Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #585003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 196 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-15 11:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 18:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 18:53 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-15 19:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-15 20:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-15 22:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-19 13:49 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 10:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 15:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 18:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:32 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:09 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:23 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 23:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 12:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 20:18 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-21 16:12 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-22 21:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 22:30 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-23 06:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:19 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-24 06:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 22:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:45 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:51 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:42 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 15:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:47 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 00:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:15 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:39 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:00 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:23 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:41 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:21 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-04 09:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-06 16:58 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 00:17 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-07 14:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-07 19:05 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:48 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 18:42 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:03 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:00 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 23:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 08:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 17:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 02:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:01 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:43 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:55 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 22:46 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-04 16:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:10 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:07 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:33 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:28 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:06 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-08 01:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-03 22:25 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 19:40 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:51 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:26 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 22:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 05:01 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 13:50 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 15:07 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 18:11 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-22 23:31 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-22 20:15 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 05:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 05:50 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 17:54 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 15:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-23 22:58 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 05:47 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-24 16:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:56 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-01 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 19:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 05:34 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 14:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 21:41 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:53 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-05 06:11 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-08 01:12 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 02:08 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-09 17:23 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 11:38 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 00:35 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:01 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 18:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-13 03:14 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-02 23:03 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-07-03 05:57 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-24 22:44 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 08:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-25 14:31 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:39 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-25 16:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-26 00:05 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-26 15:40 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-27 21:31 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-28 06:18 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-26 22:29 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 23:28 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 00:26 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-06-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 18:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:11 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-21 09:02 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:59 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jonathan <writeInstead@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 05:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-05 06:06 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:04 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:59 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 01:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-21 06:21 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:36 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 06:34 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-21 13:54 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 07:42 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:30 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-18 12:45 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 04:18 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-17 06:25 -0400
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ap2bob1jgp50p3141qkhpqb6b7k3ikv686@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588911 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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 fuck? 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 FUCKING
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u3ng5d-s6p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588987 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57787ffd$0$9125$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #587614 |
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. In the case of falcon9, it is currently in what would be the flight test programme where they are accumulating data on just how reusable the first stage is. While they may not need to go to the FAA, they still need to know how reusable stage 1 really is in terms of % of stages that can be recovered without significant damage, how much work is needed to make it flight ready, and how many times it can be flown before engines need a major overhaul (and if not worth it, just disposed of)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 21:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ct5hnbddhnpeca4vjtjmfjbn1bivm6hh1o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587759 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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"?
>
>In the case of falcon9, it is currently in what would be the flight test
>programme where they are accumulating data on just how reusable the
>first stage is. While they may not need to go to the FAA, they still
>need to know how reusable stage 1 really is in terms of % of stages that
>can be recovered without significant damage, how much work is needed to
>make it flight ready, and how many times it can be flown before engines
>need a major overhaul (and if not worth it, just disposed of)
>
And their engineering performance estimates say at least ten flights
per booster.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 05:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sulm4d-ill.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587772 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bttjnb582cnjj3dbfjl52h7q31ocpovim3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587797 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oofq4d-et4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587915 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3lrtnbpchgc0a99k2d1ok1l5abpsarpg4r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587939 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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.
>
>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.
>>>
>>>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.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p4b35d-ic9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588305 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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. Any individual item is generally not inspected more than once every 12 months. 100 hour inspections are progressive. >>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. >>>> >>>>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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 02:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nbf1ob9s1gk6pe6r762fo0rgfjvtocnk6j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588310 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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 bastards 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 17:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4bo75d-smp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588458 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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 bastards 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. Fuck off and die, argumentative old fool. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7555obpqp3q6fko60q4sv6jie6k0nkbk45@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588485 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> 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 bastards 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.
>
>Fuck 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dtla5d-7q5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588610 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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> >>Fuck 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 00:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l8i6ob1tgcv0uare1a71184t8djnopcm74@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588629 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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> > >>>Fuck 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5csc5d-iuc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588725 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nl7aob5piehff66g2p7ubo6bj75lksirf7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588767 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mepf5d-m9m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588907 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ps3bobpqf7gn2p8j0ciajblfqrknrv1pa9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588918 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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, fuckwit. 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 Chimpshit. 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.
>
Chimpshit 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 Chimpshit
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
Chimpshit has repeatedly insisted, this should have 'cratered their
market share'. It didn't.
Gee, imagine that, Chimpshit was WRONG (again).
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r4og5d-3ap.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588992 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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, fuckwit. 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 Chimpshit. 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. >> > > Chimpshit 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 Chimpshit > 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 > Chimpshit 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 01:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <577f372e$0$35767$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #588305 |
On 2016-07-07 20:11, Fred J. McCall wrote: > So they inspect what the engineers tell them needs inspecting based on > the engineering estimates of wear performance on the parts. Engineers make estimates. But during flight testing, the real data is accumulated to set the true capabilities and maintenance requirenments of the aircraft. And even during flight testing and subsequent introduction, there are changes made to inspection and maintenance procedures. (eg: batteries on 787 which caught fire). In a SpaceX discussion, this means that the engineering estimates that a stage can be re-used X times is not worth much. This needs to be validated with actual flight experience. They really need to validate how much wear and tear happens for each flight , how much stress there is on structure at landing and many many other variables. And the empirical evidence will provide hard numbers on now much work is needed for inspections between flights and any repairs needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web