that part right. As we say down here, "Even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes".

[R1Tamer]

"The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)"

As a British Qualified Engineer I find this an interesting and rather misguided comment.

[NickLappos]

Gotta stand up for lawyers, the last time I posted some poor comments, Flying Lawyer (now a dear friend!) corrected me with a well placed kick in the pants.
No lawyers = no laws = no civilization.

Regarding all those quotes from Lu, I really do take offense, as I have perhaps 50 times previously in this forum. The tires on your car, the hypodermic needle in your child's arm, the pills you swallow and the machines that you fly were all made by people who ernestly try to do the right thing. Those who believe that our systems house people of such low integrity are giving us a peek into their own small, black little minds. "Honi soit qui mal y pense"

R1Tamer, I tossed that in because I understand mechanics in England are called a "engineers" and I got in hot water with some ppruners by indicating that a degree is an important part of being an engineer. Tell me what you think an engineer is, I will toss that into my file labeled "Separated by a common language"!

[R1Tamer]

Nick,

In the UK / Britain / England I generally find we call Mechanics, "Mechanics", Maintenance, "Maintenance" and Engineers are "Engineers".

I don't have any great dispute over your definition of an Engineer.

Just felt pricked over the suggestion that in the UK / Britain we used the term Engineer loosely. I stuggled over four years to get through two particular exams using mathematical principles for scientific, mechanical and practical applications and I like to think that these, plus a dozen other exams or so, qualifies me to call myself a Mech. Engineer.

Enjoy your posts greatly.....keep them coming.

The more antagonistic the better!

[diethelm]

"No lawyers = no laws = no civilization"


Can I sell you the London Bridge. It is located in Arizona........

[Heliport]

R1Tamer

I've always thought an engineer is someone who has a degree in engineering or someone like yourself who's obtained a professional qualification from a professional body such as the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Electrical Engineers etc (or a military equivalent) after years studying an approved course and passing examinations.
But the term 'engineer' does seem to be used very loosely in the UK.

Can someone with neither an engineering degree nor a qualification from a professional body properly be called an engineer? :confused:
I realise the term 'professional body' can be rather dubious these days. There's nothing to stop anyone setting up an association with very simple examinations and meaningless titles granted on payment of a membership fee.

Perhaps it's a symptom of the general devaluing of terms in pursuit of 'status'?
Years ago, my central heating was serviced by a plumber - now it's done by a 'central heating engineer'.
My car used to be serviced by a mechanic; now it's done by a 'technician' - same guy.
'Consultant' is another one - salesmen/women and shop assistants are now 'Sales Consultants'.

The funniest is 'profession'. I suppose anyone can call themselves a 'consultant', but the way 'profession' is frequently (mis)used is laughable - often describing jobs where the training takes only weeks, rather than years of study, training and examinations.

[NickLappos]

Heliport,

I used to have a professional body......

Do you recall the ppruning I got once in these hallowed cyber-walls when I tried to say that mechanics fixed helicopters, and engineers designed them?

[Gaseous]

There are 2 posts on the previous page. Check out the indents, the underscore, the title, the style,the content. Come on Lu. Tell us if you are wearing womens clothes now.:O

[Tynecastle]

Hey Guys, just check the dictionary for engineer, [ Collins and Longman]
1.One who designs/builds roads, bridges, machines.
2.Someone who takes care of engines on ships and aircraft.
3 One who looks after engines

Sure a civil or mechanical engineer spends years studying, but a Chief Engineer on a ship or the old Flight Engineers had to do a fair bit as well, plus many years doing the practical stuff.

I think it all depends what goes along with the term, ie: civil engineer, motor engineer, aircraft maintenance engineer.
Cheers for 2005.
TC

[GLSNightPilot]

Or, at least in the US, someone who drives a train along the railroad.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Heliport

Can someone with neither an engineering degree nor a qualification from a professional body properly be called an engineer?

The answer to that question is yes. I don't have an engineering degree but I have worked as a RMS engineer since 1968 and before that I was a project engineer, a design engineer and a field service engineer. I was fully qualified to fill those positions because of my capabilities and experience. I have worked for Sikorsky, Bell, Agusta, The European space center, TRW, Douglas Aircraft Boeing, and several other companies and in each case I held the title of engineer. I have never claimed to be an engineer and when asked what I do I specifically tell them that engineer is a title and nothing more.

In the United States in most military programs as well as NASA programs the contractor is paid on the basis of how many PhDs are on the payroll, How many Masters on the payroll and how many engineers are on the payroll and it goes all the way down to the technicians. It is to the companies’ benefit to have as many professional (sounding) people on the payroll as the government pays on the basis of personnel and their supposed qualifications.

In my case there is a professional body called the Society Of Logistic Engineers (SOLE) and SOLE offers professional standing of a Certified Logistic Engineer much like a Professional Engineer. I have never seen fit to take the course for two reasons. One it wouldn't help me in my work and it wouldn't help me to make more money as I was already making $127,000 a year.

I would also like to know why you deleted my post. Granted it did not relate to helicopters but it did respond to Nick's post about how protective the FAA is relative to making flying safer. This same post was made on one of the airline forums relative to the A-300 crash in New York. The material in the post is in the public domain. The FAA, DGCA, LBA, the Canadian MOT, and the UK CAA are well aware of it. The letters I sent to the FAA were even copied and distributed within Boeing.

There were several comments about devious law firms. Or, was I too hard on Nick?


:E :E


Lu
"I would also like to know why you deleted my post."
I gave the two reasons why I deleted part of your post.
Either comply or don't post - your choice - but please don't make up reasons in order to imply I have ulterior motives.

"What did I say that was offensive?"
If you mean 'offensive' as in breaking the PPRuNe rules, nothing. I didn't suggest you did.
Your suggestions in this post that I have ulterior motives is offensive, but that's a different matter.

"There were several comments about devious law firms."
There was one. It's still there. If you'd named the firm, it would have been deleted.

"Or, was I too hard on Nick?"
There was no mention of Nick in what I deleted. I'm not sure what you mean by too hard. Nick seems to have been more than capable of looking after himself in your skirmishes on various topics over the years. ;)

Thanks for your views on the 'engineer' point. It seems to have different meanings depending on context.


Heliport

[Whirlybird]

Whirly would like to tell you all a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I'll begin...

Once upon a time there was a bored aviation journalist. He needed something new to write, his editor was crying out for articles, and he had a bad case of writer's block and no good ideas. Naturally, he'd trawled PPRuNe often for ideas, for a couple of years even, but he'd never posted. And he'd never been on Rotorheads.

So one day, he just had a look at what these strange people who fly things with whirly wings got up to. And, just for a laugh - well, he was bored - he registered, picked the name of a porn star, and posted a...ahem...shall we say, provocative, first post. Just for a laugh, you understand. But when he got a load of...could we even call them answers...propositions, maybe, he had a better idea. After all, he needed to pay the bills and appease the editor. What if he wrote an article on one pf the hot topics of rotary aviation? But what were they? He knew bugger all about helicopters. Ah, but a search revealed a rather opinionated engineer with strong views on the R22, and when Lu posted, others answered. So he had an idea...

Linda, at least tell us what publication we can find this in. ;)

[Johe02]

Interesting story Whirly. . .

I suggest this thread be boycotted on account of its nosedive in to speculation and semantics :zzz:

[diethelm]

I suggest a pool, $20 per guess. Winner takes all.

Who is our Linda Lovelace.

[Thomas coupling]

strange as strange can be....I can't locate her initial musings on this forum.....remember:
about married to a pilot, pubes, etc!!!

where for art thou?