|
|
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
wrote:
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. I'm sorry, Jim, but I can't fix stupid so you're just going to have to let your gigantic ego play this defensive game of yours. 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". Just how do you inspect 'everything' if you don't? 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? 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. 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? 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. I find it funny how Jimp the Chimp wants to dish it out, but when you do it back to him it's "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. 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. He's apparently unable to comprehend SYSTEM 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. 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. Isn't it funny how Jimp the Chimp wants to dish it out, but when someone does it back to him it's "Backed into a corner by nonsense and in attack mode"? Does he assume that because that's what he's done first that engendered the return in kind? 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. Isn't it funny how Jimp the Chimp wants to dish it out, but when someone does it back to him it's "Backed into a corner by nonsense and in attack mode"? Does he assume that because that's what he's done first that engendered the return in kind? 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 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.... 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. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
wrote:
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: snip pile of bile If you don't like it, stop posting it. 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. Yes, you cleared that up in the next paragraph from last time. No need to keep going on about it just to try to feed your ego. 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. How much oil can the oil reservoir on a jet engine hold? You've now required that it be large enough to go without checking for a year I picked an example for you to explain. The GIII has a 28 liter tank and uses 0.9 liters/hour of operation. Only check the oil every 100 hours (or worse, once a year) as you insist is the requirement and you're going to have a lot of GIII lawn darts when the engines pack up due to lack of lubrication. Explain. 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 Then the GIII crashes before its first inspection. Please explain how that works. 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. Do try to follow along, ****wit. I postulated an overall system upgrade where you got ONE high frequency (but low duration) of maintenance part and all the rest of that system go different parts, enable by the high maintenance frequency part. You blustered on about how such a change would destroy market share, was 'magic', etc. Your response here demonstrates that not only are you unable to think outside your box, but that your box is a really tiny box. He's apparently unable to comprehend SYSTEM costs. McCrap makes it up as he goes along. Poor Chimp****. He just really is incapable of conceiving of anything outside his little tiny box. 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. Chimp**** apparently does not understand how to follow a logical sequence of thought. According to him, the increased maintenance should have made jets market losers against existing airliners. *I* understand what was going on, but I see no evidence that Chimp**** ever did. 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. But until then one person had replaced a part (the entire airplane) with a part that required much more maintenance. According to what Chimp**** has repeatedly insisted, this should have 'cratered their market share'. It didn't. Gee, imagine that, Chimp**** was WRONG (again). -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Leaning tower of falcon 9
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote: snip How much oil can the oil reservoir on a jet engine hold? You've now required that it be large enough to go without checking for a year What a silly, ignorant, childish conclusion to come to. Ensuring there is enough oil for a flight is part of the operational requirments, not the maintenance requirements. snip Then the GIII crashes before its first inspection. Please explain how that works. As all airplanes must have had the equivelant to an annual inspection within the last 12 months before it can be flown in other than a special flight specifically to have maintenance performed, it is customary for the seller of a new aircraft to have performed an annual before sale so the buyer can legally fly it away. The people in the aircraft industry are not idiots making it up as they go along. snip Do try to follow along, ****wit. I postulated an overall system upgrade where you got ONE high frequency (but low duration) of maintenance part and all the rest of that system go different parts, enable by the high maintenance frequency part. You blustered on about how such a change would destroy market share, was 'magic', etc. Yawn, yet another fairy tale. Your response here demonstrates that not only are you unable to think outside your box, but that your box is a really tiny box. He's apparently unable to comprehend SYSTEM costs. McCrap makes it up as he goes along. Poor Chimp****. He just really is incapable of conceiving of anything outside his little tiny box. 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. Chimp**** apparently does not understand how to follow a logical sequence of thought. According to him, the increased maintenance should have made jets market losers against existing airliners. *I* understand what was going on, but I see no evidence that Chimp**** ever did. What I actually said was a high maintenance aircraft will not compete in the market place. That obviously implies that the aircraft is competing against like aircraft, i.e. jet transport against jet transport, not jet transport against something with huge radial engines which is what the first jets were competing against. Only an argumentative would have assumed otherwise. 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. But until then one person had replaced a part (the entire airplane) with a part that required much more maintenance. According to what Chimp**** has repeatedly insisted, this should have 'cratered their market share'. It didn't. What the hell are you babbling about here? Actually jet airplanes are lower maintenance than the huge radial engine things they replaced. -- 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 |