Lu Zuckerman: CV/Resume

[Heliport]

Towards the end of the "RBS, Precession and LZ" debate, I posted Nick Lappos' CV (the product of a little internet searching) and suggested Lu post his.
Unfortunately, the thread was closed before Lu had an opportunity to do so, and he has kindly e-mailed me a copy. As a matter of fairness to Lu, I reproduce a copy of his CV.
Note: Neither I nor Helidrvr closed the thread; I assume it was closed by someone in PPRuNe Admin.

Education
Michigan State University; Major - Product Design; Minor - General Science; UCLA Extension; Masters Program in trade and technical education
Credentials/Licenses
Federal Aviation Administration: Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic;
California Teaching Credential: Aerospace/Aircraft Technology; Drafting;
General Science; Speech
Summary
Over forty-five years of varied experience including assignments in: product support, design engineering, project engineering, assurance engineering, maintenance engineering, and contract management. Major involvement for the past thirty years has been in assurance engineering in positions ranging from reliability and maintainability engineering analyst to the development and management of assurance engineering programs. System/equipment involvement includes helicopters, military/civil aircraft, ballistic missiles, manned space programs, satellites, ships and atomic energy.

Detailed Work Experience
Maintenance Management:
Supervised maintenance engineering department, consisting of nineteen service engineers, two technical illustrators and sixty-two field engineers. Responsible, for all aspects of first and second level maintenance, on a mixed fleet of nine hundred helicopters, and eighteen fixed wing aircraft. Coordinated heavy maintenance and overhaul operations with other departments; supervised and participated in accident investigation; represented company at maintenance seminars; supervised training of host country nationals.
Product Assurance:
Developed reliability, maintainability and human factors contract proposals; implemented programs after contract award. Developed maintenance plans and programs; performed associated analyses (MTTR, MTBF, LSAR, MEA, MEAD, MEAR, FMECA and Safety Hazard). Developed computerized data base programs that provided all interrelated maintenance and operational cost data; developed optimum repair level analysis program.
Product Support:
Worked in all aspects of product support in positions ranging from service engineer trainee to manager of service engineering. Systems applications included helicopters, fixed wing aircraft and ballistics missiles. Assignments also included technical training, curriculum development, and task analysis, training device design and associated supervisory duties.
Project Management:
Assigned as Senior Project Engineer representing company project office at various customer installations. Duties included attendance at design review meetings, monitoring flight and test operations and supervision of three junior project engineers and subordinate technical personnel.
Design Supervision:
Supervised and coordinated design, production and operation of two complex computer driven space vehicle simulators with a combined total program cost of twenty-one million dollars. Supervised design of highly complex training devices, coordinated design and development of propulsion system, including design of alignment fixtures for engines.
Contract Management:
Managed and implemented design and development contract for M.R.C.A. (Tornado) automatic test system. Duties included coordination of contractual elements, which were being implemented by English, German, Italian and American manufacturing firms. Additional tasks included monitoring the configuration control program and review various contractual submittals for conformance.
Consulting Engineering:
Worked in consulting capacity at various firms in several diverse areas which include various types of reliability/maintainability/safety analyses on Aircraft Flap and Slat power systems, flight control and hydraulic systems, landing gear and braking systems, electrical and cargo systems, operational analyses of aircraft crew escape system, maintenance analysis of jet engine power management system, reliability program on jet engine fuel delivery system and maintenance analysis of flight control servo systems. Worked as a consultant at an Italian helicopter manufacturer, in a position of advisor to the Factory Director and the Manager of the Assurance Engineering department and other engineering departments with responsibility to establish total Reliability/Maintainability/Safety and Product Support program to include development of a totally computerized analysis and reporting system and training of the personnel in its implementation. As a consultant, established engineering department in a large firm in Germany; trained department personnel; represented company in all outside liaison as Departmental Manager. German and Italian consulting contracts required direct interface with civil airworthiness authorities from Germany, England, France, Italy and the United States. Duties also included participation in maintenance working groups and system safety meetings with the authorities. Worked as a consultant on similar contract with large Italian manufacturer of aircraft hydraulic components. Final European assignment was as a consultant at the European Space Technology Center (ESTEC) with responsibility to prepare and document the Maintainability program for the European Space Station.
Work History
1978 - present: Consulting and contract engineering (see paragraph above for additional details)
Various Reliability/Maintainability/Safety assignments at customer facilities; supervising and participating in the preparation of reliability/maintainability/ safety analyses. Systems included aircraft, helicopter, missile, spacecraft and communication satellites. Prepared contract proposals. Established RMS programs in three major European aerospace firms and trained personnel in preparation of analyses. Manager ATE design and production contract on major European fighter aircraft program. Established Maintainability program for European Space Station. Prepared safety analysis for Department of Energy. Provided expert witness services and evaluated witness depositions relating to helicopter accident investigations. Performed maintainability analyses on V-22 Osprey. Prepared assurance engineering response for contract proposals for KC-135 Systems Upgrade. Prepared reliability and maintainability analyses on 727-200 and 737 cargo modification. Prepared reliability and safety certification reports for CL-604 Business Jet and Regional Jet. Prepared RMS Documentation for air cycle powered hydraulic pumping system for 767-400ER and air conditioning/cooling system for F-16 recon pod. Prepared FMECA’s on industrial equipment in support of a major Proactive Asset Management program (PAM). This work was performed in accordance with OSHA and FDA guidelines, Prepared FMEAs on cargo handling system for A340 and A3XX aircraft. Prepared FMEAs on Fairchild-Dornier 728 Jet landing gear and hydraulic systems. Prepared reliability and maintainability documentation for Gulfstream G IV engine upgrade.
1977 - 1978, Hughes Helicopters, Div. of Summa Corp.
Senior Assurance Engineer responsible for verification of maintainability design criteria on AH-64 Apache, interfaced with customer and major associate contractors.
1974 - 1977, Bell Helicopter International, Div. of Textron Corp. Manager of technical assistance branch, product support and field service. Manager of reliability and maintainability department.
1973 - 1974, Hughes Helicopters, Div. of Summa Corp.
Private Consultant: Developed, defined and documented maintainability program proposal for AH-64 Apache.
1969 - 1972, Litton Ship Systems
Senior Reliability and Maintainability Engineer on DD-963 and LHA ships. Advised design engineers on integration of helicopter and ship interface.
1968 - 1969, Lockheed - CDI
Maintainability Design Engineer on Cheyenne helicopter worked on flight control, power train and hydraulic systems.
1962 - 1968, Douglas MSSD, McDonnell-Douglas Corp.
Design Supervisor on Saturn SIV-B dynamic simulator: managed systems integration laboratory. Promoted to Senior Project Engineer and assigned to NASA-MSFC.
1958 - 1962, General Dynamics
Field Engineer assigned to Atlas Missile Squadron. Responsible for structures, propulsion and ground handling.
1956 - 1958, Philco Corporation, TecRep Division
Training Manger: Established and supervised instructional program for U.S. Army helicopter mechanics and maintenance officers.
1955 - 1956, Sikorsky Aircraft
Service Engineer advising on operational maintenance and overhaul of H-19, H-34, HSS-1, H-37 and S-58 helicopters.

Military Experience:
Helicopter and aircraft mechanic in U.S. Coast Guard assigned to land based operations and ships. Performed and supervised maintenance on land and sea fixed wing aircraft and various types of helicopters. Qualified as Flight Engineer and relief Pilot on multi-engine patrol aircraft. Qualified as Crew chief (plane captain) on four types of multi-engine aircraft and four types of helicopters.
Management Engineering Training:
Attended company sponsored training program in inter-cultural management of technical programs in third world countries. Attended management training programs sponsored by National Management Association; attended reliability engineering, value engineering and programming courses sponsored by employers; participated in intensive fourteen month training program stressing design, manufacture and engineering development and testing of helicopters.
Special Qualifications:
Capable of establishing various types of technical training programs including initial task analysis, curriculum development and instructor training; strong communications skills including drafting of complex technical documents and making technical presentations; able to supervise technology transfer programs; able to communicate effectively with all levels of personnel from technicians to top management. Detailed understanding of problems involved in training and supervising personnel in a cross cultural environment.
Additional qualifications include the development of turnkey assurance engineering programs to include program development, training of personnel in assurance engineering philosophy and techniques, developing of data analysis formats and associated computerized data base and collection programs. Extensive background in working in an Integrated Product Management Team Environment.
Special Schooling (training/teaching related):
Attended instructional methods courses conducted by U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, Bell Helicopter, General Dynamics, Philco-Ford, Douglas Aircraft/NASA. Attended masters program conducted by University of California, majoring in industrial training and establishment of apprentice programs.
Aviation Schooling and Air Vehicle Familiarization and/or Training:
Aircraft Mechanic School USCG
Engine School – USCG
H-13 Helicopter - U.S. Army
HO3-S Helicopter - Sikorsky (maint.)
B-206 Helicopter - Bell
HO3-S Helicopter - Sikorsky (overhaul)
B-205 Helicopter - Bell
HO4-S Helicopter – Sikorsky
B-209 Helicopter - Bell AH-J
HO5-S Helicopter - USCG/Sikorsky
B-214 Helicopter - Bell
H-34 Helicopter – Sikorsky
AH-64 Helicopter - Hughes
HSS Helicopter - Sikorsky
PT6 Twin Pac Engine - P&W
HSS Auto Pilot - Lear/Sikorsky
A-129 Helicopter - Augusta
H-37 Helicopter - U.S. Army/Sikorsky
EH-101 Helicopter - Augusta
AH-56 Cheyenne - Lockheed
V-22 Bell - Boeing
UH-12 Helicopter - U.S. Army
CL-600/601/604/ Regional Jet - Canadair
HTL-1 Helicopter – USCG
B-737, MD-80 and B-737 Cargo systems.
A-310, A-300/600 Flap/Slat/Landing Gear
KC-135 Electrical System, Fairchild-Dornier
728 landing gear and hydraulic systems.
Gulfstream G IV engine upgrade.
A-340 and A-380 cargo handling systems.

Overseas Employment:
Worked in engineering management positions in Iran, Italy, Germany and Holland with frequent trips to other middle eastern and European countries, as well as, Canada. Able to relate to other people with diverse cultural and religious backgrounds and communicate at a personal and technical level. Keenly aware of how cultural attitudes and religious beliefs effect learning and working attitudes, as well as, management employee relations.

[helimutt]

Seems just about qualified to answer some of my pathetic questions.

So come on, who isn't impressed?
:)

[Grainger]

Quite an impressive list.

But Lu - have you ever flown one ?

[ 22 August 2001: Message edited by: Grainger ]

[Nick Lappos]

Lu has certainly been around the block, and has a great deal to add to PPRUNE about maintenance and reliability. His background is very strong in maintenance and support, and not at all strong in the direction of design, especially controls, aerodynamics, structures or components.

This explains his curiosity in the field of controls and design issues, and brings to question his expertise to answer those type of questions. It also explains how Lu uses maintenance instructor courses as his background for detailed design discussions, instead of typical aeronautical design texts.

[collective bias]

I don't think my entire life would take up that much space, let alone my aviation career.
Impressive Lu.

[thechopper]

Lu,
does it hurt if you know so much?

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good Morning Rotorheads,

I thought I'd done well bringing up five children,and flying a heli, but Lu's time span/background makes me seem like an Navvy! ( nee- Navigator. one who digs ditches)
:confused:

Edited to remove the allegedly offending word

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]

[skidtoob]

I have to say Lu, I am very jealous.

If could produce a resume such as that I would be the happiest engineer!

I am only glad that you are happy and willing to share your knowledge, experience and views with us all.

[helmet fire]

Lu,
I am humbled by your CV. I rarely read books that are that long! Your engineering background is impecable and must be almost without peer.

I do find it disappointing that, although your CV reflects a lifetime of learning, you seem to be unable to learn from this forum. Your expertise in certain areas has been established without question, yet your grasp of fundamental aerodynamics continues to be flawed despite the efforts of many experts (I am not an expert) on this forum.

I look forward to more of your stimulating posts. The forum is our chance (the non experts) to get the view from experts all around the world - but it is most benefitial when we stick to the subject.

Heliport:
I didn't close the RBS thread either, nor do I know why it was closed. I would still like to hear Lu's response one day....

Edited to remove a now reduntant suggestion!! Thanks Vfr..

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: helmet fire ]

[Vfrpilotpb]

HF,

I was taught that the word Aborigine, was to mean "original man of the Earth" in otherwords some one who was traditional, I am indeed an original man of the earth in good ole Lancashire, but if it makes you feel better I'll remove the part that offends
you! :eek:

[Rotorbike]

Didn't know those from Lancashire could manage humour!!!

Learn something new everyday.

:D :D

[RW-1]

His background is very strong in maintenance and support, and not at all strong in the direction of design, especially controls, aerodynamics, structures or components.
This explains his curiosity in the field of controls and design issues, and brings to question his expertise to answer those type of questions. It also explains how Lu uses maintenance instructor courses as his background for detailed design discussions, instead of typical aeronautical design texts.



I do find it disappointing that, although your CV reflects a lifetime of learning, you seem to be unable to learn from this forum. Your expertise in certain areas has been established without question, yet your grasp of fundamental aerodynamics continues to be flawed despite the efforts of many experts (I am not an expert) on this forum.


Both comments are spot on.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Rotorbike,

Eh ba gum lad we can ave loads o fun wen we geet goin, thats all I know in trad Lanky, but did tha know we gave t' World Tripe and Trotters, an Steak an Cowheel pie, now where would we be bhate those little delights, and the little cotton town of Accrington gave us "Walter Holland Pies and Puddings" and Accrington "Nori Brick" the hardest engineering bricks in the world, plus of course the Brigade of the "Accrington Pals" who courtesy of Earl Haig on the fields of Flanders were blown to Kingdom come all in the space of one day, eye lad we have humour! at Salmesbury we built the Hampden, Halifax,Canberra Lightning,TSR2, Tornado and the Typhoon, along with the very first(even before the Yanks) ever Jet engine built in the world was at Clitheroe, the RB211 was built at Barnoldswick,bombs and rockets at Euxton, difficult to see where we got our humour from, seems we have been tooo busy building things to destroy empires for others!.
Sorry could not resist that little show, all humour gone now , back to normal self.

[NigD]

Vfrpilotpb

Glad to see someone else originally from sunny!? Lancashire giving up testing black puddings for a living and trying to fly them helis for a living, by eck lad.

If you fancy flying up to East Lancs, theres a pub just outside of Colne that is trying to get a helipad approved by the council but the landlord will let you land in the overflow car park if you give him a call. Its about big enough for a 206 and has a nice easy approach. He'll even hang out a big flag as a wind sock.

Oh, and to keep with the topic of this section, V. impressive CV and also congratulations to whoever had the time to type it all out!!!

[Vfrpilotpb]

Hi Nig,

The watering hole you are on about is it the last on the left going up the hill past the bronte road, if not please E me always interested where we could put down for a quickie, or even a drink :D :D

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: thechopper

Yes it does hurt and the hurt manifests itself in the form of arthritic pain in just about every major joint in my skeletal system. The only thing that RW-1 ever got right in his assessment of my capabilities or of me is that I am an old man.

To: Nick Lappos and RW-1

I really appreciate the both of you taking the time to explain to the participants of these threads that I have certain positive qualities and mostly negative qualities that manifest them selves in the form of not understanding things relative to aviation. Nick stated that I address certain subjects from the position of someone that is steeped in maintenance and has nothing to do with design.

Let’s address the first point. 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. Based on this I addressed the subject as it was taught in a technical school. 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. This level of training material is beyond most pilots and far exceeds what he / she must know to understand how his machine flies. The mechanic must understand this material in order to understand how problems manifest themselves in the dynamic system.

Here is another point that requires explanation. Nick Sez that I have certain skills but I do not understand design. Let me put this subject to rest. If Nick were to ask me if I could design and aircraft or a helicopter I would answer yes. If he were to ask me if the helicopter or aircraft were able to fly I would answer most likely not for as many reasons as there are different aspects of aeronautical engineering. However if Nick were to ask me if I understood the various aspects of aeronautical engineering and if I could manage a major program I would answer definitely yes.

There is nothing in my job description that states that I be expert in all aspects of aeronautical engineering. However, it does require that I have a detailed understanding of the different elements of the engineering process and that I have a detailed understanding of the function and operation of those elements that I have responsibility for in the process of my work.

Nick has formed a lot of opinions relative to my capabilities and makes no bones about mentioning them in his posts some of which are directed at me and in others where he is just making his opinion known. Well here are a few opinions I have formed about Nick. It appears that Nick has a way of telling someone that they don’t know Jack Sh!t about a certain subject by telling everybody how much he knows about the subject. He makes no bones about telling the participants in these threads that he is a senior test pilot working for the most important rotary wing firm in the world and I don’t know what I am talking about.

Let’s play a game of what if: What if Nick Lappos had never gone through flight school in the US Army. What if he was a mechanic on AH-1Gs as opposed to being a pilot? What if when he got out of the Army he enrolled at Georgia Tech and studied Aeronautical Engineering. Let’s assume he had a good GPA and went to work for Sikorsky and a bunch of his classmates went to work for Lockheed or Gulfstream. Now, based on my experience in the engineering departments of some of the largest aerospace firms in the world the new engineer is so full of himself and feels that he is capable of designing the entire aircraft. However his supervisors in his assigned department would have him designing brackets or, doing hand calculations of stress levels on those brackets. This engineer would spend the next ten or fifteen years trying to work his way into mid level department management. He may have even taken an MBA to accelerate his promotional possibilities. 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. Well that Nick Lappos does not exist. Our Nick Lappos can lay claim to every one of the positive things said about him in his website and all of the awards for positive participation in his field. He can show that he has made a positive effect on the field of rotary wing flight and he can show a solid job progression and level of responsibility and he deserves all of the praise. Having dealt with him only on these threads and not in person the only thing I can say that he is lacking is humility. If we ever get the chance to meet in person we might even find that the other guy is not only a nice person but he deserves respect. As far as RW-1 is concerned all of the above is pure trash and is totally wasted on him.

[RW-1]

The only thing that RW-1 ever got right in his assessment of my capabilities or of me is that I am an old man.


What eh? you rambling again old child?
Gee, there is the PREDICTED WIND UP I fortold when I last posted about you.

Just HOW did I know one was coming?

Try not to address anything, that hurting feeling is your brain frying.

RW-1 made more correct predictions of your childish behaviour here than any other PPRuNer in history, and you supplied the material yourself.

It appears that Nick has a way of telling someone that they don’t know Jack Sh!t about a certain subject by telling everybody how much he knows about the subject.

Oh Give me a BREAK! You yourself have done this LONG LONG before Nick and I came on scene, or will you claim alzheimers as well?

In addition, to both illustrate my observational accuracy and your flawed sense of reality; Nick Lappos has ONLY called YOU full of Sh!t. No one else.

WHY does that seem to be a commonality in ANY thread that YOU particapate in that has to do with your flawed concept? And make no mistake; Arm, ShyTorque, and several others have eventually came and posted the SAME CONCLUSION WITHOUT the very backround Nick has. Some started out in YOUR DEFENSE, THEN CHANGED THEIR MINDS ... WHY ?

You STILL haven't answered that question, even to give the usual misdirection to another subject. WHY have so many come to the same conclusion about you? WHY?

So saying all Nick does is ... is another weak excuse coming from the supposed victim.

Also, Nick, except to YOU, hasn't touted who or what he is at all, others have come in and done it for him. Get your act straight before typing it old child, he only had to remind everyone that thought it was just two people of similar experience arguing, (something that you long winded posts try to attast to but fail on most counts) that it certainly was not.

You don't know what you are talking about, and while you can separate Nick and myself as perpetrators to draw the others off the trail, and REMOVE YOUR OWN POSTS in a thread for the same purpose, it was obvious to EVERYONE by the end of the threads in question. You really must get back to BOTH basics and REALITY.

Your last paragraph doesn't even rise to the trash level, is it another misdiection to all here, a "But if Nick were me" speech.

Well he isn't you, and you have no MATCHING QUALIFICATIONS IN DESIGN, AND AERODYNAMICS.
so cut that line of crack you are trying to sell now. It also doesn't fly, kinda like you.

You proclaim to know more than the experts here, and now are trying to defend the FACT that you DO NOT HAVE THAT MATCHING EXPERIENCE.

Plain and simple.

You want to play that game? Ok, let's suppose it happened that way.

Well .. since Nick isn't a sad, bitter, obsessed old child, he would give out the flawed concept as you have many many times, be given the correct answers to the questions he asked of THE EXPERTS HERE (many others have told you where and why you are wrong) ...

And UNLIKE you, the topic would be over.
He would accept those answers, it is a process called L-E-A-R-N-I-N-G something that while you are so hot to proclaim that you instruct, you fail to grasp.

Furthermore, you cannot make those accusations without mentioning that you yourself sought out
"18 DEGREES - ASK NICK LAPPO'S - THE ULTIMATE ARBITRATION" thread, one of your most ARROGANT MISTAKES this year.

PPRuNers, you can ask yourselves, what does that title mean?

LZ, you have all the sounds and excuses of a child who was burnt because you did not get the answers you sought from the adult.

Hey, let's play a game in which LZ actually understood the concepts he tries to foist on others. Then the retractions could commence.

I think "the entire planet" fairly well laid your flawed concept to rest.

You have a good weekend now, I again will be out flying an aircraft that you cannot handle, now, or "Back then in the old days when I invented heli aero ..."

Stop with the "Oh if they met me they might respect me" crap. I wager we'd shoot you after 5 minutes, or crate you in a box with one hole for a cargo flight to Thule, if you are 1/2 as bad in person as you are here.

Just a bitter, obsessed, ignorant, arrogant and now defensive old man.

That much is certainly FACT.

Now, of course, you will continue to prove my observations, likely with another windup, likely with another slur of my callsign here, that's gotten old too, why not try something new?

I am, I'm going to pay to place the following RED title under your name
(It will cost, but it's worth it, can take up a collection to do it guys?):

I am not a heli designer.
I am not a heli pilot.
I am not an aeronautical engineer.
My posts are for entertainment purposes only,
and should not be used for serious flight aero discussions or planning purposes.

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RW-1

Let’s take this argument to its’ lowest level. On the job I’m presently working on I will make $120.000 per year. On my next job for the same company I will be making $170.000 per year.

Within the next year there will be two lawsuits brought forward on the same accident. The two law offices have retained me and I will have a minimum of 100 billable hours for each office guaranteed at $500.00 per hour.

Now no matter what you might think of me ask yourself how long you will have to work to gain the experience and respect in your field to make that kind of money. Not bragging, just fact.

[RW-1]

Another misdirection. LZ. Because this arguement isn't about $$$.

(Any common chimp can get $$$ in a job, look at who is in the white house)

Do you feel that I will be jealous of what you make etc? Not going to happen, but if your company knew what kind of windup you are as we do, you would receive a bill instead of an invoice. Another Wind up.

Answer the question posed to you in the last post about how ALL seem to come to the conclusion that you are full of SH!T, instead of another misdirection.

Let's indeed face the FACTS:

You propose concepts that you:

Refuse to validate with hard evidence, that being actual flight data to support your claims.

You would rather argue from what you read in books than go out and get such data. For the simple and apparent reason to all that that would effectively kill the concept.

When those with more experience report to you that you are incorrect, you simply ignore, misdirect, or make any number of childish excuses as to why you stated something so off.

You would rather misdirect those who have gone out and reported what you predict IS NOT TRUE. (Again, for if you agreed, it would effectively kill the thread.)

THIS IS it's lowest level. And FACTUAL.

Your avoidance of the questions posed in my last post are a perfect example. The resume didn't work, so now you wish to proclaim both to me (but in realiry all here) "I make this, I have to be right, etc."

Doesn't fly. Arrogance,Ignorance, and Absurdity knows no financial boundries, you have clearly illistrated that for us, for that we thank you.

Unless you are willing to go out and do more than just run your mouth, then it is meaningless for you to continue to preach the flawed concepts that you have on the subject. Plain and simple.

For you cannot change a concept to FACT by any amount of preaching, from any numbe rof books.

As several have told you, if you can't understand it, perhaps you should call it Magic, that certainly would go hand in hand with your maturity level.

Try again, that didn't work ....

But I Will have to wait until Monday to see the next bit-o-excuse/misdirection.

You see this poor heli student has a date tonight, she happens to work at the Hooter's by my apartment, so I will be quite occupied for the duration.

Hey, perhaps you should get some yourself, that would help mend your mind.
(of course you have permission to use that in your next post, you obviously must have had more women than all of us put together as well, so that would make you right. etc. . . . . . ) NOT!

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]

[helmet fire]

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 ]

[thechopper]

to everybody on this thread, why don't you take it easy in life; there's more to be had than hot and exhaustive mails. We are all valuable members of the aviation brotherhood ( I am convinced); so be easy on each other and tolerate other opinions on any matter as long as they are no lifethreatening. DIFFERENT COMPANIES, DIFFERENT OPS-MANUALS; NO BOTHER AS LONG AS THEY ARE SAFE

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Helmet Fire

Early on in my association with PPRuNe I got into some very hairy arguments with a British Army Pilot regarding POF. He used terms that I was unfamiliar with such as flapping to equality and several others. I could not understand why he was so hostile towards me when I mentioned such things as gyroscopic precession and retreating blade stall and how it and several other phenomena that effected disc position were related to gyroscopic precession. This went on for several weeks and there was no convincing him and I certainly wasn’t bending in his direction either. It wasn’t that I was speaking in American English and he was speaking in British English. It was that we were speaking in two different technical languages. We were both describing similar phenomena but the terminology we were using was alien to the other guy. You and the others have often accused me of intransigence in not being able to accept your explanations as being the truth and my explanations as being false or wrong. If you go back to many of my posts you will see that I have accepted the various explanations as being an alternate to the theory I was professing. As much as RW-1 may criticize this alternate theory as being a bunch of crap and that I am unwilling to accept the word of as he refers to all of you as being experts and as such to admit I was wrong. If you go back to the various postings countering my theory of POF you will see that there is no common ground between all of my detractors. This doesn’t make you wrong or me right or to the contrary you being right and me being wrong.

Put a Mullah, a Rabbi, a Priest and a Protestant minister in the same room and each in his own way will describe God to the point that the other clergyman will say that the other guy is wrong. What they fail to understand that there is only one God and each man will see him / her in his own way. In the case of POF there are many ways of teaching it and although the philosophies are different the helicopter continues to fly. If it works for you then go with it but don’t tell the other guy that he is wrong because you chose to disagree with him.

Regarding HUMS I became familiar with the concept as it was built into the dynamic systems of the EH-101. The only problem I can see with it is that the vibratory temperature limits and acoustic parameters that are programmed into it are developed under controlled conditions. This black box is then installed into a helicopter that may have several thousand operating hours. If the programming does not cater to the older helicopter that may be perfectly good but it is operating at higher temps, higher vibratory levels and generating acoustic patterns that are close to the allowable limit for a new helicopter but still be perfectly acceptable for a helicopter with high hours and my assumptions are correct the HUMS system will result in a high pull rate of dynamics components that are still serviceable. But then again, what do I know?

[helmet fire]

Lu, I understand your point of view but.....

The religious representatives you allude to are discussing concepts/philosophies. Accordingly, each is going to have a different answer, however I would wager that if you asked each to put his hand in boiling water, they would each report the same.....It's hot (although the expletives may differ somewhat)! Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted..have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force acadamy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?

The HUMS stuff would be good on the HUMS thread. Your post is a good read.

[4dogs]

Folks,

My greatest disappointment is that a hugely beneficial forum has degenerated into a pissing contest that is not helping anyone's reputation. It has become personal, vindictive and deeply boring.

We have established the credentials of each of the players and their respective faults - let us just read their posts with that in mind and filter things accordingly. If you feel obliged to disagree, please do so with civility, professional courtesy and appropriate brevity.

We have expanded our audience substantially - please let us not drive them away.

:( :( :( :(

[The Nr Fairy]

4dogs :

Well said.

RW-1 :

I think we're aware by now that you've got little or no respect for Lu. Please don't let that lead you into ruining each and every thread with a contribution from Lu for other people.

Lu :

Impressive CV - but then you don't get old without learning a few things, right ?

[sling load]

CAN THE MODERATOR PLEASE SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN,
THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR, AGAIN!

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: sling load ]

[RW-1]

To NR Fairy,

Unlike LZ, There have been threads he has made comments in not related to this continual flawed reality Robbie crusade, and in such threads I have not made any input. Find them, and go look. But if he returns yet again to this flawed crap I WILL be there, just as he stated he would continue to bring it up. I need not argue the dynamics, for that has been done, we are now dealing with a obsessed person who delves deeper into the excuse bucket, bringing up more and more misdirection to get off topic.

This has nothing to do with respect, respect is earned. He certainly has not earned mine, nor do I care what he thinks of me, for at the very least I do not proclaim myself to be the aero god that he does. And you hav eseen no childish excuses from me when I have been pointed out as incorrect. As evidence late back last year I made a statement about elastomeric bearings, and it happens LZ informed me on some incorrect conceptions, I apologized after further reading and determining he was right. However you see no such behaviour from LZ. You get (refer to quoted part down below).

But I will not respect misdirection, and poor excuses to what is a closed issue on the topic except to the thread starter.

I will not except the weak justification that all here have to prove this flawed concept correct. Neither should any of you. If he cannot understand it, and plenty of people here have shown in different ways why it isn't, then it is over, for all we hear now is touted proposals, factual responses, and then a string of childish excuses.

He has the knowledge to know that he must go out and prove his concept correct himself, that will NOT happen for he would rather argue it thru books and silly excuses, and the flawed interpretations that he has made from them contributed to the beginning of this in the first place.

And he will never bring it into court against Robinson either, he will say he doesn't wish to do it, or it is a money issue (why not use all that $$$$ you seem to have LZ hmm? If it is so dire an issue, you will argue it to death but not take action?) Reason: he cannot prove it in court, for again, he has 0 data to support it, and that is the first thing the opposing lawyer is going to ask for...

LZ,

You are as flawed as your concept.

You would now have us believe you over the experts in the field because:

You have a long maint resume without any DESIGN experience to match them.

Because you are PAID far greater than any of us. (what a joke ... you have 0 credibility after using that one ...)

If you go back to many of my posts you will see that I have accepted the various explanations as being an alternate to the theory I was professing.

ROUND AND ROUND, RIGHT BACK TO THIS EXCUSE...

WE ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THIS NONSENSE !!!

PEOPLE HERE HAVE PRESENTED FACTUAL DATA TO CONTRADICT YOUR CONCEPT.

QUIT TELLING EVERYONE HERE THAT THE FACTS THEY PRESENTED TO YOU ARE AN "ALTERNATE THEORY" THAT YOU "ACCEPTED".

FOR THE RESPONSES ARE NOT. THEY ARE ACTUAL FLIGHT RESULTS THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY WE MOVE THE CYCLIC, SOMETHING YOU REFUSE TO GO OUT AND DO YOURSELF. OR ACTUAL PROVEN DYNAMICS, FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO COUNTERARGUMENT BUT TO SAY:

But I have a large resume, I make more $$$, my detreactors cannot agree, well they do agree that you are wrong, refer back to Helmut fire's answer to your excuse on that.

WELL IF YOU HAVE SO MUCH MORE $$$ THAN US, THEN GO OUT AND FLY A ROBBIE FOR A TEST ARTICLE, QUIT THE EXCUSES AND GO FLY, GET DATA.

YOU HAVE NO "THEORY", YOU HAVE A FLAWED INTERPRETATION/CONCEPT BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANGING OF COMBINED BASIC AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES. PERIOD.

AND AGAIN I REMIND YOU THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE THEM INTO THEORY OR FACT WITHOUT FLIGHT TEST DATA, GO OUT AND GET SOME, FOR THEN WE MAY HEAR YOUR APOLOGY.

ARGUE YOUR BOOK READING ALL YOU WANT, BUT ALL HERE HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER REPORTED TO YOU THAT YOU ARE OFF, THE ROTOR DOESN'T DO WHAT YOU PREDICT.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME.

Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force acadamy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?


Helmet Fire has done a excellent job of refuting your desire to make this a philosophical issue, so lets NOT bring it or the "alternate explanations(FACTUAL) to my theory(NOT THEORY,
MISUNTERSTANDINGS/CONCEPT)" up again.

Another weak misdirection, so now we are going to make it a philosophical issue with you?

You CANNOT learn, that is very apparent.

If the Lord God on high came down and told you you were wrong, I suppose you would add that statement to yotu "Alternate theory" list. I would love to see you argue it with God.

You are now a pathetic, arrogant, ignorant, old child, and haven't given a STRAIGHT response to any of the questions posed to you in this thread.

What tangent shall we see next PPRuNer's?

Will he claim some zodiac sign is not in the right location in the sky?

Will he claim that space aliens are purposefully controlling everyones minds but his?

We've seen just about everything else, and each time someone here has taken it out of the excuse list, current one was done by Helmet Fire.

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RW-1 and Helmet Fire

A quote from Helmet Fire relating to a statement I made in response to one made by Nick Lappos. “Similarly, we are examining actual rotor dynamics, not philosophies about rotor dynamics, therefore there is likely to be one answer of fact, not many of different opinions. I go back to the question previously posted... have you asked yourself why universities, the Air Force academy and test pilot schools teach aerodynamic precession? Why would they merely teach "an opinion"?

Nick made a statement as to why I constantly refer to training at the technician and pilot level relative to the teaching of POF. I replied that it is in the technical training environment for both pilots and mechanics that they learn about the basics of POF. Nick criticized the fact that I did not reference engineering texts and the interrelation of the dynamics of a rotor system in order to explain the basics of POF. My reply was that these texts might very well be used in the training of Air Force Academy students, University students and attendees at military test pilot schools. The reason for this is that these individuals are being trained at the engineering level and not the operational level. It does not matter to me if the engineering text addresses POF stressing aerodynamic precession or gyroscopic precession and I don’t believe I stated that at the engineering level they teach one theory to the exclusion of the other.

It comes down to this. I teach the principles of flight the way I do because it can be easily related to the actions of a gyroscope. This does not make me right and you wrong if you believe in aerodynamic precession because both theories work. There is one irrefutable fact in both theories and that is, both philosophies have a common thread and that is precession.

You can not explain away the design of most helicopter flight control systems as they are designed so that the maximum pitch input occurs 90 degrees ahead of the desired response. From this point on you can promote the idea that the response vs. input is caused by aerodynamics or it is caused by physical laws that govern gyroscopic precession. Both philosophies can be proven and both are valid. If this is the case, then why are we still beating this dead horse?

To: RW-1

Since you do such a good job of going through past threads and document all of my errors in theory or my unwillingness to admit my errors, I would request that you go through all of the threads if you haven’t done that already and list those elements that still need to be addressed. I would request that you not include any comments about Robinson certification or the precession angle of the Robinson Rotorhead. Regarding your constant reference to my not performing the necessary test to demonstrate my theory I will say this one more time and hopefully it sinks in. The only R22 in this area suffered a dynamic roll over and was written off for the hull insurance. When I have access to an R22 or, an R44 I will contract for one hour and have the pilot perform certain tests none of which will endanger him or the helicopter.

[Nick Lappos]

RW,

Don't even try to convince him of anything! He signs himself "the Cat" for good reason. Have you ever been able to train a cat to do anything?

I am a bit miffed at his snide reference to my web site, where I put up a brief paragraph CV that he thinks is conceited. I chuckle because he then has a post on this thread that takes 1,500 words and 189 lines to tell us of all the mechanic schools he attended and all the aircraft he has worked on. (Had I listed the more than 100 rotorcraft types I have flown, and the more than 30 courses I had attended, I'll bet I could have wasted even more electrons).

On this thread I noted (and he was made angry by) the fact that he is not an engineer by training nor by job, and he does not grasp the fundamentals of our craft by either engineering training, design experience or piloting knowledge.

He is probably a first class instructor, clearly one who has set up and run training classes for many aircraft. As such, and also as a mechanic of great experience, he has much we all can learn from. Unfortunately, he has the most dreaded condition - He Doesn't Know What He Doesn't Know. This is an intellectually fatal flaw, and that is why I have criticized him in the past.

Regarding his assertion that I am somehow elevated in status by my piloting profession, let me add that some vast mistake was made and I became a Fellow of the American Helicopter Society for engineering contributions. Similar errors occurred when I became a member of Tau Beta Pi, the National Engineering Honor Society. The crimes date all the way back to when I was mistakenly placed on the Dean's list as an Aerospace Engineering student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!) where, in spite of such mistakes, every now and then a pretty good engineer is made.

To sum it all - Lu, Can't we all just get along? :rolleyes:

[PPRuNe Towers]

I closed the thread mentioned at the beginning. I did so after a warning regarding the arguements becoming too personal.

The warning wasn't heeded and the thread was closed. The same warning goes for this and any other threads that descend to similarly abusive levels.

Many of you are aware of the tragic degeneration of other helo lists and forums. We're not prepared to see it here. 4 Dogs summed it all up most succinctly - please reread his thoughts on the subject.

This has always been a moderated site and will remain so. There are an estimated 50,000 other discussion boards out there so you can't say you don't have a choice.


Rob Lloyd

[RW-1]

True Nick, very true. I thought is was a bit long myself.

Well LZ,

I don't seem to have the time to debate this with you any longer.

The heli's including our instrument trainer have arrived in Miami (supposedly, have to confirm. Been waiting 3 months, darn, got the test passed last JANUARY yet ...) and that means I will begin my last few hours towards getting my time in, polishing up my 180 auto and confined area techniques, flying without the governor on (done before when the robbie didn't have it at all, I don't find it to be a big deal in itself, though the CFI's seem to be wary of it) and my commercial checkride.

That means I'll be in the books, and getting myself prepped for the oral to be given. The oral for me will be an ordeal, though I am ready I seem to still get a case of the jitters come test time, but once through and on to the fun part, the flying, I'm ok.

Getting that accomplished will be much more satisfying for me than to continue to spin round and round with you on excuse after excuse.

Someone here pointed out to me by email that you have dug your own hole, it will be up to you to either fall in further, which is my guess, or climb out of it.

Either way I finally realized in discussing it with this individual that I need not hear you say anything, the facts are plain for everyone to see here. If other threads are continued, the trend will remain whether or not I participate, so I Choose not to, or you could say my flying career does.

So, that said, I need not say more on the subject.

Have a good weekend.

[jumpseater]

Re Nick's you can't train a cat, you can, we did, we had a Burmese we taught to open doors and do other tricks too. The one thing we couldn't stop it doing however, was its occaisional habit of sauntering in yelling it's head off and taking a **** up the curtains! Not that I'm implying anyone here might do the same!

[CTD]

Well, I'm disappointed that it has sunk to the level where we must get a warning from a moderator. As Nick Sez, "Can't we all just get along?"

I too, carry around the title of Senior Test Pilot on my business card (there Nick, I did it), but I don't have the background or education of some of you folks and find that I'm always picking up something of interest here. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed, and learned much from reading the brilliant posts from Heedm, Dave Jackson, Nick, tgrendl, Shy T and others too numerous to mention. We have some great minds here, and the ability to get them all together to share ideas is a priviledge that this wonderful technology affords us. Let's keep it that way.

As for Lu, his background and experience speak for themselves and show a lifetime of dedication to our industry. That is not to be discounted. Yes, there are times I'd like to jump through the screen and scream at him when he 'doesn't get it', but there are others where I'm amazed at what he can pull out of the past to share with us. I agree that he's a little pedantic, and doesn't listen well, but he sure gets the crowd jumpin' n'est-ce-pas? I would submit that some very thoughtful and informative postings were generated in response to Lu's arguments.

All I know is that it would be nice to get this group together on a nice sunny deck somewhere with a few coolers of beer and some single malts.

Fly safe, Lads.

[tgrendl]

:D :D

I'd like to say thanks to CTD for the excellent post, I couldn't agree more.

I've done production, maintenance and developmental test flight work (no experimental) and thought that I knew a fair amount. The group at large on this forum has happily opened my eyes.

We are normally fairly isolated (and insulated) in our work and this interaction, on this board helps to alleviate that.

So likewise thanks to Nick, CTD, Lu, Heedm, helimutt, NR fairy, et al for the excellent and thought provoking interaction.

[212man]

I can understand people making a spur of the moment remark or two, particularly after a few beers, and have done so myself, though regretted it and edited the post later.

What I find worrying in a kind of 'does this chap fly passengers around' (or will be soon, you know who you are)type of way, is the sustained and vitriolic abuse that takes place, often in the form of very long, and obviously not impulsive, posts.

In fairness, the same seems true of some of the FW forums, but in general I do feel it is rather degrading and does little to further our cause as supposed professionals (now there's a topic for debate).

If you were a lay man that stumbled accross some of the ramblings on this forum, you'd not be terribly impressed.

[t'aint natural]

Hey, Lu...
Sorry to butt in here to a personal debate but can I draw your attention to the thread on the history of the use of percentages in Nr/N1? Nick Lappos suggests you may be able to help out there...

[Heliport]

Well, this thread has now run long enough (arguably too long!) and everyone who wished to contribute has had an opportunity to do so.
Lu:
Nick Lappos wasn't boasting, nor did he post his own CV on Rotorheads - I did so after a little internet surfing because I thought Rotorheads would be interested in knowing who he was when reading his contributions. It's not surprising that he is held in such high esteem on this forum.
Although some contributors take things too far in their personal attacks, you may wish to reflect quietly upon why your posts occasionally generate such hostility. Nothing would be gained by my trying to explain it to you; I've no reason to believe I'd succeed where others have failed. It's something you can easily work out for yourself if you are minded to do so. Some people say one can never be too old to learn. Worth a thought?

All:
Some of the childish personal attacks have, sadly, done nothing to enhance the image of the profession. and, in future, I hope we can exchange views with resorting to personal abuse. There is an enormous wealth of talent on Rotorheads: Nick Lappos is just one obvious example, but there are others with years of experience flying many different types in varied fields.
I am concerned we should not lose such valuable contributors because they become tired of personal squabbles distracting from what are otherwise good and informative discussions.
This thread is now closed.

Heliport

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]