In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
snip
No, because people do not want to pay for high maintenance aircraft
when they can get other aircraft that are not high maintenance.
Wow, you are just so far up yourself. Suppose I have a part that
requires inspection every 100 flight hours. Suppose further that that
part replaces 50 parts each of which requires inspection every 200
hours.
Do you get it yet?
Suppose there was maging pixie dust that put tread back on worn tires.
I am not going to discuss fairy tales.
In other words, you have no sensible reply so your ego commands
evasion. I guess for you things like FADEC, glass cockpits, and FBW
are just so much "maging pixie dust" and "fairy tales".
I have no sensible reply for nonsensical questions posed simply to provoke
arguement.
All systems of all airplanes have to be periodically inspected.
So now your claim is they dismantle the thing back to rivets and
inspect EVERYTHING? Nothing 'high maintenance' there.
I see you are off in childish mode again.
I see you're stuck on stupid. Still.
I see you're backed into a corner again with silly comments like
"dismantle the thing back to rivets".
The everything is the everything specified in the maintenance manual
that requires maintenance, obviously.
Do you have your car torn down to the frame when you get it checked?
Of course not. They check those things in the maintenance manual at
the periodicities the maintenance manual specifies to the specs the
maintenance manual specifies.
You've claimed that those periodicities are not in the aircraft
maintenance manuals and that EVERYTHING is inspected every year.
The everything is the everything specified in the maintenance manual
that requires maintenance, obviously.
100 hours and 12 months.
snip
What would happen is that it would be inspected every 250 hours, sales
would tank, and the engineers would be replaced with better ones.
You are really incapable of pulling your head out of your ass, aren't
you? Why would 'sales tank'? Be specific. Keep in mind that the
cost driver is TOTAL MAINTENANCE HOURS, not a single part that
requires a 1 minute inspection more frequently but saves 100 hours in
the maintenance budget.
You are in childish mode yet again.
You are in stuck on stupid mode. Still.
Backed into a corner and going into attack mode again.
More frequent inspections ALWAYS increase maintenace costs.
Spoken like a bureaucrat whose never made decisions about actual
business trade offs.
Spoken like someone who has actually read 14 CFR and been involved with
aviation since the early 70's.
snip
It is also likely the maker would come out with a replacement system
with no such requirement in an attempt to salvage sales.
So they would add back in hundreds of hours of maintenance time in an
"attempt to salvage sales". It's pretty obvious you work as a
bureaucrat.
Childish mode again; they would come out with a replacement system that
would eliminate the frequent recurring inspections of the original
system.
Stuck on stupid mode. Still. Even when it's explained to you you
don't get it.
Backed into a corner by nonsense and in attack mode.
snip
Any maker that consistently puts out aircraft that require anything
more than the FAA minimums will soon find itself out of business.
So we should all presumably still be flying 1926 aircraft, since these
newfangled big jets require so much maintenance and all. Yeah, I can
believe that's how YOU would run things.
Childish mode again.
Stuck on stupid. Still.
Backed into a corner by nonsense like "flying 1926 aircraft" and in
attack mode.
Lots of makers are able to put out aircraft that require no more than
FAA required minimum maintenance.
The "newfangled big jets" are competing with other "newfangled big jets",
not Cessna 172s.
And the first 'newfangled big jet' was competing with? DOH!
The other makers "newfangled big jets" in the pipeline. DOH!
But that was well over half a century ago.
--
Jim Pennino