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:
wrote:

snip

Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


Which is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.

Correct; selling delivery service is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.


But producing the ****ing vehicles to perform that service with is
not.

When "producing" is defined in an extremely narrow sense of the word simply
to provoke an argument.


You mean like what you're doing, where you have to narrow the
definition of "produce" to only include things put forward for direct
commercial sale?

Which is the commonly used definition of production when talking about
a company.


Bull****.

Yes, you are full of it.


No, I'm just buried under it from you shoveling so much.

Let me make it clear. Your statement about the "commonly used
definition of production" is incorrect. It is false. It is a lie.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

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

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

snip

The maintenance manual lists what gets inspected and the maintenance
manual, along with sevreral other things, is part of the required
PAPERWORK package that must be presented during cerification.


You keep leaving out "how often maintenance (including inspections)
must be performed". Is it your claim that the maintenance manual is
merely a 'how to' document and has nothing about 'when to'?

99.99% of the time, yes.


So your claim is that the maintenance manual will say to top off the
engine oil with grade X, explain how to top it off, explain how to
change it, but just say "whenever" when it comes to how frequently the
engine oil level should be looked at and "meh" with regard to how
often to change it?

99.99% of the time, yes.

I'm sorry, but that ought to sound stupid to even your ego.

That is because you keep ignoring the fact that the FAA requires 100 hour
or 12 month inpsections.

An individual item in the maintenance manual is normally inspected once
every 12 months. If the aircraft is on a 100 hour inspection schedule,
some things are inspected in the first 100 hours, others in the second
100 hours and so on until everything is inspected within 12 months.


So your claim is that a part that in the maintenance manual is called
out as requiring no inspection will be inspected every 100 hours
anyway?

Yet another childish statement.


Yet another stuck on stupid statement.


Why would something that requires no maintenance be mentioned in a
maintenance manual?


You have again been betrayed by your deficient English skills. I said
"no inspection", not "no maintenance". Can someone whose life is
apparently paper really read this poorly?

Again why would something that requires no inspection be mentioned in
a maintenance manual?


Inspections occur AFTER certification when the aircraft is sold to an
owner and is in operation.


Irrelevant.

Highly releveant and a point you keep missing.


Highly relevant to WHAT (that is actually being discussed)? I don't
keep 'missing' it. I don't see why you brought it up in the first
place, since no one had said that they were.

So you finally got it; on going maintenance has nothing to do with
certification other than the paperwork of presenting a maintenance
manual during certification.

The certification process is a totally separate process that proves
the DESIGN of the aircraft meets the applicable standards for that
type of aircraft and occurs before any aircraft can be sold.


But the maintenance manual, which calls out what must be inspected and
maintained when is a required input to certification and used (by your
own claim) to determine what to inspect.

During routine, on going maintenance, after certification is complete,
and the aircraft is sold to someone.


Which part of "so what?" is it that is leaving you confused?

Your continued nit picking and arguing about it.

The design is certified by a combination of one time engineering
calculations and actual testing (assuming no failures during the
process).


And by the presence of a document that controls inspections.

Nope.


Yep. You've said so yourself.

No, I did not. Again you are confusing maintenance with certification.

Certification is not inspection, which is on going maintenance.


During the certification process separarte TESTING documents are used
to perform TESTING, not routine maintenance.


Who gives a ****? You're still stuck on stupid and apparently unable
to parse simple declarative English sentences.

Apparently you as you keep confusing inspection, which is on going
maintenance with certification testing.


Before you say something else blazingly stupid, you should read
ALL of Part 25 14 CFR and see what the actual requirements are for
the certification process.


Before you say something else blazingly stupid and irrelevant, YOU
SHOULD TRY READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ACTUALLY WRITE. For example, you
keep blithering on about how normal inspections aren't conducted
during certification, as if someone had said they were. The only
person saying that is you.

You are the one going on and on about inspections during certification,
not me, you lying sack.


Hogwash. I've done no such thing. Stop listening to the little
voices in your head and read what people actually write. Let me see
if I can make what I'm saying so simple that even your gigantic ego
can figure it out:

1) The maintenance manual, which must be complete at certification,
determines what is inspected and tested during operation. YOU have
said this, even though you've made the remarkably stupid statement
that there is nothing in the maintenance documents about how
frequently anything should be done.

Complete as in completely written.

When it is done is 100 hours or 12 months.

2) Given 1), above, quite obviously there is a link between
'certification' and 'testing during operational use'. Well, there is
unless you think they just burn the maintenance manual once
certification is complete.

The link is the maintenance manual is delivered to the owner upon sale
so the OWNER can perform on going maintenance.


--
Jim Pennino

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

snip


I never said any such thing. Please stop listening to the little
voices in your head AND READ THE BLOODY WORDS.

The words as you choose to define them after the fact.

snip

I also deny that I'm the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. I deny
it because it's hogwash, like what your little voices are telling you.

Childish attack mode when backed into a corner.

snip

I've said no such thing. You really cannot read simple English, can
you?

You actually insisted it must be so. Do you not read your own "BLOODY WORDS"?

snip

True, but irrelevant. It goes back to the start of the thread
(obviously) which is 'all along' in the context of the discussion.

Backed into a corner and grasping at symantic.

You started it, Chimp. Now when it's done back to you it's "childish
insults". That pretty much says it all. Giant Ego thinks it gets a
different set of rules.

Backed into a corner and in attack mode.

All this started when I commented on someone else's post. You are the
one that jumped in with both feet.

snip

Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification.


Who said it did? The only thing in need of 'certification' here
appears to be you.

You are the one that brought up "****ing rockets".

Are ""****ing rockets" different than any other kind of rockets?

snip

Still unable to read English and listening to the tiny voices in your
head, are you?

Still trying to spin and deny what you have said over and over?

snip

Precisely. You were the one wanking on as if they were required.

What were required?

Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT
say what NOT to do.


Actually, that's not quite true. Look for all those coloured boxes
labeled "Warning" and "Caution".

Which have nothing to do with not inspecting something.

BTW I have never seen either a colored or coloured box labeled "Warning"
or "Caution" in an aircraft maintenance manual.

This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement.


Good of you to label your output, but I think folks have figured you
out by now.

See above about colored boxes.

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

But since you know nothing about aviation I would not expect you to
know that.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

And how do you arrive at your conclusions about how frequently a given
item must be tested? Where do those numbers trace back to?

Nothing is tested during on going maintenance, it is inspected at
least once in 12 months.

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Tell that to the FAA.


It certainly sounds like someone should, but I suspect that's already
been done and it doesn't actually work the braindead way you make it
sound like it works.

You have no clue how any of it works because you know nothing about
aviation and all the regulations that govern it and are basing everything
you say on what YOU think things should be.

The FAA bases the requirments on about a century worth of accumulated
knowledge which seems to be working pretty well and when something
isn't working, the regulations are changed.

snip

You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher
periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall.

That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation.


Bull****. Now you're just making **** up.

So show some actual data or shut the **** up about it.

Let us suppose that I have a bunch of cables and pulleys and such that
require annual maintenance. Let's say there are 10 of them and each
cable requires 10 hours of maintenance a year, for a total maintenance
requirement per year of 100 hours. Suppose further that each cable
must be replaced every 5 years for an additional 25 hours per cable.
Now suppose that I replace all those cables with a set of cable runs
that only require a 5 hour inspection every 5 years and never require
replacement, a set of 10 motors that only require a 1 hour inspection
every year, and a control computer for the whole works that requires a
5 minute inspection/test every 100 hours.

A total fair tale scenario that also shows you know nothing about how
aircraft systems work.

Original maintenance budget over 5 years was 750 hours. Maintenance
budget with the 'high inspection' computer is less than 700 hours and
almost all of that is the result of those 5 minute computer checks
(and assuming a preposterously high flight rate). Since it's a 5
minute check it can be done overnight. Maintenance time reduced by
adding a preposterously high periodicity check.

In your fairy tale world, but not in the real world of aviation.

For starters, for airplanes with cables, the cable would be checked
for slack or play around the pulleys and the pulleys would be inspected
for wear. As cables come in pairs, you would do both at the same time
and it would take all of about a minute. The idea of having a computer
contolled cable and pulley system in an airplane is just ludicrous.

snip giant pile of nonsense spew

Whether it needs it or not. And how do you decide just which bits
need it every 100 hours? Periodicity must be specified SOMEWHERE for
that part. You say the maintenance manual doesn't have it, so where
is it?

FAA requlations.

snip

Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long
or not. Yeah, right.

Yeah, right, it is the ****ing law.


Then the law, sir, is an ass.

So here we have it, McCrap who knows nothing about aviation knows better
what is to be done than the FAA with about a century's worth of
accumulated knowledge and thousands of actual aviation professionals.

snip remaining crap

--
Jim Pennino

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

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:

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

snip

Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


Which is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.

Correct; selling delivery service is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.


But producing the ****ing vehicles to perform that service with is
not.

When "producing" is defined in an extremely narrow sense of the word simply
to provoke an argument.


You mean like what you're doing, where you have to narrow the
definition of "produce" to only include things put forward for direct
commercial sale?

Which is the commonly used definition of production when talking about
a company.


Bull****.

Yes, you are full of it.


No, I'm just buried under it from you shoveling so much.

Let me make it clear. Your statement about the "commonly used
definition of production" is incorrect. It is false. It is a lie.

Says you, tosser.

--
Jim Pennino

wrote:

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

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

snip

The maintenance manual lists what gets inspected and the maintenance
manual, along with sevreral other things, is part of the required
PAPERWORK package that must be presented during cerification.


You keep leaving out "how often maintenance (including inspections)
must be performed". Is it your claim that the maintenance manual is
merely a 'how to' document and has nothing about 'when to'?

99.99% of the time, yes.


So your claim is that the maintenance manual will say to top off the
engine oil with grade X, explain how to top it off, explain how to
change it, but just say "whenever" when it comes to how frequently the
engine oil level should be looked at and "meh" with regard to how
often to change it?

99.99% of the time, yes.


Hogwash.

I'm sorry, but that ought to sound stupid to even your ego.

That is because you keep ignoring the fact that the FAA requires 100 hour
or 12 month inpsections.


OK. So suppose I'm operating an aircraft in the category of service
that puts me into 'annual inspection'. It is your claim that I now
have engine oil and tires that are only looked at once a year? We
know the rate that jet engines consume oil at. It's in the
maintenance or specification manual. So you're now saying I need a
big enough engine oil reservoir on my jet to last for over a year of
service (because I'm only going to check the levels once a year)? I'm
sorry, but that's just insane.

Not only that, but it pretty much would seem to make the FAA the
biggest barrier to aircraft innovation. Why would I even develop an
improved part? I mean, I'm going to incur the inspection and
maintenance costs anyway, regardless of whether it needs it or not,
since the intervals are fixed by the FAA rather than having anything
to do with the actual part.

An individual item in the maintenance manual is normally inspected once
every 12 months. If the aircraft is on a 100 hour inspection schedule,
some things are inspected in the first 100 hours, others in the second
100 hours and so on until everything is inspected within 12 months.


So your claim is that a part that in the maintenance manual is called
out as requiring no inspection will be inspected every 100 hours
anyway?

Yet another childish statement.


Yet another stuck on stupid statement.


Why would something that requires no maintenance be mentioned in a
maintenance manual?


You have again been betrayed by your deficient English skills. I said
"no inspection", not "no maintenance". Can someone whose life is
apparently paper really read this poorly?

Again why would something that requires no inspection be mentioned in
a maintenance manual?


Not 'again'. You asked a different question. The answer is that
there may be routine maintenance to perform that doesn't require an
inspection first.


Inspections occur AFTER certification when the aircraft is sold to an
owner and is in operation.


Irrelevant.

Highly releveant and a point you keep missing.


Highly relevant to WHAT (that is actually being discussed)? I don't
keep 'missing' it. I don't see why you brought it up in the first
place, since no one had said that they were.

So you finally got it; on going maintenance has nothing to do with
certification other than the paperwork of presenting a maintenance
manual during certification.


Since I never said otherwise, there's no 'finally' to it. So you
finally actually read the words instead of listening to the little
voices in your head feeding your gigantic ego.

The certification process is a totally separate process that proves
the DESIGN of the aircraft meets the applicable standards for that
type of aircraft and occurs before any aircraft can be sold.


But the maintenance manual, which calls out what must be inspected and
maintained when is a required input to certification and used (by your
own claim) to determine what to inspect.

During routine, on going maintenance, after certification is complete,
and the aircraft is sold to someone.


Which part of "so what?" is it that is leaving you confused?

Your continued nit picking and arguing about it.


Uh, for most people "so what" is a LACK of "nit picking and arguing",
Chimp.

The design is certified by a combination of one time engineering
calculations and actual testing (assuming no failures during the
process).


And by the presence of a document that controls inspections.

Nope.


Yep. You've said so yourself.

No, I did not. Again you are confusing maintenance with certification.


Again, no I am not. Again you are listening to the little voices in
your head vs reading what people actually write.


Certification is not inspection, which is on going maintenance.


True, but so what? Water is wet, which is not dry. Now if you'd ever
said that water was dry my response would make sense. However, since
you haven't, it doesn't. Just like yours doesn't, since I never said
that certification was inspection.


During the certification process separarte TESTING documents are used
to perform TESTING, not routine maintenance.


Who gives a ****? You're still stuck on stupid and apparently unable
to parse simple declarative English sentences.

Apparently you as you keep confusing inspection, which is on going
maintenance with certification testing.


'Apparently' only to you. Perhaps if YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ****ING
WORDS?


Before you say something else blazingly stupid, you should read
ALL of Part 25 14 CFR and see what the actual requirements are for
the certification process.


Before you say something else blazingly stupid and irrelevant, YOU
SHOULD TRY READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ACTUALLY WRITE. For example, you
keep blithering on about how normal inspections aren't conducted
during certification, as if someone had said they were. The only
person saying that is you.

You are the one going on and on about inspections during certification,
not me, you lying sack.


Hogwash. I've done no such thing. Stop listening to the little
voices in your head and read what people actually write. Let me see
if I can make what I'm saying so simple that even your gigantic ego
can figure it out:

1) The maintenance manual, which must be complete at certification,
determines what is inspected and tested during operation. YOU have
said this, even though you've made the remarkably stupid statement
that there is nothing in the maintenance documents about how
frequently anything should be done.

Complete as in completely written.


Yes, exactly. And that completely written document is used for what,
precisely, post-certification?


When it is done is 100 hours or 12 months.


Whether it's actually needed or not, because Jimp the Chimp says so.

2) Given 1), above, quite obviously there is a link between
'certification' and 'testing during operational use'. Well, there is
unless you think they just burn the maintenance manual once
certification is complete.

The link is the maintenance manual is delivered to the owner upon sale
so the OWNER can perform on going maintenance.


Yeah, isn't it though. And the owner has to do all those inspections
and stuff that the FAA mandates. You sound like you've finally gotten
it, but given your insistence all through this article that you DON'T
get it, I'm betting you'll revert. Your ego will allow nothing less.


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

I note that you've carefully deleted all context from my remarks, you
intellectually dishonest ****.

wrote:

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

snip


I never said any such thing. Please stop listening to the little
voices in your head AND READ THE BLOODY WORDS.

The words as you choose to define them after the fact.

snip

I also deny that I'm the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. I deny
it because it's hogwash, like what your little voices are telling you.

Childish attack mode when backed into a corner.

snip

I've said no such thing. You really cannot read simple English, can
you?

You actually insisted it must be so. Do you not read your own "BLOODY WORDS"?

snip

True, but irrelevant. It goes back to the start of the thread
(obviously) which is 'all along' in the context of the discussion.

Backed into a corner and grasping at symantic.

You started it, Chimp. Now when it's done back to you it's "childish
insults". That pretty much says it all. Giant Ego thinks it gets a
different set of rules.

Backed into a corner and in attack mode.

All this started when I commented on someone else's post. You are the
one that jumped in with both feet.

snip

Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification.


Who said it did? The only thing in need of 'certification' here
appears to be you.

You are the one that brought up "****ing rockets".

Are ""****ing rockets" different than any other kind of rockets?

snip

Still unable to read English and listening to the tiny voices in your
head, are you?

Still trying to spin and deny what you have said over and over?

snip

Precisely. You were the one wanking on as if they were required.

What were required?

Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT
say what NOT to do.


Actually, that's not quite true. Look for all those coloured boxes
labeled "Warning" and "Caution".

Which have nothing to do with not inspecting something.

BTW I have never seen either a colored or coloured box labeled "Warning"
or "Caution" in an aircraft maintenance manual.

This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement.


Good of you to label your output, but I think folks have figured you
out by now.

See above about colored boxes.

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

But since you know nothing about aviation I would not expect you to
know that.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

And how do you arrive at your conclusions about how frequently a given
item must be tested? Where do those numbers trace back to?

Nothing is tested during on going maintenance, it is inspected at
least once in 12 months.

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?

Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
manual, as it is part of the operational manual.

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?

What number?

snip

Tell that to the FAA.


It certainly sounds like someone should, but I suspect that's already
been done and it doesn't actually work the braindead way you make it
sound like it works.

You have no clue how any of it works because you know nothing about
aviation and all the regulations that govern it and are basing everything
you say on what YOU think things should be.

The FAA bases the requirments on about a century worth of accumulated
knowledge which seems to be working pretty well and when something
isn't working, the regulations are changed.

snip

You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher
periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall.

That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation.


Bull****. Now you're just making **** up.

So show some actual data or shut the **** up about it.

Let us suppose that I have a bunch of cables and pulleys and such that
require annual maintenance. Let's say there are 10 of them and each
cable requires 10 hours of maintenance a year, for a total maintenance
requirement per year of 100 hours. Suppose further that each cable
must be replaced every 5 years for an additional 25 hours per cable.
Now suppose that I replace all those cables with a set of cable runs
that only require a 5 hour inspection every 5 years and never require
replacement, a set of 10 motors that only require a 1 hour inspection
every year, and a control computer for the whole works that requires a
5 minute inspection/test every 100 hours.

A total fair tale scenario that also shows you know nothing about how
aircraft systems work.

Original maintenance budget over 5 years was 750 hours. Maintenance
budget with the 'high inspection' computer is less than 700 hours and
almost all of that is the result of those 5 minute computer checks
(and assuming a preposterously high flight rate). Since it's a 5
minute check it can be done overnight. Maintenance time reduced by
adding a preposterously high periodicity check.

In your fairy tale world, but not in the real world of aviation.

For starters, for airplanes with cables, the cable would be checked
for slack or play around the pulleys and the pulleys would be inspected
for wear. As cables come in pairs, you would do both at the same time
and it would take all of about a minute. The idea of having a computer
contolled cable and pulley system in an airplane is just ludicrous.

snip giant pile of nonsense spew

Whether it needs it or not. And how do you decide just which bits
need it every 100 hours? Periodicity must be specified SOMEWHERE for
that part. You say the maintenance manual doesn't have it, so where
is it?

FAA requlations.

snip

Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long
or not. Yeah, right.

Yeah, right, it is the ****ing law.


Then the law, sir, is an ass.

So here we have it, McCrap who knows nothing about aviation knows better
what is to be done than the FAA with about a century's worth of
accumulated knowledge and thousands of actual aviation professionals.

snip remaining crap

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

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

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:

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

snip

Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


Which is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.

Correct; selling delivery service is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.


But producing the ****ing vehicles to perform that service with is
not.

When "producing" is defined in an extremely narrow sense of the word simply
to provoke an argument.


You mean like what you're doing, where you have to narrow the
definition of "produce" to only include things put forward for direct
commercial sale?

Which is the commonly used definition of production when talking about
a company.


Bull****.

Yes, you are full of it.


No, I'm just buried under it from you shoveling so much.

Let me make it clear. Your statement about the "commonly used
definition of production" is incorrect. It is false. It is a lie.

Says you, tosser.


Says pretty much everyone but you, ******. Try buying a dictionary.
Try asking anyone who actually knows what SpaceX and the Falcon
booster are whether SpaceX produces the Falcon booster.


--
"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

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

Hogwash.

I am tired of your blowhard nonsense.

Show anything in 14 CFR that is contrary to what I've said or STFU.

snip

OK. So suppose I'm operating an aircraft in the category of service
that puts me into 'annual inspection'. It is your claim that I now
have engine oil and tires that are only looked at once a year? We
know the rate that jet engines consume oil at. It's in the
maintenance or specification manual. So you're now saying I need a
big enough engine oil reservoir on my jet to last for over a year of
service (because I'm only going to check the levels once a year)? I'm
sorry, but that's just insane.

Perhaps to someone that knows nothing about aviation, but that is not
how it works at all.

For aircraft, there is an operational manual, a maintenane manual, and
a repair manual.

In the operational manual, and in FAA regulations, there is the requirement
that the pilot of an aircraft do a pre-flight inspection before every
flight.

In the operational manual you find things like how much oil you have
to have and how to check how much you actually have. You also have to
calculate, by law, how much fuel will be required for the flight plus
a contingancy reserve and ensure you actually have that much fuel.

Pilots, unlike drivers, do not just jump into the airplane and go.

In a car if the "check engine soon" light comes on, the driver thinks
about when he might bother to do something about it.

In an airplane if somehing flags a warning, the pilot thinks about
where is the closest place to land.

A pilot is REQUIRED to understand EVERYTHING about what is required
to keep the airplane safely flying and much like the captain of a ship
has the final responibility for safe flight.

And again, show anything in 14 CFR that is contrary to what I've
said or STFU.

Not only that, but it pretty much would seem to make the FAA the
biggest barrier to aircraft innovation. Why would I even develop an
improved part? I mean, I'm going to incur the inspection and
maintenance costs anyway, regardless of whether it needs it or not,
since the intervals are fixed by the FAA rather than having anything
to do with the actual part.

No one in the industry has any problems with the FAA when in comes to
parts.

Aircraft innovation is not about parts, it is about aircraft performance.

Many in the industry do feel the requirements of certification under
Part 23, which basically applies to airplanes less than 12,500 pounds,
to be onerous, particularly in the area of avionics and non-required
safety of flight equipment, and there is movement within the FAA to
rewrite it.

But again, this has nothing to do with parts.

No one in the industry has any desire to change 100 hour and annual
inspection requirments.

The companies that make airplanes know what 14 CFR says and when they
desgin an airplane, they design it to comply with the requirements of
14 CFR from the start. Certification is not an after thought.


--
Jim Pennino