Leaning tower of falcon 9

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.

FAA inspections apply AFTER the certification process is complete.


--
Jim Pennino

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:
wrote:


snip

Buy a ****ing dictionary and look it up, Chimp****.

manufactu the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
especially on a large scale

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.

wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods

merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note that orbital services are 'wares'.


services: the performance of any duties or work for another

SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
specific location.


The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
inapt example.

Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles.


Note: "COTS delivery vehicles".


As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time),
SpaceX has little choice in the matter.

But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service.


That manufactures rockets and orbital capsules.

So what?



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-07-02 01:34, wrote:

SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
specific location.


You mean that SpaceX will leave a card in low orbit and return the
satellite to some distant depot like UPS does ? :-)

Only if no one is home and the delivery requires a signed receipt.

--
Jim Pennino

On 6/21/2016 10:59 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

And I'm stating that you are a fool and wasting my time.


You know Fred, unless you've got a gig I'm not aware of and getting paid for
this, you're under no obligation to respond to JF.
So he's not wasting your time. You are. You can stop responding to him any
time you want.


I always like to give them a chance before I ****can them as
worthless, Greg. That's the explanation for why I still respond to
****e like this from you, as well.





Fred come back to sci.military.naval where you belong.
We can take care of you there and protect you from
the real world.

Please stop bothering these nice people.

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip

What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.


So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.

Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:

An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.

snip


And just what do they inspect?


So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
"inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".

See above; annual or 100 hours.

As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.

snip


So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.

The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.


So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
that.

What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
the requirements accordingly.

snip


And which part of "people develop new **** so there is no 'cummulative
history'" did you not understand?

And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.


I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.

I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
since 1926.

snip


Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
other hand...

I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.


Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.

I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
from accumulated history.


And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.


If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
and set standards based on the analysis.


It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
history'. So what the **** does the FAA do then, other than duck the
question?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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.


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.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip

What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.


So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.

Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:

An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.

snip


And just what do they inspect?

Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.

The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
first place.


So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
"inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".

See above; annual or 100 hours.

As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.

snip


So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.

That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.

The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.


So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
that.

What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
the requirements accordingly.

snip


And which part of "people develop new **** so there is no 'cummulative
history'" did you not understand?

What part of certification and inspection are two different things
did you not understand?


And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.


I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.

I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
since 1926.

snip


Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
other hand...

Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.


I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.


Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.

I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
from accumulated history.


And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.

Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
nothing to do with the on going inspection process.

If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
and set standards based on the analysis.


It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
history'. So what the **** does the FAA do then, other than duck the
question?

There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
the on going inspection process.

Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.

The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.



--
Jim Pennino

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.

And again, 100 hour inspections are cummulative inspections that over
the course of 12 months address all the items of an annual inspection.


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.


--
Jim Pennino

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:
wrote:


snip

Buy a ****ing dictionary and look it up, Chimp****.

manufactu the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
especially on a large scale

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.

wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods

merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note that orbital services are 'wares'.


services: the performance of any duties or work for another

SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
specific location.


The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
inapt example.

Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles.


Note: "COTS delivery vehicles".


As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time),
SpaceX has little choice in the matter.

But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service.


That manufactures rockets and orbital capsules.


So what?


So that's 'production', you stupid ****. Just like Ford produces the
trucks that the companies in your inapt comparison to freight delivery
services use.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Jonathan wrote:

On 6/21/2016 10:59 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

And I'm stating that you are a fool and wasting my time.


You know Fred, unless you've got a gig I'm not aware of and getting paid for
this, you're under no obligation to respond to JF.
So he's not wasting your time. You are. You can stop responding to him any
time you want.


I always like to give them a chance before I ****can them as
worthless, Greg. That's the explanation for why I still respond to
****e like this from you, as well.


Fred come back to sci.military.naval where you belong.
We can take care of you there and protect you from
the real world.


Jonthy, stick to annoying Russian shills. It's more your speed. You
stormed out of here in a snit. Please stay snitted until you have
something worthwhile to say.


Please stop bothering these nice people.


I was here when this newsgroup was formed, you stupid ****e.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson