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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 22:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7p5u3d-eis.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586350 |
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: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. >>>> >>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. >>>> >>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after >>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do. >>>> >>>>Nope. >>>> >>> >>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp. >> >>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year? >> > > Lack of response noted. I responded but you didn't understand the response. >>>> >>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. >>>> >>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required >>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as >>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. >>>> >>> >>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp? >> >>History, McCrap. >> > > Wrong, Chimpshit. Correct, McCrap. And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early fielding of the product. >>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum >>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight >>>>> and fly them to destruction. >>>> >>>>I don't care what Mezei claims. >>>> >>> >>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion? >> >>Why the fuck do you care? >> > > Rhetorical question. Look it up. > >>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time >>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that >>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT >>>>> lengthen with experience. >>>> >>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine >>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service >>>>life", not performance. >>>> >>> >>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance", >>> Chimpshit. >> >>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap. >> > > Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel > vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'. Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 05:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0daqmbpp45d9ket3gsjv0b1fc48nl24519@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586357 |
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:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
>>>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.
>>>
>>>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?
>>>
>>
>> Lack of response noted.
>
>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>
Lack of response noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
>>>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
>>>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?
>>>
>>>History, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, Chimpshit.
>>
>
>Correct, McCrap.
>
Well of course I'm correct, Chimpshit.
>
>And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
>required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
>an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
>expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
>fielding of the product.
>
And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
is arguing about.
>
>>>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
>>>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
>>>>>> and fly them to destruction.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't care what Mezei claims.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion?
>>>
>>>Why the fuck do you care?
>>>
>>
>> Rhetorical question. Look it up.
>>
>>>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
>>>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
>>>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
>>>>>> lengthen with experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
>>>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
>>>>>life", not performance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
>>>> Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
>> vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.
>
>Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
>it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.
>
Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimpshit. Just because you
can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
enchilada.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-24 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3n104d-kj5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #586383 |
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: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after >>>>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp. >>>> >>>>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year? >>>> >>> >>> Lack of response noted. >> >>I responded but you didn't understand the response. >> > > Lack of response noted. I responded but you didn't understand the response. >>>>>> >>>>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. >>>>>> >>>>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required >>>>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as >>>>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp? >>>> >>>>History, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Wrong, Chimpshit. >>> >> >>Correct, McCrap. >> > > Well of course I'm correct, Chimpshit. Nope, McCrap, you are wrong. Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think the times are based on some historical data? >> >>And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums >>required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by >>an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as >>expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early >>fielding of the product. >> > > And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You > know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei > is arguing about. The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific of SpaceX, McCrap. >>>>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum >>>>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight >>>>>>> and fly them to destruction. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't care what Mezei claims. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion? >>>> >>>>Why the fuck do you care? >>>> >>> >>> Rhetorical question. Look it up. >>> >>>>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time >>>>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that >>>>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT >>>>>>> lengthen with experience. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine >>>>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service >>>>>>life", not performance. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance", >>>>> Chimpshit. >>>> >>>>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel >>> vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'. >> >>Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long >>it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap. >> > > Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimpshit. Just because you > can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same > with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category > doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole > enchilada. Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary... -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pagbnb1k1adl13ajpfkrshbjtqi54lf9ca@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #586390 |
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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
>>>>>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.
>>>>>
>>>>>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lack of response noted.
>>>
>>>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>>>
>>
>> Lack of response noted.
>>
>
>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>
Lack of response noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
>>>>>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
>>>>>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?
>>>>>
>>>>>History, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, Chimpshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Correct, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Well of course I'm correct, Chimpshit.
>>
>
>Nope, McCrap, you are wrong.
>
Well make up your mind, Chimpshit.
>
>Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think
>the times are based on some historical data?
>
Yes. Now go look up 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.
Now one for you. Given a completely new aircraft design with new
materials, new engines, etc, do you think the FAA sets the initial
inspection times arbitrarily, do you think they're set based on
non-existent historical data, or do you think they're set based on
engineering performance data on the expected duty cycles of the parts?
>>>
>>>And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
>>>required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
>>>an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
>>>expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
>>>fielding of the product.
>>>
>>
>> And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
>> know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
>> is arguing about.
>
>The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific
>of SpaceX, McCrap.
>
Wrong, Chimpshit. The fact that Mezei didn't bother to crosspost your
stupid ass into it until it was well underway is an intellectual
shortcoming on your part.
>
>>>>>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
>>>>>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
>>>>>>>> and fly them to destruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't care what Mezei claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why the fuck do you care?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rhetorical question. Look it up.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
>>>>>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
>>>>>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
>>>>>>>> lengthen with experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
>>>>>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
>>>>>>>life", not performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
>>>>>> Chimpshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
>>>> vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.
>>>
>>>Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
>>>it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimpshit. Just because you
>> can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
>> with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
>> doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
>> enchilada.
>
>Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary...
>
Straight from 33 years in engineering in the aerospace industry. And
it doesn't matter how much of his own feces the Chimp flings. You may
not understand it, but all that shit is interrelated.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 05:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onch4d-q44.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587423 |
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: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after >>>>>>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp. >>>>>> >>>>>>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lack of response noted. >>>> >>>>I responded but you didn't understand the response. >>>> >>> >>> Lack of response noted. >>> >> >>I responded but you didn't understand the response. >> > > Lack of response noted. I responded but you didn't understand the response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required >>>>>>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as >>>>>>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp? >>>>>> >>>>>>History, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, Chimpshit. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Correct, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Well of course I'm correct, Chimpshit. >>> >> >>Nope, McCrap, you are wrong. >> > > Well make up your mind, Chimpshit. I never changed my mind, McCrap, you have been wrong from the start and continue to be wrong. >> >>Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think >>the times are based on some historical data? >> > > Yes. Now go look up 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. > > Now one for you. Given a completely new aircraft design with new > materials, new engines, etc, do you think the FAA sets the initial > inspection times arbitrarily, do you think they're set based on > non-existent historical data, or do you think they're set based on > engineering performance data on the expected duty cycles of the parts? None of the above, McCrap. Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times" for new designs. Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently for different aircraft. >>>>And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums >>>>required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by >>>>an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as >>>>expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early >>>>fielding of the product. >>>> >>> >>> And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You >>> know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei >>> is arguing about. >> >>The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific >>of SpaceX, McCrap. >> > > Wrong, Chimpshit. The fact that Mezei didn't bother to crosspost your > stupid ass into it until it was well underway is an intellectual > shortcoming on your part. Fuck off and die or go argue with Mezei; I don't care which McCrap. >>>>>>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum >>>>>>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight >>>>>>>>> and fly them to destruction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't care what Mezei claims. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion? >>>>>> >>>>>>Why the fuck do you care? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rhetorical question. Look it up. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time >>>>>>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that >>>>>>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT >>>>>>>>> lengthen with experience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine >>>>>>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service >>>>>>>>life", not performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance", >>>>>>> Chimpshit. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel >>>>> vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'. >>>> >>>>Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long >>>>it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimpshit. Just because you >>> can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same >>> with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category >>> doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole >>> enchilada. >> >>Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary... >> > > Straight from 33 years in engineering in the aerospace industry. And > it doesn't matter how much of his own feces the Chimp flings. You may > not understand it, but all that shit is interrelated. Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3jddnbp8t3fa0em8au8siifoecdr8nufe6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587450 |
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:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
>>>>>>>>>> every flight, which we obviously do not do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lack of response noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lack of response noted.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>>>
>>
>> Lack of response noted.
>>
>
>I responded but you didn't understand the response.
>
Lack of response noted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
>>>>>>>>>periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
>>>>>>>>>a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>History, McCrap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, Chimpshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well of course I'm correct, Chimpshit.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, McCrap, you are wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Well make up your mind, Chimpshit.
>>
>
>I never changed my mind, McCrap, you have been wrong from the start
>and continue to be wrong.
>
Chimpshit: "Correct, McCrap."
Make up your mind, Chimpshit.
>>>
>>>Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think
>>>the times are based on some historical data?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Now go look up 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.
>>
>> Now one for you. Given a completely new aircraft design with new
>> materials, new engines, etc, do you think the FAA sets the initial
>> inspection times arbitrarily, do you think they're set based on
>> non-existent historical data, or do you think they're set based on
>> engineering performance data on the expected duty cycles of the parts?
>
>None of the above, McCrap.
>
>Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times"
>for new designs.
>
So they certify aircraft with no ongoing inspection regime? That
sounds just a little insane.
>
>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently
>for different aircraft.
>
Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody
fact, you moron.
>>>>>And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
>>>>>required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
>>>>>an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
>>>>>expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
>>>>>fielding of the product.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
>>>> know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
>>>> is arguing about.
>>>
>>>The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific
>>>of SpaceX, McCrap.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, Chimpshit. The fact that Mezei didn't bother to crosspost your
>> stupid ass into it until it was well underway is an intellectual
>> shortcoming on your part.
>>
>
>Fuck off and die or go argue with Mezei; I don't care which McCrap.
>
Kiss my ass or shut the fuck up; I don't care which Chimpshit.
>>>>>>>>>> Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
>>>>>>>>>> performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
>>>>>>>>>> and fly them to destruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't care what Mezei claims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why the fuck do you care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rhetorical question. Look it up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
>>>>>>>>>> requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
>>>>>>>>>> then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
>>>>>>>>>> lengthen with experience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
>>>>>>>>>part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
>>>>>>>>>life", not performance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
>>>>>>>> Chimpshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
>>>>>> vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
>>>>>it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimpshit. Just because you
>>>> can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
>>>> with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
>>>> doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
>>>> enchilada.
>>>
>>>Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary...
>>>
>>
>> Straight from 33 years in engineering in the aerospace industry. And
>> it doesn't matter how much of his own feces the Chimp flings. You may
>> not understand it, but all that shit is interrelated.
>
>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace.
>
Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not
matter?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 00:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5gj4d-h8b.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587585 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times" >>for new designs. >> > > So they certify aircraft with no ongoing inspection regime? That > sounds just a little insane. You still don't get it; the FAA does not have "initial inspection times" for new designs. Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was certified under. >>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently >>for different aircraft. >> > > Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody > fact, you moron. Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap. Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was certified under regardless of when it was manufactured. >>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace. >> > > Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not > matter? Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian aviation. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2benb1khf9rmbk7fdem1830gpkvj8a1o7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587599 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times"
>>>for new designs.
>>>
>>
>> So they certify aircraft with no ongoing inspection regime? That
>> sounds just a little insane.
>
>You still don't get it; the FAA does not have "initial inspection times"
>for new designs.
>
You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial
inspection times" for new designs.
>
>Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was
>certified under.
>
And who certifies the aircraft again?
>>>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently
>>>for different aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody
>> fact, you moron.
>
>Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap.
>
Bzzzt, wrong anser Chimpshit.
>
>Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was
>certified under regardless of when it was manufactured.
>
And just who does all that? Can you spell 'FAA'?
>>>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace.
>>>
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not
>> matter?
>
>Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full
>well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian
>aviation.
>
Maybe because you're a fucking bureaucrat and don't know dick about
engineering.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 05:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n00k4d-nrc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587614 |
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> >> >>>>Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times" >>>>for new designs. >>>> >>> >>> So they certify aircraft with no ongoing inspection regime? That >>> sounds just a little insane. >> >>You still don't get it; the FAA does not have "initial inspection times" >>for new designs. >> > > You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial > inspection times" for new designs. Nope; once an aircraft is certified, that's it, and it is treated no differently than any other certified aircraft no matter the age of the design. > >> >>Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>certified under. >> > > And who certifies the aircraft again? Depends on what you mean; the manufacturer provides the data for the applicable part of 14 CFR and the FAA issues the certificate. None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. >>>>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently >>>>for different aircraft. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody >>> fact, you moron. >> >>Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap. >> > > Bzzzt, wrong anser Chimpshit. > >> >>Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>certified under regardless of when it was manufactured. >> > > And just who does all that? Can you spell 'FAA'? None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. >>>>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace. >>>> >>> >>> Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not >>> matter? >> >>Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full >>well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian >>aviation. >> > > Maybe because you're a fucking bureaucrat and don't know dick about > engineering. Nope, my title was Senior Staff Engineer, but engineering has nothing to do with 14 CFR. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rl4gnbdefgj9k08aapjgh1edsft8ht7lqs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587618 |
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> >>> >>>>>Your first misconception is that the FAA has "initial inspection times" >>>>>for new designs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So they certify aircraft with no ongoing inspection regime? That >>>> sounds just a little insane. >>> >>>You still don't get it; the FAA does not have "initial inspection times" >>>for new designs. >>> >> >> You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial >> inspection times" for new designs. > >Nope; once an aircraft is certified, that's it, and it is treated no >differently than any other certified aircraft no matter the age of >the design. > Yep; are you claiming that FAA will certify an airplane with no initial inspection regime? You yourself were saying a while back that new aircraft initially got shorter inspection cycles until experience was gained on them. Contradict yourself much? >> >>> >>>Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>>certified under. >>> >> >> And who certifies the aircraft again? > >Depends on what you mean; the manufacturer provides the data for the >applicable part of 14 CFR and the FAA issues the certificate. > >None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. > So an aircraft can be certified with the manufacturer just saying, "Inspections? We don't need no steenking inspections!" Why does that just not quite sound reasonable to me? >>>>>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently >>>>>for different aircraft. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody >>>> fact, you moron. >>> >>>Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap. >>> >> >> Bzzzt, wrong anser Chimpshit. >> >>> >>>Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>>certified under regardless of when it was manufactured. >>> >> >> And just who does all that? Can you spell 'FAA'? > >None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. > So how do they get set? Suppose I build a carbon fiber glued construction business jet with radial flow jet engines. How do you decide what gets inspected when? Neither your airframe nor power plant 'historical' inspections apply in any way to what I've built, so what do you think the FAA does? >>>>>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not >>>> matter? >>> >>>Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full >>>well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian >>>aviation. >>> >> >> Maybe because you're a fucking bureaucrat and don't know dick about >> engineering. > >Nope, my title was Senior Staff Engineer, but engineering has nothing >to do with 14 CFR. > I'd say that what your title is has very little to do with what your job is. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hhul4d-kcj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587697 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > <snip> >>Nope; once an aircraft is certified, that's it, and it is treated no >>differently than any other certified aircraft no matter the age of >>the design. >> > > Yep; are you claiming that FAA will certify an airplane with no > initial inspection regime? You yourself were saying a while back that > new aircraft initially got shorter inspection cycles until experience > was gained on them. Contradict yourself much? Not at all. What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>> >>>>Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>>>certified under. >>>> >>> >>> And who certifies the aircraft again? >> >>Depends on what you mean; the manufacturer provides the data for the >>applicable part of 14 CFR and the FAA issues the certificate. >> >>None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. >> > > So an aircraft can be certified with the manufacturer just saying, > "Inspections? We don't need no steenking inspections!" Why does that > just not quite sound reasonable to me? Certification has little to nothing to do with inspections. Certifiction is based on things like FAA approved materials and manufacturing techniques and test flights to prove adherence to FAA established parameters such as, but not limited to, things like the wings don't fall off in steep turns. Such testing may include things like doing some number of steep turns then inspectings things for cracks in wing spars. These are NOT on going inspections, but part of the certification process. >>>>>>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently >>>>>>for different aircraft. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody >>>>> fact, you moron. >>>> >>>>Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap. >>>> >>> >>> Bzzzt, wrong anser Chimpshit. >>> >>>> >>>>Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was >>>>certified under regardless of when it was manufactured. >>>> >>> >>> And just who does all that? Can you spell 'FAA'? >> >>None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs. >> > > So how do they get set? Suppose I build a carbon fiber glued > construction business jet with radial flow jet engines. How do you > decide what gets inspected when? Neither your airframe nor power > plant 'historical' inspections apply in any way to what I've built, so > what do you think the FAA does? The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>>>>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not >>>>> matter? >>>> >>>>Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full >>>>well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian >>>>aviation. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe because you're a fucking bureaucrat and don't know dick about >>> engineering. >> >>Nope, my title was Senior Staff Engineer, but engineering has nothing >>to do with 14 CFR. >> > > I'd say that what your title is has very little to do with what your > job is. I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-02 21:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lc5hnb9oq8icvkfa928vc6u81h6i0i4f3u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587727 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>>Nope; once an aircraft is certified, that's it, and it is treated no
>>>differently than any other certified aircraft no matter the age of
>>>the design.
>>>
>>
>> Yep; are you claiming that FAA will certify an airplane with no
>> initial inspection regime? You yourself were saying a while back that
>> new aircraft initially got shorter inspection cycles until experience
>> was gained on them. Contradict yourself much?
>
>Not at all.
>
>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>
So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Inspection times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was
>>>>>certified under.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And who certifies the aircraft again?
>>>
>>>Depends on what you mean; the manufacturer provides the data for the
>>>applicable part of 14 CFR and the FAA issues the certificate.
>>>
>>>None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs.
>>>
>>
>> So an aircraft can be certified with the manufacturer just saying,
>> "Inspections? We don't need no steenking inspections!" Why does that
>> just not quite sound reasonable to me?
>
>Certification has little to nothing to do with inspections.
>
>Certifiction is based on things like FAA approved materials and manufacturing
>techniques and test flights to prove adherence to FAA established parameters
>such as, but not limited to, things like the wings don't fall off in
>steep turns. Such testing may include things like doing some number of
>steep turns then inspectings things for cracks in wing spars. These
>are NOT on going inspections, but part of the certification process.
>
So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
"inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>>>>>Your second misconception is that the FAA sets inspection times differently
>>>>>>>for different aircraft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, really? I only have that 'misconception' because it's a bloody
>>>>>> fact, you moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bzzzt, wrong anser McCrap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bzzzt, wrong anser Chimpshit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Inspecton times are set by whatever Part of 14 CFR the aircraft was
>>>>>certified under regardless of when it was manufactured.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just who does all that? Can you spell 'FAA'?
>>>
>>>None of this process has any "initial inspection times" for new designs.
>>>
>>
>> So how do they get set? Suppose I build a carbon fiber glued
>> construction business jet with radial flow jet engines. How do you
>> decide what gets inspected when? Neither your airframe nor power
>> plant 'historical' inspections apply in any way to what I've built, so
>> what do you think the FAA does?
>
>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>
So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
that.
>
>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>
I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>>>>>Whoopee, 33 years in aerospace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why am I not surprised that you find decades of experience to not
>>>>>> matter?
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe because I too spent several decades in aerospace and know full
>>>>>well most of aerospace has little to nothing to do with civilian
>>>>>aviation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because you're a fucking bureaucrat and don't know dick about
>>>> engineering.
>>>
>>>Nope, my title was Senior Staff Engineer, but engineering has nothing
>>>to do with 14 CFR.
>>>
>>
>> I'd say that what your title is has very little to do with what your
>> job is.
>
>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>
Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. But
you've again wandered off behind the little animals and have forgotten
that we're talking about a bloody rocket.
--
"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 05:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3qlm4d-ill.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587769 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >> > > So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We > don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. <snip> > So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art > FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require > "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane > the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". See above; annual or 100 hours. As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. <snip> >>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >> > > So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and > not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do > that. What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets the requirements accordingly. <snip> >>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >> > > I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated since 1926. <snip> >>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >> > > Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined from accumulated history. If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history and set standards based on the analysis. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-03 22:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ftjnbd6plosuf83gqgp7agrgh8ioi0mmo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587796 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>
>>
>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>
>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>
>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>
><snip>
>
And just what do they inspect?
>
>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>
>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>
>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>
><snip>
>
So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?
I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.
>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>
>>
>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>> that.
>
>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>the requirements accordingly.
>
><snip>
>
And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
history'" did you not understand?
>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>
>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>since 1926.
>
><snip>
>
Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
other hand...
>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>
>>
>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>
>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>from accumulated history.
>
And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>
>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>and set standards based on the analysis.
>
It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
question?
--
"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 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5ffq4d-et4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #587912 |
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> >> >>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>> >>> >>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We >>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. >> >>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum >>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: >> >>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire >>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during >>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. >> >><snip> >> > > And just what do they inspect? Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion, tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc. The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the first place. >>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art >>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require >>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane >>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". >> >>See above; annual or 100 hours. >> >>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR >>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the >>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, >>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. >> >><snip> >> > > So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of > turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same > inspection? > > I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the > Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to > certify different construction. That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections. >>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >>>> >>> >>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and >>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do >>> that. >> >>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is >>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets >>the requirements accordingly. >> >><snip> >> > > And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative > history'" did you not understand? What part of certification and inspection are two different things did you not understand? >>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>> >>> >>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. >> >>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining >>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated >>since 1926. >> >><snip> >> > > Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in > 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots' > hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the > other hand... Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago. >>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >>>> >>> >>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. >> >>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined >>from accumulated history. >> > > And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what > they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do, > from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They > dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here. Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely nothing to do with the on going inspection process. >>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be >>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history >>and set standards based on the analysis. >> > > It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated > history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the > question? There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with the on going inspection process. Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material, means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works. The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights, i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlksnb5ntkvqlag0lvj34dcb1gb44lshm7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #587936 |
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>
>>>
>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>
>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>
>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> And just what do they inspect?
>>
>
>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>
>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>first place.
>
In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on performance estimates.
>
>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>
>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>
>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>> inspection?
>>
>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>> certify different construction.
>
>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>
But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
to be, well, what I said.
>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>> history'" did you not understand?
>
>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>did you not understand?
>
What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>
>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>
>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>since 1926.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>> other hand...
>
>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>
But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
very well, do you?
>
>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>from accumulated history.
>>>
>>
>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>
>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>
Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."
>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>
>>
>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>> question?
>
>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>the on going inspection process.
>
Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."
>
>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>
Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>
>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>
And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
"exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place".
--
"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 | 2016-07-08 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooa35d-ic9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588303 |
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: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We >>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. >>>> >>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum >>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: >>>> >>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire >>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during >>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> And just what do they inspect? >>> >> >>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of >>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables >>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion, >>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc. >> >>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers >>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the >>first place. >> > > In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and > how frequently based on performance estimates. Not quite. The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control surfaces, etc.. The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft. It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying passengers. An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval. >>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art >>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require >>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane >>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". >>>> >>>>See above; annual or 100 hours. >>>> >>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR >>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the >>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, >>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of >>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same >>> inspection? >>> >>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the >>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to >>> certify different construction. >> >>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections. >> > > But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part > of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said > to be, well, what I said. The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification. >>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and >>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do >>>>> that. >>>> >>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is >>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets >>>>the requirements accordingly. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative >>> history'" did you not understand? >> >>What part of certification and inspection are two different things >>did you not understand? >> > > What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of > the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now? What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of certification is it you do not understand? That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual. It does NOT mean the maker does any of it. >>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. >>>> >>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining >>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated >>>>since 1926. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in >>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots' >>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the >>> other hand... >> >>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper >>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago. >> > > But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English > very well, do you? Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades. What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus linen skin are all different. Composite skin is a relatively new thing. ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. >>>> >>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined >>>>from accumulated history. >>>> >>> >>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what >>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do, >>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They >>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here. >> >>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely >>nothing to do with the on going inspection process. >> > > Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The > exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place." The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not. As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of 14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft. Here is a SMALL part of it: 25.307 Proof of structure. "(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases, substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305." Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques, but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing. >>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be >>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history >>>>and set standards based on the analysis. >>>> >>> >>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated >>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the >>> question? >> >>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with >>the on going inspection process. >> > > > Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The > exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place." And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. Do you understand the difference between generating a document and performing the actions in a document? >>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material, >>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker >>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works. >> > > Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that. See 25.307 14 CFR above. >>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights, >>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft. >> > > And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that > "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place". See 25.307 14 CFR above. And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. Do you understand the difference between generating a document and performing the actions in a document? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <emcvnbteljepmm9q1dl3ctar2cviiu4h57@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588309 |
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:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>>>
>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just what do they inspect?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>>>
>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>>>first place.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
>> how frequently based on performance estimates.
>
>Not quite.
>
>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually
>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control
>surfaces, etc..
>
>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more
>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally
>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft.
>
In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers
make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is
precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a
reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections
based on those performance estimates.
>
>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive
>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying
>passengers.
>
Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well...
Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing
isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies
what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology.
>
>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule
>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval.
>
So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about
how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the
stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection.
>
>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>>>
>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>>>> inspection?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>>>> certify different construction.
>>>
>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>>>
>>
>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
>> to be, well, what I said.
>
>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification.
>
Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages?
What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's
engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based
on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell,
that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me.
>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>>>> history'" did you not understand?
>>>
>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>>>did you not understand?
>>>
>>
>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>
>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>certification is it you do not understand?
>
>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual.
>
>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it.
>
Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that
you're using other words to say?
>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>>>since 1926.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>>>> other hand...
>>>
>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>>>
>>
>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
>> very well, do you?
>
>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades.
>
Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots'
here.
>
>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>linen skin are all different.
>
>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>
>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>
But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
with where YOU drag the discussion.
>
>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>>>from accumulated history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>>>
>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place."
>
>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required
>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not.
>
Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't.
>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of
>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft.
>
>Here is a SMALL part of it:
>
>25.307 Proof of structure.
>
>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this
>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural
>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which
>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases,
>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to
>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305."
>
>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering
>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques,
>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there
>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing.
>
In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance
estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing
against since day one.
>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>>>> question?
>>>
>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>>>the on going inspection process.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place."
>
>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>
>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>performing the actions in a document?
>
Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>
>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>
>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place".
>
>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>\
>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>
>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>performing the actions in a document?
Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
--
"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 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bhn75d-smp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #588457 |
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: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We >>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum >>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: >>>>>> >>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire >>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during >>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And just what do they inspect? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of >>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables >>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion, >>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc. >>>> >>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers >>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the >>>>first place. >>>> >>> >>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and >>> how frequently based on performance estimates. >> >>Not quite. >> >>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually >>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control >>surfaces, etc.. >> >>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more >>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally >>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft. >> > > In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers > make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is > precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a > reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections > based on those performance estimates. Very, very, very, rarely. Makers try very hard to NOT require anything extra, whether it is "new stuff" or "old stuff". >>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive >>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying >>passengers. >> > > Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well... Nope, I have NEVER said it was anyone other than the FAA that mandates 100 hour and annual inspections. > Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing > isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies > what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology. Where do you get this "inspection of nothing"? It is the manufacturer who specifies what needs to be inspected in that the manufacturer, in the maintenane manual, LISTS the systems the aircraft actually has, i.e. does it have mechanical control surfaces or hydraulic. >>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule >>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval. >> > > So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about > how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the > stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection. I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the items. That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? >>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art >>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require >>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane >>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". >>>>>> >>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours. >>>>>> >>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR >>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the >>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, >>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of >>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same >>>>> inspection? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the >>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to >>>>> certify different construction. >>>> >>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections. >>>> >>> >>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part >>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said >>> to be, well, what I said. >> >>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of >>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification. >> > > Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages? > What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's > engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based > on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell, > that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me. Very, very, very, very rarely. You are picking a fly speck out of a truck load of pepper. And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected. >>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and >>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is >>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets >>>>>>the requirements accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative >>>>> history'" did you not understand? >>>> >>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things >>>>did you not understand? >>>> >>> >>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of >>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now? >> >>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of >>certification is it you do not understand? >> >>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual. >> >>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it. >> > > Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and > how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that > you're using other words to say? What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not understand? What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do not understand? What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand? >>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. >>>>>> >>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining >>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated >>>>>>since 1926. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in >>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots' >>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the >>>>> other hand... >>>> >>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper >>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago. >>>> >>> >>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English >>> very well, do you? >> >>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades. >> > > Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots' > here. Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine. >> >>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus >>linen skin are all different. >> >>Composite skin is a relatively new thing. >> >>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >> > > But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new > 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about > PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up > with where YOU drag the discussion. Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing? The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative history of medical science. The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement for safety. >>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. >>>>>> >>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined >>>>>>from accumulated history. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what >>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do, >>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They >>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here. >>>> >>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely >>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process. >>>> >>> >>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The >>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place." >> >>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required >>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not. >> > > Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't. > >>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of >>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft. >> >>Here is a SMALL part of it: >> >>25.307 Proof of structure. >> >>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this >>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural >>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which >>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases, >>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to >>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305." >> >>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering >>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques, >>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there >>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing. >> > > In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance > estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing > against since day one. If, and only if you have sufficient cumulative history to justify it. Otherwise, you have to use extensive testing data during certification. That is what happens with "new stuff", extensive testing during cerification, which has NOTHING to do with on going inspections after certification. >>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be >>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history >>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated >>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the >>>>> question? >>>> >>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with >>>>the on going inspection process. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The >>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place." >> >>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual >>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. >> >>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and >>performing the actions in a document? >> > > Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from? The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to do with what goes on in certification. >>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material, >>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker >>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that. >> >>See 25.307 14 CFR above. >> >>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights, >>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft. >>>> >>> >>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that >>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place". >> >>See 25.307 14 CFR above. >>\ >>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual >>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. >> >>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and >>performing the actions in a document? > > Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from? Do you understand the numbers in that document have NOTHING to do with certification? Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uj35ob1brdqjunrfh3rf9uvvfuns0c5sb8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #588483 |
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:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just what do they inspect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>>>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>>>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>>>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>>>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>>>>>first place.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
>>>> how frequently based on performance estimates.
>>>
>>>Not quite.
>>>
>>>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually
>>>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control
>>>surfaces, etc..
>>>
>>>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more
>>>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally
>>>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers
>> make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is
>> precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a
>> reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections
>> based on those performance estimates.
>
>Very, very, very, rarely.
>
>Makers try very hard to NOT require anything extra, whether it is "new
>stuff" or "old stuff".
>
Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the
sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be
checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going
to specify checking it.
>
>>>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive
>>>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying
>>>passengers.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well...
>
>Nope, I have NEVER said it was anyone other than the FAA that mandates
>100 hour and annual inspections.
>
But I could swear that before you had them allocated to the opposite
types of service. As I said, oh well...
And of course, you fixate on something I never said to disagree with.
>> Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing
>> isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies
>> what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology.
>
>Where do you get this "inspection of nothing"?
>
>It is the manufacturer who specifies what needs to be inspected in that
>the manufacturer, in the maintenane manual, LISTS the systems the aircraft
>actually has, i.e. does it have mechanical control surfaces or hydraulic.
>
And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA
happily mandates inspecting nothing?
>>>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule
>>>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval.
>>>
>>
>> So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about
>> how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the
>> stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection.
>
>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means
>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the
>items.
>
No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but
it never made it out as electrons.
>
>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during
>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected
>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months.
>
>Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>
It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your
apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row.
>>>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>>>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>>>>>> inspection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>>>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>>>>>> certify different construction.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
>>>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
>>>> to be, well, what I said.
>>>
>>>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>>>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages?
>> What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's
>> engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based
>> on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell,
>> that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me.
>
>Very, very, very, very rarely.
>
>You are picking a fly speck out of a truck load of pepper.
>
Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about
A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this
complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this
"rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now
that you realize it.
>
>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected.
>
Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"?
>
>>>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>>>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>>>>>> history'" did you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>>>>>did you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
>>>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>>>
>>>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>>>certification is it you do not understand?
>>>
>>>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual.
>>>
>>>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it.
>>>
>>
>> Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and
>> how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that
>> you're using other words to say?
>
>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not
>understand?
>
The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets
inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of
Certification.
>
>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do
>not understand?
>
That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And
you're changing your story again.
>
>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more
>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand?
>
Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how
frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not
understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand
it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly
runny Jello.
>>>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>>>>>since 1926.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>>>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>>>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>>>>>> other hand...
>>>>>
>>>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>>>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
>>>> very well, do you?
>>>
>>>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades.
>>>
>>
>> Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots'
>> here.
>
>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based
>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine.
>
But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ
WHAT IS WRITTEN.
>>>
>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>>>linen skin are all different.
>>>
>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>>>
>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>>>
>>
>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
>> with where YOU drag the discussion.
>
>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing?
>
>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative
>history of medical science.
>
>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this
>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement
>for safety.
>
This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same
technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't
part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego.
>
>>>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>>>>>from accumulated history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>>>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>>>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>>>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>>>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>>>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place."
>>>
>>>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required
>>>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't.
>>
>>>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of
>>>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft.
>>>
>>>Here is a SMALL part of it:
>>>
>>>25.307 Proof of structure.
>>>
>>>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this
>>>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural
>>>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which
>>>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases,
>>>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to
>>>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305."
>>>
>>>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering
>>>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques,
>>>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there
>>>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance
>> estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing
>> against since day one.
>
>If, and only if you have sufficient cumulative history to justify it.
>
>Otherwise, you have to use extensive testing data during certification.
>
>That is what happens with "new stuff", extensive testing during cerification,
>which has NOTHING to do with on going inspections after certification.
>
And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD.
>>>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>>>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>>>>>> question?
>>>>>
>>>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>>>>>the on going inspection process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>>>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place."
>>>
>>>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>>>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>>>performing the actions in a document?
>>>
>>
>> Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes
>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to
>do with what goes on in certification.
>
But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how
frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained.
>>>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>>>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>>>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>>>
>>>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>>>
>>>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>>>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
>>>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place".
>>>
>>>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>>>\
>>>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>>>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>>>performing the actions in a document?
>>
>> Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>Do you understand the numbers in that document have NOTHING to do
>with certification?
>
>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that
>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification?
>
Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not
inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or
are you going to change your story yet again?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web