|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: JF Mezei wrote: On 2016-07-01 22:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial inspection times" for new designs. Airworthiness certificate is given after a very extensive flight test campaign by manufacturer to prove that the new aircraft passes all requirements from safety, performance and maintenance. If it exceeds those minumumns, nothing prevents changes to maintenance intervals. Example: Boeing's 787 doesn't have to worry about corrosion for its all composite fuselage, but has to worry about delamination. So the flight test campaign would have to demonstrate to FAA that the proposed maintenance regime was fine for that plane. And where do you think they get the initial values for those proposed maintenance regimes? Can you say "engineering performance estimates"? Nope 100 hours. And they inspect WHAT? And no, it's not 'inspect at 100 hours'. For many things that's pointless and for others it may be too long. The what is spelled out in the aircraft maintenance manual, which is a required item for aircraft certification. So they inspect what the engineers tell them needs inspecting based on the engineering estimates of wear performance on the parts. Gee, I could swear I've been saying that since Day One and you've been arguing with me. Not generally as most people tend to shy away from high maintenance aircraft. Yes, generally, as most manufacturers are averse to airplanes dropping out of the sky because something didn't get inspected that should have been. No, because people do not want to pay for high maintenance aircraft when they can get other aircraft that are not high maintenance. All systems of all airplanes have to be periodically inspected. Once again, the maintenance manual is a list of what systems an aircraft actually has with details such as if a thing gets lubricated, what libricant to use and how to apply it. Any individual item is generally not inspected more than once every 12 months. 100 hour inspections are progressive. So if there's some item that the engineers say should be inspected every 250 hours, you stupid *******s will only inspect it once a year? What would happen is that it would be inspected every 250 hours, sales would tank, and the engineers would be replaced with better ones. It is also likely the maker would come out with a replacement system with no such requirement in an attempt to salvage sales. And again, 100 hour inspections are cummulative inspections that over the course of 12 months address all the items of an annual inspection. 'Again'? That's the first time you've said that. Before you claimed it was "annual" or "100 hour" based on class of service, with at least the implication that the 'annual' and '100 hour' inspections inspected exactly the same thing and the difference was because of the difference in 'annual' flight hours. Learn to read; I said from the beginning 100 hour inspections are progressive, which means over the course of a 12 month period all the items that would have been inspected during an annual inspection are in fact inspected, just not all at once. Learn to read; I said from the beginning that you'll inspect stuff at whatever periodicity the engineers say it needs. Only in very, very, very rare cases otherwise the aircraft will not be able to compete in the marketplace. Any maker that consistently puts out aircraft that require anything more than the FAA minimums will soon find itself out of business. FAA inspections apply AFTER the certification process is complete. You've about convinced me we should fire the FAA, given your views on what it does. You've about convinced me you are utterly clueless how aircraft certificaion and continued airworthyness works. You could read 14 CFR instead of being an argumentative, knee jerking twit. And you could tell the same story twice in a row instead of being a huge ego accompanied by a little tiny intellect and constantly changing your mind based on arguing because of the former. If you would learn to read and think about what is written instead of knee jerking to find an arguement, you would understand I have been saying the same thing over and over, but dumbing in down with each telling. If you would learn to read and use your tiny intellect instead of your immense ego to find an argument, you would understand I have been saying the same thing over and over, but you are persistently too dumb to follow along. **** off and die, argumentative old fool. -- Jim Pennino |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: JF Mezei wrote: On 2016-07-01 22:55, Fred J. McCall wrote: You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial inspection times" for new designs. Airworthiness certificate is given after a very extensive flight test campaign by manufacturer to prove that the new aircraft passes all requirements from safety, performance and maintenance. If it exceeds those minumumns, nothing prevents changes to maintenance intervals. Example: Boeing's 787 doesn't have to worry about corrosion for its all composite fuselage, but has to worry about delamination. So the flight test campaign would have to demonstrate to FAA that the proposed maintenance regime was fine for that plane. And where do you think they get the initial values for those proposed maintenance regimes? Can you say "engineering performance estimates"? Nope 100 hours. And they inspect WHAT? And no, it's not 'inspect at 100 hours'. For many things that's pointless and for others it may be too long. The what is spelled out in the aircraft maintenance manual, which is a required item for aircraft certification. So they inspect what the engineers tell them needs inspecting based on the engineering estimates of wear performance on the parts. Gee, I could swear I've been saying that since Day One and you've been arguing with me. Not generally as most people tend to shy away from high maintenance aircraft. Yes, generally, as most manufacturers are averse to airplanes dropping out of the sky because something didn't get inspected that should have been. 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? 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. Once again, the maintenance manual is a list of what systems an aircraft actually has with details such as if a thing gets lubricated, what libricant to use and how to apply it. Once again, the maintenance manual includes the parts in a system, how frequently they need to be inspected, lubricated, replaced, etc. Any individual item is generally not inspected more than once every 12 months. 100 hour inspections are progressive. So if there's some item that the engineers say should be inspected every 250 hours, you stupid *******s will only inspect it once a year? 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 REALLY need to learn to pull your head out and see around your own ego, Chimp. 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. And again, 100 hour inspections are cummulative inspections that over the course of 12 months address all the items of an annual inspection. 'Again'? That's the first time you've said that. Before you claimed it was "annual" or "100 hour" based on class of service, with at least the implication that the 'annual' and '100 hour' inspections inspected exactly the same thing and the difference was because of the difference in 'annual' flight hours. Learn to read; I said from the beginning 100 hour inspections are progressive, which means over the course of a 12 month period all the items that would have been inspected during an annual inspection are in fact inspected, just not all at once. Learn to read; I said from the beginning that you'll inspect stuff at whatever periodicity the engineers say it needs. Only in very, very, very rare cases otherwise the aircraft will not be able to compete in the marketplace. 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. FAA inspections apply AFTER the certification process is complete. You've about convinced me we should fire the FAA, given your views on what it does. You've about convinced me you are utterly clueless how aircraft certificaion and continued airworthyness works. You could read 14 CFR instead of being an argumentative, knee jerking twit. And you could tell the same story twice in a row instead of being a huge ego accompanied by a little tiny intellect and constantly changing your mind based on arguing because of the former. If you would learn to read and think about what is written instead of knee jerking to find an arguement, you would understand I have been saying the same thing over and over, but dumbing in down with each telling. If you would learn to read and use your tiny intellect instead of your immense ego to find an argument, you would understand I have been saying the same thing over and over, but you are persistently too dumb to follow along. **** off and die, argumentative old fool. Talked yourself into a corner, didn't you? In Chimp's Lexicon, "argumentative old fool" means "you should just give up when I argue with you because I'm so magnificent". Keep your gorilla dust, Chimp. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
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. 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. Do you have your car torn down to the frame when you get it checked? 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. More frequent inspections ALWAYS increase maintenace costs. 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. 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. 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. snip **** off and die, argumentative old fool. Talked yourself into a corner, didn't you? Nope, just tired of your childish and curmudgeon posts. -- Jim Pennino |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
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". 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. 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. 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. More frequent inspections ALWAYS increase maintenace costs. Spoken like a bureaucrat whose never made decisions about actual business trade offs. 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. 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. 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! snip **** off and die, argumentative old fool. Talked yourself into a corner, didn't you? Nope, just tired of your childish and curmudgeon posts. But apparently not so tired of them that your ego will let you stop making up inapt arguments. -- You are What you do When it counts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Leaning tower of falcon 9 | Robert Clark[_5_] | Astronomy Misc | 162 | July 13th 16 04:14 AM |
Leaning tower of falcon 9 | Fred J. McCall[_3_] | Policy | 17 | July 13th 16 04:14 AM |
Leaning tower of falcon 9 | Fred J. McCall[_3_] | Policy | 9 | July 13th 16 03:56 AM |
Leaning tower of falcon 9 | Jonathan | Policy | 2 | July 5th 16 11:06 AM |
Leaning tower of falcon 9 | Vaughn Simon | Policy | 4 | June 21st 16 04:17 AM |