A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leaning tower of falcon 9



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 9th 16, 10:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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:
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.


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?


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.


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.



--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #2  
Old July 9th 16, 06:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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  
Old July 10th 16, 07:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old July 10th 16, 08:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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  
Old July 11th 16, 08:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old July 11th 16, 04:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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  
Old July 12th 16, 05:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old July 12th 16, 07:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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  
Old July 13th 16, 02:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default 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  
Old July 13th 16, 04:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.