In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
snip pile of bile
I see you're backed into a corner again with silly comments like
"dismantle the thing back to rivets".
Just how do you inspect 'everything' if you don't?
Everything as in everything mandated in the maintenance manual, which
should be obvious to anyone with any common sense.
snip
The everything is the everything specified in the maintenance manual
that requires maintenance, obviously.
And how do you know how often to inspect Part A?
Once every 12 months per FAA regulations.
On RARE occasions, the maintenance manual MAY have a maximum number of
hours on aircraft expected to fly a very large number of hours per year
for some specific item, but that is NOT common.
snip
But your claim is the maintenance manual doesn't specify any
periodicities, so how do you decide when to inspect something? Keep
in mind that Jimp the Chimp says that the total of 100 hour
inspections in a year inspects everything in the annual inspection. So
how many times do you inspect Part A in a year?
If you are doing 100 hour inspections there is no annual inspection.
The 100 hour inspections total to what would be done if there was
an annual inspection. It is ether or, not both.
So, normally "Part A" gets inspected once every 12 months.
snip
Spoken like someone who has actually read 14 CFR and been involved with
aviation since the early 70's.
Spoken like someone who is unable to manage simple arithmetic. It's
obvious that Jimp the Chimp is assuming a single part of the same
function is replaced with a 'higher maintenance' part. Yeah, that
WOULD be stupid, which is why it's no surprise that the Stuck on
Stupid Gigantic Ego would stick there.
No, idiot, I am assuming the high mainenance part would be replaced
with a lower mainenance part, e.g. a part that does not wear out as
quickly as the original.
Read the words.
He's apparently unable to comprehend SYSTEM costs.
McCrap makes it up as he goes along.
snip
But why would they go to those higher maintenance "newfangled big
jets", Chimp? You've told us that such changes will destroy the
market for the airplane. And yet....
McCrap apparently does not understand the difference between getting
a new aircraft with similar capabilies and gettting an aircraft with
radically different capabliities.
Airlines went to those "newfangled big jets" because they flew higher,
flew faster, had less internal vibration, and had lower internal noise
than propeller aircraft.
But that was well over half a century ago.
Oh, so history doesn't matter (except when Chimp wants it to). You
made a statement. Events well over half a century ago prove your
statement is wrong. That just means you're stupid to not have learned
the lesson in all that time.
Apparently McCrap is unawary that the "newfangled big jets" flew higher,
flew faster, had less internal vibration, and had lower internal noise
than propeller aircraft.
The subject of maintenance hours on the "newfangled big jets" only
became an issue once there was more than one soource for the
"newfangled big jets", which took only a couple of years.
--
Jim Pennino