Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #56657 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-03 13:14 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-19 22:40 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 250 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-03 13:14 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:08 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-03 14:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:43 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-03 15:50 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:55 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-03 15:48 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-04 04:16 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2016-06-04 10:58 +0200
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 08:26 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-04 14:23 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:16 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-06-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-05 22:49 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-06 07:14 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Dr J R Stockton <reply1600@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-06-09 22:11 +0100
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-10 14:00 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 13:56 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-11 02:42 -0700
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 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 00:25 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-23 00:27 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:06 -0700
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 nj_kruse@me.com (Niels Jørgen Kruse) - 2016-07-03 11:24 +0200
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 20:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-07-05 04:40 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-06 06:44 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-07 14:00 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-07-07 23:06 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 02:57 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-08 06:52 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-07-08 06:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 17:21 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-07-05 17:14 +0000
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-07-05 13:33 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 23:31 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-07-05 15:29 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 23:34 -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 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 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 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-25 06:10 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:13 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-25 16:41 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-25 16:48 -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
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Vaughn Simon <vaughnsimon@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 08:12 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-20 13:57 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 11:05 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-20 21:47 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-06-20 22:34 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 20:17 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 17:53 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 bob haller <hallerb@aol.com> - 2016-06-18 15:09 -0700
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-19 15:55 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2016-06-19 22:05 -0400
Re: Leaning tower of falcon 9 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-06-19 22:40 -0400
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ju0mmblinu20ftflpe76c68i7in28asd74@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56763 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2016-06-21 06:09, Jeff Findley wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It should. There is nothing fundamental about a liquid fueled rocket >>>>>> stage from an orbital launch vehicle that prevents reuse. It's just >>>>>> that no one has *tried* all that hard to reuse one, until now. >>>>> >>>>>And there is nothing fundamental about jet engines to prevent reuse. And >>>>>this is done every day by jetliners. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, DOH! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>HOWEVER, the airlines and FAA learned via experience that jet engines >>>>>can only run so many hours before needing certain level of inspection, >>>>>and after another set of hours, require a heavy maintenance check. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, they didn't learn that 'from experience'. They learned it from >>>> what the engines and vehicles were designed to be able to do. >>>> >>> >>>Nonsense. >>> >> >> Nonsense your ass, Chimp. >> >>> >>>Early jet engines had a service life (Time Between Overhaul or TBO) of >>>10-15 hours. >>> >> >> Yes, they did, because of things like limits on metallurgy. That was >> the design service life and they knew it going in. > >No, they didn't; in the early days no one had any clue how long things >would hang together in an entirely new application. You learn service >life from experience. > Bullshit. >> They didn't just >> build the things and then say, "Now we'll just fly the fuckers and see >> what happens". > >That is EXACTLY what they did in the early days. > Nonsense. >>>It took decades of refinements to get TBO up to the current 10's of >>>thousands of hours, with inspection times and many parts replaced much >>>more often then that, and those times are STILL determined by operational >>>and maintenance records. >>> >> >> Yes, it did, but that's because basic materials science improved, not >> because of increased experience with the old short-lived systems. > >It was a mix of both. > Nonsense. >>>New engine designes usually have short maintenance and inspection >>>time requirements until the engine has proved itself in use. >>> >> >> Cite? > >Any new aircraft engine brought to market in modern times; two specific >examples are Rotax and Thielert. > So let's summarize and I think you'll find you're telling me "nonsense" while you're agreeing with me. I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance. If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after every flight, which we obviously do not do. 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. 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. In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-22 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vhfr3d-ghj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56764 |
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. 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. > 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. > 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. > In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were > agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. I see you are STILL an argumentative, self centered ass. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 00:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rq3nmbd52m58ga5gb1m6tlrk77dlbmrmfr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56767 |
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. > >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? > >> 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? >> 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. >> In other words, you claimed I was speaking "nonsense" while you were >> agreeing with me. That just makes you an unthinking asshole, Chimp. > >I see you are STILL an argumentative, self centered ass. > Only when dealing with an argumentative, self centered ass. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <spjt3d-clq.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56776 |
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? >> >>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. >> >>> 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? >>> 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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-23 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <tukombhfgtepgh24ossi165oj5e7lugfqf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56787 |
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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>> 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'.
--
"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 | 2016-06-23 22:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7p5u3d-eis.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56789 |
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 | #56791 |
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 | #56794 |
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 | #56796 |
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 | #56839 |
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 | #56853 |
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 | #56857 |
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 | #56859 |
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 | #56861 |
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 | #56866 |
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 | #56875 |
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 | #56879 |
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 | #56884 |
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 | #56890 |
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 | #56901 |
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]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web