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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlksnb5ntkvqlag0lvj34dcb1gb44lshm7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56904 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>
>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>
>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> And just what do they inspect?
>>
>
>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>
>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>first place.
>
In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on performance estimates.
>
>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>
>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>
>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>> inspection?
>>
>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>> certify different construction.
>
>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>
But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
to be, well, what I said.
>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>> that.
>>>
>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>> history'" did you not understand?
>
>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>did you not understand?
>
What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>
>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>
>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>since 1926.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>
>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>> other hand...
>
>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>
But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
very well, do you?
>
>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>from accumulated history.
>>>
>>
>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>
>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>
Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."
>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>
>>
>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>> question?
>
>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>the on going inspection process.
>
Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."
>
>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>
Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>
>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>
And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
"exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place".
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooa35d-ic9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56932 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We >>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. >>>> >>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum >>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: >>>> >>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire >>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during >>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> And just what do they inspect? >>> >> >>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of >>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables >>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion, >>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc. >> >>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers >>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the >>first place. >> > > In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and > how frequently based on performance estimates. Not quite. The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control surfaces, etc.. The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft. It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying passengers. An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval. >>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art >>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require >>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane >>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". >>>> >>>>See above; annual or 100 hours. >>>> >>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR >>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the >>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, >>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of >>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same >>> inspection? >>> >>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the >>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to >>> certify different construction. >> >>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections. >> > > But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part > of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said > to be, well, what I said. The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification. >>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and >>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do >>>>> that. >>>> >>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is >>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets >>>>the requirements accordingly. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative >>> history'" did you not understand? >> >>What part of certification and inspection are two different things >>did you not understand? >> > > What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of > the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now? What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of certification is it you do not understand? That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual. It does NOT mean the maker does any of it. >>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. >>>> >>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining >>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated >>>>since 1926. >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>> >>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in >>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots' >>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the >>> other hand... >> >>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper >>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago. >> > > But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English > very well, do you? Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades. What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus linen skin are all different. Composite skin is a relatively new thing. ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. >>>> >>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined >>>>from accumulated history. >>>> >>> >>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what >>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do, >>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They >>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here. >> >>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely >>nothing to do with the on going inspection process. >> > > Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The > exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place." The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not. As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of 14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft. Here is a SMALL part of it: 25.307 Proof of structure. "(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases, substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305." Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques, but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing. >>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be >>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history >>>>and set standards based on the analysis. >>>> >>> >>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated >>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the >>> question? >> >>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with >>the on going inspection process. >> > > > Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The > exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place." And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. Do you understand the difference between generating a document and performing the actions in a document? >>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material, >>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker >>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works. >> > > Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that. See 25.307 14 CFR above. >>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights, >>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft. >> > > And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that > "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the > manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for > certification in the first place". See 25.307 14 CFR above. And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. Do you understand the difference between generating a document and performing the actions in a document? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <emcvnbteljepmm9q1dl3ctar2cviiu4h57@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56936 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>>>
>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just what do they inspect?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>>>
>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>>>first place.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
>> how frequently based on performance estimates.
>
>Not quite.
>
>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually
>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control
>surfaces, etc..
>
>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more
>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally
>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft.
>
In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers
make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is
precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a
reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections
based on those performance estimates.
>
>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive
>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying
>passengers.
>
Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well...
Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing
isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies
what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology.
>
>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule
>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval.
>
So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about
how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the
stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection.
>
>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>>>
>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>>>
>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>>>> inspection?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>>>> certify different construction.
>>>
>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>>>
>>
>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
>> to be, well, what I said.
>
>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification.
>
Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages?
What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's
engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based
on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell,
that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me.
>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>>>> history'" did you not understand?
>>>
>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>>>did you not understand?
>>>
>>
>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>
>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>certification is it you do not understand?
>
>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual.
>
>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it.
>
Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that
you're using other words to say?
>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>>>since 1926.
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>>>> other hand...
>>>
>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>>>
>>
>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
>> very well, do you?
>
>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades.
>
Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots'
here.
>
>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>linen skin are all different.
>
>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>
>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>
But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
with where YOU drag the discussion.
>
>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>>>from accumulated history.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>>>
>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place."
>
>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required
>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not.
>
Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't.
>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of
>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft.
>
>Here is a SMALL part of it:
>
>25.307 Proof of structure.
>
>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this
>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural
>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which
>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases,
>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to
>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305."
>
>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering
>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques,
>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there
>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing.
>
In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance
estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing
against since day one.
>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>>>> question?
>>>
>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>>>the on going inspection process.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place."
>
>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>
>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>performing the actions in a document?
>
Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>
>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>
>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>> certification in the first place".
>
>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>\
>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>
>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>performing the actions in a document?
Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-09 17:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bhn75d-smp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56953 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance >>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the >>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they >>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We >>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum >>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically: >>>>>> >>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire >>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during >>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And just what do they inspect? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of >>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables >>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion, >>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc. >>>> >>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers >>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the >>>>first place. >>>> >>> >>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and >>> how frequently based on performance estimates. >> >>Not quite. >> >>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually >>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control >>surfaces, etc.. >> >>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more >>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally >>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft. >> > > In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers > make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is > precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a > reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections > based on those performance estimates. Very, very, very, rarely. Makers try very hard to NOT require anything extra, whether it is "new stuff" or "old stuff". >>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive >>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying >>passengers. >> > > Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well... Nope, I have NEVER said it was anyone other than the FAA that mandates 100 hour and annual inspections. > Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing > isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies > what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology. Where do you get this "inspection of nothing"? It is the manufacturer who specifies what needs to be inspected in that the manufacturer, in the maintenane manual, LISTS the systems the aircraft actually has, i.e. does it have mechanical control surfaces or hydraulic. >>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule >>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval. >> > > So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about > how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the > stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection. I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the items. That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? >>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art >>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require >>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane >>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets". >>>>>> >>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours. >>>>>> >>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR >>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the >>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport, >>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of >>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same >>>>> inspection? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the >>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to >>>>> certify different construction. >>>> >>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections. >>>> >>> >>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part >>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said >>> to be, well, what I said. >> >>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of >>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification. >> > > Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages? > What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's > engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based > on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell, > that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me. Very, very, very, very rarely. You are picking a fly speck out of a truck load of pepper. And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected. >>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category, >>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and >>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do >>>>>>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is >>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets >>>>>>the requirements accordingly. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative >>>>> history'" did you not understand? >>>> >>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things >>>>did you not understand? >>>> >>> >>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of >>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now? >> >>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of >>certification is it you do not understand? >> >>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual. >> >>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it. >> > > Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and > how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that > you're using other words to say? What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not understand? What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do not understand? What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand? >>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like >>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what >>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes. >>>>>> >>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining >>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated >>>>>>since 1926. >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in >>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots' >>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the >>>>> other hand... >>>> >>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper >>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago. >>>> >>> >>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English >>> very well, do you? >> >>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades. >> > > Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots' > here. Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine. >> >>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus >>linen skin are all different. >> >>Composite skin is a relatively new thing. >> >>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >> > > But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new > 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about > PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up > with where YOU drag the discussion. Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing? The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative history of medical science. The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement for safety. >>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it. >>>>>> >>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined >>>>>>from accumulated history. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what >>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do, >>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They >>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here. >>>> >>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely >>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process. >>>> >>> >>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The >>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place." >> >>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required >>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not. >> > > Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't. > >>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of >>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft. >> >>Here is a SMALL part of it: >> >>25.307 Proof of structure. >> >>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this >>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural >>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which >>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases, >>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to >>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305." >> >>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering >>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques, >>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there >>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing. >> > > In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance > estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing > against since day one. If, and only if you have sufficient cumulative history to justify it. Otherwise, you have to use extensive testing data during certification. That is what happens with "new stuff", extensive testing during cerification, which has NOTHING to do with on going inspections after certification. >>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be >>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history >>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated >>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the >>>>> question? >>>> >>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with >>>>the on going inspection process. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The >>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place." >> >>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual >>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. >> >>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and >>performing the actions in a document? >> > > Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from? The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to do with what goes on in certification. >>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material, >>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker >>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that. >> >>See 25.307 14 CFR above. >> >>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights, >>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft. >>>> >>> >>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that >>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the >>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for >>> certification in the first place". >> >>See 25.307 14 CFR above. >>\ >>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual >>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it. >> >>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and >>performing the actions in a document? > > Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from? Do you understand the numbers in that document have NOTHING to do with certification? Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uj35ob1brdqjunrfh3rf9uvvfuns0c5sb8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56957 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
>>>>>>>>>procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
>>>>>>>>>FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
>>>>>>>>>do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
>>>>>>>> don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
>>>>>>>required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
>>>>>>>or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
>>>>>>>the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just what do they inspect?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
>>>>>calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
>>>>>and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
>>>>>tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
>>>>>maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
>>>>>first place.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
>>>> how frequently based on performance estimates.
>>>
>>>Not quite.
>>>
>>>The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually
>>>has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control
>>>surfaces, etc..
>>>
>>>The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more
>>>stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally
>>>done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, when it's 'new stuff' the manufacturer's engineers
>> make the call based on engineering performance estimates, which is
>> precisely what I said. Since they also don't want aircraft with a
>> reputation for falling out of the sky, they will mandate inspections
>> based on those performance estimates.
>
>Very, very, very, rarely.
>
>Makers try very hard to NOT require anything extra, whether it is "new
>stuff" or "old stuff".
>
Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the
sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be
checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going
to specify checking it.
>
>>>It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive
>>>inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying
>>>passengers.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, isn't that backwards from what you said before? Oh, well...
>
>Nope, I have NEVER said it was anyone other than the FAA that mandates
>100 hour and annual inspections.
>
But I could swear that before you had them allocated to the opposite
types of service. As I said, oh well...
And of course, you fixate on something I never said to disagree with.
>> Regardless, an inspection that requires the inspection of nothing
>> isn't much of an inspection and it's the manufacturer who specifies
>> what needs to be inspected when it's 'new' technology.
>
>Where do you get this "inspection of nothing"?
>
>It is the manufacturer who specifies what needs to be inspected in that
>the manufacturer, in the maintenane manual, LISTS the systems the aircraft
>actually has, i.e. does it have mechanical control surfaces or hydraulic.
>
And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA
happily mandates inspecting nothing?
>>>An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule
>>>is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval.
>>>
>>
>> So now you're back to my original understanding and not talking about
>> how all the 100 hour inspections in a year wind up inspecting all the
>> stuff that would be inspected on an annual inspection.
>
>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means
>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the
>items.
>
No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but
it never made it out as electrons.
>
>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during
>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected
>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months.
>
>Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>
It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your
apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row.
>>>>>>>> So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
>>>>>>>> FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
>>>>>>>> "inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
>>>>>>>> the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See above; annual or 100 hours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
>>>>>>>that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
>>>>>>>same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
>>>>>>>and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
>>>>>> turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
>>>>>> inspection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
>>>>>> Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
>>>>>> certify different construction.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
>>>> of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
>>>> to be, well, what I said.
>>>
>>>The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>>>certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody said it would be. Is English one of your native languages?
>> What *I* said was that for 'new' technologies the manufacturer's
>> engineers will specify what needs to be inspected and how often based
>> on the engineering performance of those items. So far as I can tell,
>> that's exactly what you're saying in your 'disagreement' with me.
>
>Very, very, very, very rarely.
>
>You are picking a fly speck out of a truck load of pepper.
>
Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about
A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this
complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this
"rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now
that you realize it.
>
>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected.
>
Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"?
>
>>>>>>>>>The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
>>>>>>>>>which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
>>>>>>>> not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
>>>>>>>aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
>>>>>>>the requirements accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And which part of "people develop new shit so there is no 'cummulative
>>>>>> history'" did you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>>What part of certification and inspection are two different things
>>>>>did you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
>>>> the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?
>>>
>>>What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
>>>certification is it you do not understand?
>>>
>>>That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual.
>>>
>>>It does NOT mean the maker does any of it.
>>>
>>
>> Which part of "the engineers determine what needs to be inspected and
>> how frequently based on engineering performance estimates" is it that
>> you're using other words to say?
>
>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not
>understand?
>
The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets
inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of
Certification.
>
>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do
>not understand?
>
That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And
you're changing your story again.
>
>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more
>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand?
>
Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how
frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not
understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand
it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly
runny Jello.
>>>>>>>>>And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
>>>>>>>>>how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
>>>>>>>>>medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
>>>>>>>how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
>>>>>>>since 1926.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
>>>>>> 1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
>>>>>> hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
>>>>>> other hand...
>>>>>
>>>>>Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
>>>>>level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
>>>> very well, do you?
>>>
>>>Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades.
>>>
>>
>> Pilots haven't changed. Pay attention. We're talking about 'pilots'
>> here.
>
>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based
>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine.
>
But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ
WHAT IS WRITTEN.
>>>
>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>>>linen skin are all different.
>>>
>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>>>
>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>>>
>>
>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
>> with where YOU drag the discussion.
>
>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing?
>
>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative
>history of medical science.
>
>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this
>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement
>for safety.
>
This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same
technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't
part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego.
>
>>>>>>>>>I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
>>>>>>>from accumulated history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
>>>>>> they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
>>>>>> from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
>>>>>> dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
>>>>>nothing to do with the on going inspection process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>>>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place."
>>>
>>>The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required
>>>item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not.
>>>
>>
>> Nobody said it was. Or that it wasn't.
>>
>>>As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of
>>>14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft.
>>>
>>>Here is a SMALL part of it:
>>>
>>>25.307 Proof of structure.
>>>
>>>"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this
>>>subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural
>>>analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which
>>>experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases,
>>>substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to
>>>verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305."
>>>
>>>Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering
>>>history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques,
>>>but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there
>>>is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you wind up using numbers from engineering performance
>> estimates, which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing
>> against since day one.
>
>If, and only if you have sufficient cumulative history to justify it.
>
>Otherwise, you have to use extensive testing data during certification.
>
>That is what happens with "new stuff", extensive testing during cerification,
>which has NOTHING to do with on going inspections after certification.
>
And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD.
>>>>>>>If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
>>>>>>>able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
>>>>>>>and set standards based on the analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
>>>>>> history'. So what the fuck does the FAA do then, other than duck the
>>>>>> question?
>>>>>
>>>>>There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
>>>>>the on going inspection process.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
>>>> exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place."
>>>
>>>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>>>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>>>performing the actions in a document?
>>>
>>
>> Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes
>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to
>do with what goes on in certification.
>
But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how
frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained.
>>>>>Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
>>>>>means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
>>>>>has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.
>>>
>>>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>>>
>>>>>The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
>>>>>i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
>>>> "exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
>>>> manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
>>>> certification in the first place".
>>>
>>>See 25.307 14 CFR above.
>>>\
>>>And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
>>>is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.
>>>
>>>Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
>>>performing the actions in a document?
>>
>> Do you understand where the numbers in that document come from?
>
>Do you understand the numbers in that document have NOTHING to do
>with certification?
>
>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that
>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification?
>
Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not
inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or
are you going to change your story yet again?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 19:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <30la5d-7q5.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56963 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the > sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be > checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going > to specify checking it. Makers have to prove the design meets the requirements of Part 25 14 CFR during the certification process and the certification process has nothing to do with on going maintenance other than the maintenance manual is a part of the PAPERWORK requirements. Do you not understand the difference between design verification and on going maintenance? <snip> > And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA > happily mandates inspecting nothing? Nope, the aircraft never gets through the certification process for lack of a maintenance manual unless during the certification process the maker has proved that all parts last forever, including the tires and engine oil. >>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means >>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the >>items. >> > > No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but > it never made it out as electrons. Yes, I have, several times now. >>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during >>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected >>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months. >> >>Why is this so difficult for you to understand? >> > > It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your > apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row. Try staying sober two days in a row and it might start making sense to you. <snip> > Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about > A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this > complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this > "rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now > that you realize it. Nope. With have a curmudgeon determined to show the world he is an expert on everythng who will argue with whatever I say even if it is a direct quote from an authority. >> >>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected. >> > > Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"? Which, again, will only happen if during the certification process the maker proves that everything has an unlimited life, including tires and engine oil. <snip> >>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not >>understand? >> > > The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets > inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of > Certification. I guess it is time to dumb it down even further. The maintenance manual is part of the required paperwork for certification. The maintenance manual describes the on going maintenance procedures for the operation of the aircraft after certification. It is about things like changing the oil, proper torque when working on wheel assemblies, tire inflation, allowable wear in moving parts, lubriaction specifications, etc. It is the normal maintenace performed on a thing to keep it working as originally designed. >>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do >>not understand? >> > > That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And > you're changing your story again. No, I am not. Would you expect the maintenance manual to list other than the systems a particular aircraft has? I did not explicitly state, again, that it contains the details such as what type of spark plug and internal combutsion engine uses, but if you weren't arguing just for the sake of arguing you would understand that. >>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more >>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand? >> > > Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how > frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not > understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand > it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly > runny Jello. How frequently for an individual item is 12 months. For a maker to specify something more stringent than the FAA requirement is economic suicide. <snip> >>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based >>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine. >> > > But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ > WHAT IS WRITTEN. Actually pilots have changed, The average pilot of today is taller and heavier than those of a few decades ago. But that isn't the point, the point is that medical standards for pilots have changed because medical knowledge has changes. >>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus >>>>linen skin are all different. >>>> >>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing. >>>> >>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >>>> >>> >>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new >>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about >>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up >>> with where YOU drag the discussion. >> >>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing? >> >>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative >>history of medical science. >> >>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this >>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement >>for safety. >> > > This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same > technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't > part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego. Actually, it is not, as there is lots of new medical technology which has a direct effect on medical standards. And the point here is that ALL FAA standards and regulations are subject to change as the applicable state of the art changes contrary to what seems to be your point of view that the FAA is frozen in time. <snip> > And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE > TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD. My original post that started you froothing was about certification of aircraft and you have continued to talk about certification of aircraft. Now that you are in a corner with your ignorance you are trying to negate all of your curmudgeon posts and ignoring the fact I said many posts ago to that other guy you are trying to browbeat that FAA certification of aircraft has nothing to do with the rockets of SpaceX. <snip> >>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes >>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to >>do with what goes on in certification. >> > > But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how > frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained. No, they do not normally. Normally it is once every 12 months. If the aircraft is expected to be in a high usage environment racking up many thousands of hours per year, SOME things MAY have an hour limitation such as change the oil every X hundred of hours. <snip> >>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that >>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification? >> > > Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not > inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or > are you going to change your story yet again? Do you understand that for the aircraft to be certified the maker would have to prove that everything, includinng tires and engine oil, has an unlimited life? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-11 00:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qag6ob1ju0gfr1ugemsoshd0v37vt4g58s@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56968 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the
>> sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be
>> checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going
>> to specify checking it.
>
>Makers have to prove the design meets the requirements of Part 25 14 CFR
>during the certification process and the certification process has nothing
>to do with on going maintenance other than the maintenance manual is a
>part of the PAPERWORK requirements.
>
You keep saying that as if someone has said otherwise. Are you really
unable to read declarative English sentences, or is the "paperwork"
feeding into the next stage (operation) somehow beyond your ken?
>
>Do you not understand the difference between design verification and on
>going maintenance?
>
Do you not understand the difference between what I actually write and
what the voices in your head feeding your ego say?
><snip>
>
>> And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA
>> happily mandates inspecting nothing?
>
>Nope, the aircraft never gets through the certification process for lack
>of a maintenance manual unless during the certification process the
>maker has proved that all parts last forever, including the tires and
>engine oil.
>
Again you cannot apparently read. I didn't say there wasn't a
maintenance manual.
>>>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means
>>>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the
>>>items.
>>>
>>
>> No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but
>> it never made it out as electrons.
>
>Yes, I have, several times now.
>
'Several times' is not 'all along'.
>>>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during
>>>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected
>>>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months.
>>>
>>>Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>>
>>
>> It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your
>> apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row.
>
>Try staying sober two days in a row and it might start making sense
>to you.
>
Try cutting down on your crack habit and perhaps you'll develop more
consistency and less need to shield your ego.
><snip>
>
>> Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about
>> A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this
>> complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this
>> "rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now
>> that you realize it.
>
>Nope.
>
Yep. What I've gotten from the preceding is "you're right in that
case, but that case rarely occurs". Well, with a brand new rocket
that case is the only case.
>
>With have a curmudgeon determined to show the world he is an expert
>on everythng who will argue with whatever I say even if it is a direct
>quote from an authority.
>
Care to try that again in English? There is 'quoting' authority and
there is understanding it. You've shown you cannot do that latter and
in addition are arguing things no one but you ever said.
>>>
>>>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected.
>>>
>>
>> Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"?
>
>Which, again, will only happen if during the certification process the
>maker proves that everything has an unlimited life, including tires and
>engine oil.
>
Jesus, but you're stupid. You keep dragging up 'tires and engine
oil'. I didn't say the manual said EVERYTHING was a 'no inspect', you
arrogant little troll. However, how about oil-free engines and no
tires?
><snip>
>
>>>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not
>>>understand?
>>>
>>
>> The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets
>> inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of
>> Certification.
>
>I guess it is time to dumb it down even further.
>
Good. Perhaps you'll get it to the point where you understand it.
>
>The maintenance manual is part of the required paperwork for certification.
>
Yep. We agree.
>
>The maintenance manual describes the on going maintenance procedures for
>the operation of the aircraft after certification.
>
Is it your contention that the maintenance manual does NOT call out
periodicity? You keep avoiding that little detail.
>
>It is about things like changing the oil, proper torque when working on
>wheel assemblies, tire inflation, allowable wear in moving parts, lubriaction
>specifications, etc.
>
Including how often to do those things and how often to check things
to see that they are properly oiled, torqued, inflated, within wear,
lubricated, etc.
>
>It is the normal maintenace performed on a thing to keep it working as
>originally designed.
>
And, according to you, it is the source of the inspection regime.
>>>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do
>>>not understand?
>>>
>>
>> That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And
>> you're changing your story again.
>
>No, I am not.
>
>Would you expect the maintenance manual to list other than the systems
>a particular aircraft has?
>
Why, lots of things about how to, how often to, and when to perform
that maintenance. You keep manfully avoiding all those time related
things because they explode most of your arguments and your ego just
couldn't take it.
>
>I did not explicitly state, again, that it contains the details such as
>what type of spark plug and internal combutsion engine uses, but if you
>weren't arguing just for the sake of arguing you would understand that.
>
Ah, but you see, I DO understand that. I also understand it should
tell me how often to check those plugs, how often to clean and regap
them, how often to replace them, etc. You seem in denial about all
that.
>>>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more
>>>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand?
>>>
>>
>> Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how
>> frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not
>> understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand
>> it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly
>> runny Jello.
>
>How frequently for an individual item is 12 months.
>
Regardless of the 'item'? That makes no sense.
>
>For a maker to specify something more stringent than the FAA requirement
>is economic suicide.
>
You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher
periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall.
><snip>
>
>>>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based
>>>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine.
>>>
>>
>> But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ
>> WHAT IS WRITTEN.
>
>Actually pilots have changed, The average pilot of today is taller and
>heavier than those of a few decades ago.
>
And if we only ever let the 'average' pilot fly you might be able to
protect your ego by raising that bit of gorilla dust.
>
>But that isn't the point, the point is that medical standards for pilots
>have changed because medical knowledge has changes.
>
Which is irrelevant to what's being discussed.
>>>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>>>>>linen skin are all different.
>>>>>
>>>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
>>>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
>>>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
>>>> with where YOU drag the discussion.
>>>
>>>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing?
>>>
>>>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative
>>>history of medical science.
>>>
>>>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this
>>>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement
>>>for safety.
>>>
>>
>> This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same
>> technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't
>> part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego.
>
>Actually, it is not, as there is lots of new medical technology which
>has a direct effect on medical standards.
>
>And the point here is that ALL FAA standards and regulations are subject
>to change as the applicable state of the art changes contrary to what
>seems to be your point of view that the FAA is frozen in time.
>
In other words, you're arguing with the little voices in your head
again. The only one implying that the FAA is 'stuck in time' (except
for "very, very, very rare cases") is YOU.
><snip>
>
>> And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE
>> TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD.
>
>My original post that started you froothing was about certification of
>aircraft and you have continued to talk about certification of aircraft.
>
'Froothing'? That rather sounds like fun. Otherwise, you're just
engaging in Stupid Usenet Tricks 101 tactics; "claim the other guy is
losing his temper".
>
>Now that you are in a corner with your ignorance you are trying to negate
>all of your curmudgeon posts and ignoring the fact I said many posts ago
>to that other guy you are trying to browbeat that FAA certification of
>aircraft has nothing to do with the rockets of SpaceX.
>
So why did you inject yourself in the first place? Why are you still
arguing, Your Magnificence?
><snip>
>
>>>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes
>>>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to
>>>do with what goes on in certification.
>>>
>>
>> But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how
>> frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained.
>
>No, they do not normally.
>
Then what good is it? Even a car maintenance manual calls that stuff
out.
>
>Normally it is once every 12 months.
>
>If the aircraft is expected to be in a high usage environment racking up
>many thousands of hours per year, SOME things MAY have an hour limitation
>such as change the oil every X hundred of hours.
>
Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long
or not. Yeah, right.
><snip>
>
>>>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that
>>>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification?
>>>
>>
>> Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not
>> inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or
>> are you going to change your story yet again?
>
>Do you understand that for the aircraft to be certified the maker would
>have to prove that everything, includinng tires and engine oil, has an
>unlimited life?
>
Do you not understand the difference between "for *a* part" and "for
*all* parts"? What I said was the former. Why would I need to prove
anything about tires or engine oil if I made an armrest 'no inspect'?
Put your giant ego to bed and stop looking for things to argue about.
--
"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 | 2016-07-11 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqrc5d-iuc.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56974 |
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: >> >>> Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the >>> sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be >>> checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going >>> to specify checking it. >> >>Makers have to prove the design meets the requirements of Part 25 14 CFR >>during the certification process and the certification process has nothing >>to do with on going maintenance other than the maintenance manual is a >>part of the PAPERWORK requirements. >> > > You keep saying that as if someone has said otherwise. Are you really > unable to read declarative English sentences, or is the "paperwork" > feeding into the next stage (operation) somehow beyond your ken? You are the one blathering on about on going, routine inspections and maintenance being part of certification, which by the way has nothing to do with "fucking rockets". >>Do you not understand the difference between design verification and on >>going maintenance? >> > > Do you not understand the difference between what I actually write and > what the voices in your head feeding your ego say? Backed into a corner by your blather and trying to deny it now? >><snip> >> >>> And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA >>> happily mandates inspecting nothing? >> >>Nope, the aircraft never gets through the certification process for lack >>of a maintenance manual unless during the certification process the >>maker has proved that all parts last forever, including the tires and >>engine oil. >> > > Again you cannot apparently read. I didn't say there wasn't a > maintenance manual. Correct, but you keep insisting the performance of the maintenance manual is part of certification process, it is not. >>>>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means >>>>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the >>>>items. >>>> >>> >>> No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but >>> it never made it out as electrons. >> >>Yes, I have, several times now. >> > > 'Several times' is not 'all along'. This thread does not go back to the start of time. >>>>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during >>>>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected >>>>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months. >>>> >>>>Why is this so difficult for you to understand? >>>> >>> >>> It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your >>> apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row. >> >>Try staying sober two days in a row and it might start making sense >>to you. >> > > Try cutting down on your crack habit and perhaps you'll develop more > consistency and less need to shield your ego. Backed yourself into a corner and now all you have is childish insults. >><snip> >> >>> Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about >>> A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this >>> complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this >>> "rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now >>> that you realize it. >> >>Nope. >> > > Yep. What I've gotten from the preceding is "you're right in that > case, but that case rarely occurs". Well, with a brand new rocket > that case is the only case. Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification. >>With have a curmudgeon determined to show the world he is an expert >>on everythng who will argue with whatever I say even if it is a direct >>quote from an authority. >> > > Care to try that again in English? There is 'quoting' authority and > there is understanding it. You've shown you cannot do that latter and > in addition are arguing things no one but you ever said. Backed into a corner by your blather, are you? >>>> >>>>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected. >>>> >>> >>> Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"? >> >>Which, again, will only happen if during the certification process the >>maker proves that everything has an unlimited life, including tires and >>engine oil. >> > > Jesus, but you're stupid. You keep dragging up 'tires and engine > oil'. I didn't say the manual said EVERYTHING was a 'no inspect', you > arrogant little troll. However, how about oil-free engines and no > tires? What about them? Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT say what NOT to do. This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement. >><snip> >> >>>>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not >>>>understand? >>>> >>> >>> The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets >>> inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of >>> Certification. >> >>I guess it is time to dumb it down even further. >> > > Good. Perhaps you'll get it to the point where you understand it. > >> >>The maintenance manual is part of the required paperwork for certification. >> > > Yep. We agree. > >> >>The maintenance manual describes the on going maintenance procedures for >>the operation of the aircraft after certification. >> > > Is it your contention that the maintenance manual does NOT call out > periodicity? You keep avoiding that little detail. 99.99% of the time, it does not. Periodicity is 100 hours or 12 months as I keep saying. >> >>It is about things like changing the oil, proper torque when working on >>wheel assemblies, tire inflation, allowable wear in moving parts, lubriaction >>specifications, etc. >> > > Including how often to do those things and how often to check things > to see that they are properly oiled, torqued, inflated, within wear, > lubricated, etc. 100 hours or 12 months. >>It is the normal maintenace performed on a thing to keep it working as >>originally designed. >> > > And, according to you, it is the source of the inspection regime. Which is performed 100 hours or 12 months. >>>>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do >>>>not understand? >>>> >>> >>> That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And >>> you're changing your story again. >> >>No, I am not. >> >>Would you expect the maintenance manual to list other than the systems >>a particular aircraft has? >> > > Why, lots of things about how to, how often to, and when to perform > that maintenance. You keep manfully avoiding all those time related > things because they explode most of your arguments and your ego just > couldn't take it. How often is 100 hours or 12 months. >>I did not explicitly state, again, that it contains the details such as >>what type of spark plug and internal combutsion engine uses, but if you >>weren't arguing just for the sake of arguing you would understand that. >> > > Ah, but you see, I DO understand that. I also understand it should > tell me how often to check those plugs, how often to clean and regap > them, how often to replace them, etc. You seem in denial about all > that. 100 hours or 12 months. If it is dirty, you clean it, if worn out, you replace it. >>>>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more >>>>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand? >>>> >>> >>> Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how >>> frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not >>> understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand >>> it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly >>> runny Jello. >> >>How frequently for an individual item is 12 months. >> > > Regardless of the 'item'? That makes no sense. Tell that to the FAA. >>For a maker to specify something more stringent than the FAA requirement >>is economic suicide. >> > > You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher > periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall. That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation. >><snip> >> >>>>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based >>>>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine. >>>> >>> >>> But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ >>> WHAT IS WRITTEN. >> >>Actually pilots have changed, The average pilot of today is taller and >>heavier than those of a few decades ago. >> > > And if we only ever let the 'average' pilot fly you might be able to > protect your ego by raising that bit of gorilla dust. Childing twaddle. >>But that isn't the point, the point is that medical standards for pilots >>have changed because medical knowledge has changes. >> > > Which is irrelevant to what's being discussed. What was being discussed is what the FAA requires changes over time. >>>>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus >>>>>>linen skin are all different. >>>>>> >>>>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new >>>>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about >>>>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up >>>>> with where YOU drag the discussion. >>>> >>>>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing? >>>> >>>>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative >>>>history of medical science. >>>> >>>>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this >>>>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement >>>>for safety. >>>> >>> >>> This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same >>> technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't >>> part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego. >> >>Actually, it is not, as there is lots of new medical technology which >>has a direct effect on medical standards. >> >>And the point here is that ALL FAA standards and regulations are subject >>to change as the applicable state of the art changes contrary to what >>seems to be your point of view that the FAA is frozen in time. >> > > In other words, you're arguing with the little voices in your head > again. The only one implying that the FAA is 'stuck in time' (except > for "very, very, very rare cases") is YOU. Nope, you are the one that went on and on over "new stuff". >><snip> >> >>> And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE >>> TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD. >> >>My original post that started you froothing was about certification of >>aircraft and you have continued to talk about certification of aircraft. >> > > 'Froothing'? That rather sounds like fun. Otherwise, you're just > engaging in Stupid Usenet Tricks 101 tactics; "claim the other guy is > losing his temper". And you are throwing out a red herring. >> >>Now that you are in a corner with your ignorance you are trying to negate >>all of your curmudgeon posts and ignoring the fact I said many posts ago >>to that other guy you are trying to browbeat that FAA certification of >>aircraft has nothing to do with the rockets of SpaceX. >> > > So why did you inject yourself in the first place? Why are you still > arguing, Your Magnificence? This all started when YOU jumped on my comments to someone else. > >><snip> >> >>>>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes >>>>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to >>>>do with what goes on in certification. >>>> >>> >>> But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how >>> frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained. >> >>No, they do not normally. >> > > Then what good is it? Even a car maintenance manual calls that stuff > out. 100 hours and 12 months. >> >>Normally it is once every 12 months. >> >>If the aircraft is expected to be in a high usage environment racking up >>many thousands of hours per year, SOME things MAY have an hour limitation >>such as change the oil every X hundred of hours. >> > > Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long > or not. Yeah, right. Yeah, right, it is the fucking law. > >><snip> >> >>>>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that >>>>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification? >>>> >>> >>> Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not >>> inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or >>> are you going to change your story yet again? >> >>Do you understand that for the aircraft to be certified the maker would >>have to prove that everything, includinng tires and engine oil, has an >>unlimited life? >> > > Do you not understand the difference between "for *a* part" and "for > *all* parts"? What I said was the former. Why would I need to prove > anything about tires or engine oil if I made an armrest 'no inspect'? No sane person writes a maintenance manual that says not to maintain something that requires no maintenance. Your are being childish just to argue. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n94aobhh0vq5mt1a2d6vtm3iea5hiu2g4f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56982 |
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:
>>>
>>>> Makers try very hard to not have fucking airplanes falling out of the
>>>> sky, so if engineering analysis says that something needs to be
>>>> checked, you can be pretty sure that the maintenance manual is going
>>>> to specify checking it.
>>>
>>>Makers have to prove the design meets the requirements of Part 25 14 CFR
>>>during the certification process and the certification process has nothing
>>>to do with on going maintenance other than the maintenance manual is a
>>>part of the PAPERWORK requirements.
>>>
>>
>> You keep saying that as if someone has said otherwise. Are you really
>> unable to read declarative English sentences, or is the "paperwork"
>> feeding into the next stage (operation) somehow beyond your ken?
>
>You are the one blathering on about on going, routine inspections and
>maintenance being part of certification, which by the way has nothing
>to do with "fucking rockets".
>
I never said any such thing. Please stop listening to the little
voices in your head AND READ THE BLOODY WORDS.
>>>Do you not understand the difference between design verification and on
>>>going maintenance?
>>>
>>
>> Do you not understand the difference between what I actually write and
>> what the voices in your head feeding your ego say?
>
>Backed into a corner by your blather and trying to deny it now?
>
I also deny that I'm the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. I deny
it because it's hogwash, like what your little voices are telling you.
>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> And if the manufacturer doesn't specify anything to inspect, FAA
>>>> happily mandates inspecting nothing?
>>>
>>>Nope, the aircraft never gets through the certification process for lack
>>>of a maintenance manual unless during the certification process the
>>>maker has proved that all parts last forever, including the tires and
>>>engine oil.
>>>
>>
>> Again you cannot apparently read. I didn't say there wasn't a
>> maintenance manual.
>
>Correct, but you keep insisting the performance of the maintenance
>manual is part of certification process, it is not.
>
I've said no such thing. You really cannot read simple English, can
you?
>>>>>I have said all along 100 hour inspections are PROGRESSIVE, which means
>>>>>not ALL items are inspected every 100 hours but a subset of all the
>>>>>items.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No you haven't. Perhaps the little voices in your head said that, but
>>>> it never made it out as electrons.
>>>
>>>Yes, I have, several times now.
>>>
>>
>> 'Several times' is not 'all along'.
>
>This thread does not go back to the start of time.
>
True, but irrelevant. It goes back to the start of the thread
(obviously) which is 'all along' in the context of the discussion.
>>>>>That means, for example, that the landing gear might be inspected during
>>>>>the first 100 hour inspection within 12 calendar months and not inspected
>>>>>again until the first 100 hour inspecton of the next 12 calendar months.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not a problem with my understanding. It's a problem with your
>>>> apparent inability to say the same thing two days in a row.
>>>
>>>Try staying sober two days in a row and it might start making sense
>>>to you.
>>>
>>
>> Try cutting down on your crack habit and perhaps you'll develop more
>> consistency and less need to shield your ego.
>
>Backed yourself into a corner and now all you have is childish insults.
>
You started it, Chimp. Now when it's done back to you it's "childish
insults". That pretty much says it all. Giant Ego thinks it gets a
different set of rules.
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Remember, this whole discussion originally started out as being about
>>>> A ROCKET. So, what we essentially have is that after all this
>>>> complaining YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE and all this
>>>> "rarely pepper" is merely your attempt to save your massive ego now
>>>> that you realize it.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. What I've gotten from the preceding is "you're right in that
>> case, but that case rarely occurs". Well, with a brand new rocket
>> that case is the only case.
>
>Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification.
>
Who said it did? The only thing in need of 'certification' here
appears to be you.
>
>>>With have a curmudgeon determined to show the world he is an expert
>>>on everythng who will argue with whatever I say even if it is a direct
>>>quote from an authority.
>>>
>>
>> Care to try that again in English? There is 'quoting' authority and
>> there is understanding it. You've shown you cannot do that latter and
>> in addition are arguing things no one but you ever said.
>
>Backed into a corner by your blather, are you?
>
Still unable to read English and listening to the tiny voices in your
head, are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>And you are overlooking the point that ALL systems must be inspected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even if the maintenance manual specifies "No Inspection"?
>>>
>>>Which, again, will only happen if during the certification process the
>>>maker proves that everything has an unlimited life, including tires and
>>>engine oil.
>>>
>>
>> Jesus, but you're stupid. You keep dragging up 'tires and engine
>> oil'. I didn't say the manual said EVERYTHING was a 'no inspect', you
>> arrogant little troll. However, how about oil-free engines and no
>> tires?
>
>What about them?
>
Precisely. You were the one wanking on as if they were required.
>
>Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT
>say what NOT to do.
>
Actually, that's not quite true. Look for all those coloured boxes
labeled "Warning" and "Caution".
>
>This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement.
>
Good of you to label your output, but I think folks have figured you
out by now.
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>What part of the FAA requires ALL systems to be inspected you do not
>>>>>understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The part where you explain that the manufacturer specifies what gets
>>>> inspected in their maintenance manual, which they provide as part of
>>>> Certification.
>>>
>>>I guess it is time to dumb it down even further.
>>>
>>
>> Good. Perhaps you'll get it to the point where you understand it.
>>
>>>
>>>The maintenance manual is part of the required paperwork for certification.
>>>
>>
>> Yep. We agree.
>>
>>>
>>>The maintenance manual describes the on going maintenance procedures for
>>>the operation of the aircraft after certification.
>>>
>>
>> Is it your contention that the maintenance manual does NOT call out
>> periodicity? You keep avoiding that little detail.
>
>99.99% of the time, it does not.
>
>Periodicity is 100 hours or 12 months as I keep saying.
>
Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>>>
>>>It is about things like changing the oil, proper torque when working on
>>>wheel assemblies, tire inflation, allowable wear in moving parts, lubriaction
>>>specifications, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Including how often to do those things and how often to check things
>> to see that they are properly oiled, torqued, inflated, within wear,
>> lubricated, etc.
>
>100 hours or 12 months.
>
Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>>>It is the normal maintenace performed on a thing to keep it working as
>>>originally designed.
>>>
>>
>> And, according to you, it is the source of the inspection regime.
>
>Which is performed 100 hours or 12 months.
>
And how do you arrive at your conclusions about how frequently a given
item must be tested? Where do those numbers trace back to?
Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>>>>>What part of the maker simply lists what systems an aircraft has you do
>>>>>not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would make for a mighty odd looking Maintenance Manual. And
>>>> you're changing your story again.
>>>
>>>No, I am not.
>>>
>>>Would you expect the maintenance manual to list other than the systems
>>>a particular aircraft has?
>>>
>>
>> Why, lots of things about how to, how often to, and when to perform
>> that maintenance. You keep manfully avoiding all those time related
>> things because they explode most of your arguments and your ego just
>> couldn't take it.
>
>How often is 100 hours or 12 months.
>
Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>>>I did not explicitly state, again, that it contains the details such as
>>>what type of spark plug and internal combutsion engine uses, but if you
>>>weren't arguing just for the sake of arguing you would understand that.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, but you see, I DO understand that. I also understand it should
>> tell me how often to check those plugs, how often to clean and regap
>> them, how often to replace them, etc. You seem in denial about all
>> that.
>
>100 hours or 12 months.
>
>If it is dirty, you clean it, if worn out, you replace it.
>
Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>>>>>What part of very, very, very rarely do makers impose inspections more
>>>>>stringent than required by the FAA do you not understand?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which part of your own statement that what gets inspected and how
>>>> frequently is called out in the Maintenance Manual do you not
>>>> understand? I mean, it's your statement so you OUGHT to understand
>>>> it, but your statements seem to be formulated out of some particularly
>>>> runny Jello.
>>>
>>>How frequently for an individual item is 12 months.
>>>
>>
>> Regardless of the 'item'? That makes no sense.
>
>Tell that to the FAA.
>
It certainly sounds like someone should, but I suspect that's already
been done and it doesn't actually work the braindead way you make it
sound like it works.
>>>For a maker to specify something more stringent than the FAA requirement
>>>is economic suicide.
>>>
>>
>> You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher
>> periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall.
>
>That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation.
>
Bullshit. Now you're just making shit up.
Let us suppose that I have a bunch of cables and pulleys and such that
require annual maintenance. Let's say there are 10 of them and each
cable requires 10 hours of maintenance a year, for a total maintenance
requirement per year of 100 hours. Suppose further that each cable
must be replaced every 5 years for an additional 25 hours per cable.
Now suppose that I replace all those cables with a set of cable runs
that only require a 5 hour inspection every 5 years and never require
replacement, a set of 10 motors that only require a 1 hour inspection
every year, and a control computer for the whole works that requires a
5 minute inspection/test every 100 hours.
Original maintenance budget over 5 years was 750 hours. Maintenance
budget with the 'high inspection' computer is less than 700 hours and
almost all of that is the result of those 5 minute computer checks
(and assuming a preposterously high flight rate). Since it's a 5
minute check it can be done overnight. Maintenance time reduced by
adding a preposterously high periodicity check.
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>Medical knowledge has changed. The medical standards for pilots is based
>>>>>on MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the cumulative history of medicine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the BLOODY PILOTS haven't changed. Turn your ego off and READ
>>>> WHAT IS WRITTEN.
>>>
>>>Actually pilots have changed, The average pilot of today is taller and
>>>heavier than those of a few decades ago.
>>>
>>
>> And if we only ever let the 'average' pilot fly you might be able to
>> protect your ego by raising that bit of gorilla dust.
>
>Childing twaddle.
>
Stuck on stupid. Now you're 'arguing' about something that you said
didn't even apply. Gigantic Ego successfully poked.
>>>But that isn't the point, the point is that medical standards for pilots
>>>have changed because medical knowledge has changes.
>>>
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to what's being discussed.
>
>What was being discussed is what the FAA requires changes over time.
>
And there's the problem. Your gigantic ego has you over in your own
discussion while the tiny voices in your head try to bend everything
everyone else says to fit.
No, Chimp. What was being discussed was technological change TO THE
PARTS OF THE SYSTEM. Technological change TO THE TESTS THEMSELVES is
a totally different thing. We have all kinds of fancy stuff for
testing structure these days that they didn't have in 1926. So what?
>>>>>>>What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
>>>>>>>linen skin are all different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Composite skin is a relatively new thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there are no pilots with aluminum skin, composite skin, or any new
>>>>>> 'equipment' that they haven't had since Adam. We're talking about
>>>>>> PILOTS at this point. I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up
>>>>>> with where YOU drag the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is it you can not understand that medical science is ALWAYS changing?
>>>>>
>>>>>The medical requirements for pilots is based on the CURRENT cumulative
>>>>>history of medical science.
>>>>>
>>>>>The requirement for a 3rd class physical for private pilots is at this
>>>>>time being eliminated as cumulative history shows it is not a requirement
>>>>>for safety.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a different topic from "new technology". Pilots are the same
>>>> technology they've always been. Stop arguing about things that aren't
>>>> part of the discussion in order to fluff your ego.
>>>
>>>Actually, it is not, as there is lots of new medical technology which
>>>has a direct effect on medical standards.
>>>
>>>And the point here is that ALL FAA standards and regulations are subject
>>>to change as the applicable state of the art changes contrary to what
>>>seems to be your point of view that the FAA is frozen in time.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you're arguing with the little voices in your head
>> again. The only one implying that the FAA is 'stuck in time' (except
>> for "very, very, very rare cases") is YOU.
>
>Nope, you are the one that went on and on over "new stuff".
>
And you claiming it's so rare that the FAA just doesn't bother to
account for it at all and it's not worth discussing.
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> And again the Mighty Chimp has lost the original thread. WE'RE
>>>> TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING ROCKET, YOU BLOODY YAMMERHEAD.
>>>
>>>My original post that started you froothing was about certification of
>>>aircraft and you have continued to talk about certification of aircraft.
>>>
>>
>> 'Froothing'? That rather sounds like fun. Otherwise, you're just
>> engaging in Stupid Usenet Tricks 101 tactics; "claim the other guy is
>> losing his temper".
>
>And you are throwing out a red herring.
>
And you are attempting to construct a strawman ad hominem argument.
>>>
>>>Now that you are in a corner with your ignorance you are trying to negate
>>>all of your curmudgeon posts and ignoring the fact I said many posts ago
>>>to that other guy you are trying to browbeat that FAA certification of
>>>aircraft has nothing to do with the rockets of SpaceX.
>>>
>>
>> So why did you inject yourself in the first place? Why are you still
>> arguing, Your Magnificence?
>
>This all started when YOU jumped on my comments to someone else.
>
This is Usenet, not email. This all started when you were (stupidly)
trolled into the middle of an ongoing discussion with no history and
your gigantic ego insisted you respond.
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>The numbers in a maintenance manual are numbers like how much oil goes
>>>>>into the engine and the torgue on a replaced bolt. Nothing whatsoever to
>>>>>do with what goes on in certification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the numbers in a maintenance manual most certainly do call out how
>>>> frequently X needs to be inspected/maintained.
>>>
>>>No, they do not normally.
>>>
>>
>> Then what good is it? Even a car maintenance manual calls that stuff
>> out.
>
>100 hours and 12 months.
>
Whether it needs it or not. And how do you decide just which bits
need it every 100 hours? Periodicity must be specified SOMEWHERE for
that part. You say the maintenance manual doesn't have it, so where
is it?
If it requires inspection every third 100 hour check, HOW DO YOU KNOW?
>>>
>>>Normally it is once every 12 months.
>>>
>>>If the aircraft is expected to be in a high usage environment racking up
>>>many thousands of hours per year, SOME things MAY have an hour limitation
>>>such as change the oil every X hundred of hours.
>>>
>>
>> Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long
>> or not. Yeah, right.
>
>Yeah, right, it is the fucking law.
>
Then the law, sir, is an ass.
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>Do you understand that the maintenance manual, other than the fact that
>>>>>it has to exist, has nothing to do with certification?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that if the maintenance manual calls out 'do not
>>>> inspect' for a part that FAA doesn't require it to be inspected? Or
>>>> are you going to change your story yet again?
>>>
>>>Do you understand that for the aircraft to be certified the maker would
>>>have to prove that everything, includinng tires and engine oil, has an
>>>unlimited life?
>>>
>>
>> Do you not understand the difference between "for *a* part" and "for
>> *all* parts"? What I said was the former. Why would I need to prove
>> anything about tires or engine oil if I made an armrest 'no inspect'?
>
>No sane person writes a maintenance manual that says not to maintain
>something that requires no maintenance.
>
Still can't read, I see. Please compare 'no inspect' to 'no
maintenance' and tell me if the two strings look at all different to
you.
>Your are being childish just to argue.
Irony. It's not like silvery or bronzey...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naof5d-m5m.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56992 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> > I never said any such thing. Please stop listening to the little > voices in your head AND READ THE BLOODY WORDS. The words as you choose to define them after the fact. <snip> > I also deny that I'm the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. I deny > it because it's hogwash, like what your little voices are telling you. Childish attack mode when backed into a corner. <snip> > I've said no such thing. You really cannot read simple English, can > you? You actually insisted it must be so. Do you not read your own "BLOODY WORDS"? <snip> > True, but irrelevant. It goes back to the start of the thread > (obviously) which is 'all along' in the context of the discussion. Backed into a corner and grasping at symantic. > You started it, Chimp. Now when it's done back to you it's "childish > insults". That pretty much says it all. Giant Ego thinks it gets a > different set of rules. Backed into a corner and in attack mode. All this started when I commented on someone else's post. You are the one that jumped in with both feet. <snip> >>Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification. >> > > Who said it did? The only thing in need of 'certification' here > appears to be you. You are the one that brought up "fucking rockets". Are ""fucking rockets" different than any other kind of rockets? <snip> > Still unable to read English and listening to the tiny voices in your > head, are you? Still trying to spin and deny what you have said over and over? <snip> > Precisely. You were the one wanking on as if they were required. What were required? >>Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT >>say what NOT to do. >> > > Actually, that's not quite true. Look for all those coloured boxes > labeled "Warning" and "Caution". Which have nothing to do with not inspecting something. BTW I have never seen either a colored or coloured box labeled "Warning" or "Caution" in an aircraft maintenance manual. >>This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement. >> > > Good of you to label your output, but I think folks have figured you > out by now. See above about colored boxes. <snip> > Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12 > month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every > 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours? Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance manual, as it is part of the operational manual. But since you know nothing about aviation I would not expect you to know that. > Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be > included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT > NUMBER TRACE BACK TO? What number? <snip> > Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12 > month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every > 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours? Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance manual, as it is part of the operational manual. > Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be > included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT > NUMBER TRACE BACK TO? What number? <snip> > And how do you arrive at your conclusions about how frequently a given > item must be tested? Where do those numbers trace back to? Nothing is tested during on going maintenance, it is inspected at least once in 12 months. > Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12 > month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every > 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours? Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance manual, as it is part of the operational manual. > Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be > included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT > NUMBER TRACE BACK TO? What number? <snip> > Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12 > month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every > 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours? Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance manual, as it is part of the operational manual. > Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be > included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT > NUMBER TRACE BACK TO? What number? <snip> > Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be > included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT > NUMBER TRACE BACK TO? What number? <snip> >>Tell that to the FAA. >> > > It certainly sounds like someone should, but I suspect that's already > been done and it doesn't actually work the braindead way you make it > sound like it works. You have no clue how any of it works because you know nothing about aviation and all the regulations that govern it and are basing everything you say on what YOU think things should be. The FAA bases the requirments on about a century worth of accumulated knowledge which seems to be working pretty well and when something isn't working, the regulations are changed. <snip> >>> You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher >>> periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall. >> >>That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation. >> > > Bullshit. Now you're just making shit up. So show some actual data or shut the fuck up about it. > Let us suppose that I have a bunch of cables and pulleys and such that > require annual maintenance. Let's say there are 10 of them and each > cable requires 10 hours of maintenance a year, for a total maintenance > requirement per year of 100 hours. Suppose further that each cable > must be replaced every 5 years for an additional 25 hours per cable. > Now suppose that I replace all those cables with a set of cable runs > that only require a 5 hour inspection every 5 years and never require > replacement, a set of 10 motors that only require a 1 hour inspection > every year, and a control computer for the whole works that requires a > 5 minute inspection/test every 100 hours. A total fair tale scenario that also shows you know nothing about how aircraft systems work. > Original maintenance budget over 5 years was 750 hours. Maintenance > budget with the 'high inspection' computer is less than 700 hours and > almost all of that is the result of those 5 minute computer checks > (and assuming a preposterously high flight rate). Since it's a 5 > minute check it can be done overnight. Maintenance time reduced by > adding a preposterously high periodicity check. In your fairy tale world, but not in the real world of aviation. For starters, for airplanes with cables, the cable would be checked for slack or play around the pulleys and the pulleys would be inspected for wear. As cables come in pairs, you would do both at the same time and it would take all of about a minute. The idea of having a computer contolled cable and pulley system in an airplane is just ludicrous. <snip giant pile of nonsense spew> > Whether it needs it or not. And how do you decide just which bits > need it every 100 hours? Periodicity must be specified SOMEWHERE for > that part. You say the maintenance manual doesn't have it, so where > is it? FAA requlations. <snip> >>> Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long >>> or not. Yeah, right. >> >>Yeah, right, it is the fucking law. >> > > Then the law, sir, is an ass. So here we have it, McCrap who knows nothing about aviation knows better what is to be done than the FAA with about a century's worth of accumulated knowledge and thousands of actual aviation professionals. <snip remaining crap> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-12 17:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sn3bob1a8j3675h45ljurt3eu9c0jpmcn0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56999 |
I note that you've carefully deleted all context from my remarks, you
intellectually dishonest cunt.
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> I never said any such thing. Please stop listening to the little
>> voices in your head AND READ THE BLOODY WORDS.
>
>The words as you choose to define them after the fact.
>
><snip>
>
>> I also deny that I'm the love child of Hitler and Mussolini. I deny
>> it because it's hogwash, like what your little voices are telling you.
>
>Childish attack mode when backed into a corner.
>
><snip>
>
>> I've said no such thing. You really cannot read simple English, can
>> you?
>
>You actually insisted it must be so. Do you not read your own "BLOODY WORDS"?
>
><snip>
>
>> True, but irrelevant. It goes back to the start of the thread
>> (obviously) which is 'all along' in the context of the discussion.
>
>Backed into a corner and grasping at symantic.
>
>> You started it, Chimp. Now when it's done back to you it's "childish
>> insults". That pretty much says it all. Giant Ego thinks it gets a
>> different set of rules.
>
>Backed into a corner and in attack mode.
>
>All this started when I commented on someone else's post. You are the
>one that jumped in with both feet.
>
><snip>
>
>>>Rockets do not have anything to do with aircraft certification.
>>>
>>
>> Who said it did? The only thing in need of 'certification' here
>> appears to be you.
>
>You are the one that brought up "fucking rockets".
>
>Are ""fucking rockets" different than any other kind of rockets?
>
><snip>
>
>> Still unable to read English and listening to the tiny voices in your
>> head, are you?
>
>Still trying to spin and deny what you have said over and over?
>
><snip>
>
>> Precisely. You were the one wanking on as if they were required.
>
>What were required?
>
>>>Maintenance manuals written by sane people say what to do, the do NOT
>>>say what NOT to do.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, that's not quite true. Look for all those coloured boxes
>> labeled "Warning" and "Caution".
>
>Which have nothing to do with not inspecting something.
>
>BTW I have never seen either a colored or coloured box labeled "Warning"
>or "Caution" in an aircraft maintenance manual.
>
>>>This is just more childish twaddle for the sake of arguement.
>>>
>>
>> Good of you to label your output, but I think folks have figured you
>> out by now.
>
>See above about colored boxes.
>
><snip>
>
>> Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
>> month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
>> 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
>
>Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
>preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
>manual, as it is part of the operational manual.
>
>But since you know nothing about aviation I would not expect you to
>know that.
>
>> Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
>> included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
>> NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>
>What number?
>
><snip>
>
>> Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
>> month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
>> 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
>
>Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
>preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
>manual, as it is part of the operational manual.
>
>> Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
>> included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
>> NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>
>What number?
>
><snip>
>
>> And how do you arrive at your conclusions about how frequently a given
>> item must be tested? Where do those numbers trace back to?
>
>Nothing is tested during on going maintenance, it is inspected at
>least once in 12 months.
>
>> Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
>> month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
>> 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
>
>Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
>preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
>manual, as it is part of the operational manual.
>
>> Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
>> included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
>> NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>
>What number?
>
><snip>
>
>> Yes, and you say the 100 hours inspections actually add up to a 12
>> month inspection, too. So you only check engine oil and tires every
>> 100 hours? Even if they only need it every 300 hours?
>
>Actually, oil and tires are checked every time before flight during the
>preflight inspection, which has NOTHING to do with the maintenance
>manual, as it is part of the operational manual.
>
>> Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
>> included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
>> NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>
>What number?
>
><snip>
>
>> Your answer will no doubt be that those items would then only be
>> included in every third 100 hour inspection. AND WHERE DOES THAT
>> NUMBER TRACE BACK TO?
>
>What number?
>
><snip>
>
>>>Tell that to the FAA.
>>>
>>
>> It certainly sounds like someone should, but I suspect that's already
>> been done and it doesn't actually work the braindead way you make it
>> sound like it works.
>
>You have no clue how any of it works because you know nothing about
>aviation and all the regulations that govern it and are basing everything
>you say on what YOU think things should be.
>
>The FAA bases the requirments on about a century worth of accumulated
>knowledge which seems to be working pretty well and when something
>isn't working, the regulations are changed.
>
><snip>
>
>>>> You still don't seem to get that it's possible to put in a higher
>>>> periodicity of maintenance part and SAVE maintenance hours overall.
>>>
>>>That has never been shown to be true in the entire history of aviation.
>>>
>>
>> Bullshit. Now you're just making shit up.
>
>So show some actual data or shut the fuck up about it.
>
>> Let us suppose that I have a bunch of cables and pulleys and such that
>> require annual maintenance. Let's say there are 10 of them and each
>> cable requires 10 hours of maintenance a year, for a total maintenance
>> requirement per year of 100 hours. Suppose further that each cable
>> must be replaced every 5 years for an additional 25 hours per cable.
>> Now suppose that I replace all those cables with a set of cable runs
>> that only require a 5 hour inspection every 5 years and never require
>> replacement, a set of 10 motors that only require a 1 hour inspection
>> every year, and a control computer for the whole works that requires a
>> 5 minute inspection/test every 100 hours.
>
>A total fair tale scenario that also shows you know nothing about how
>aircraft systems work.
>
>> Original maintenance budget over 5 years was 750 hours. Maintenance
>> budget with the 'high inspection' computer is less than 700 hours and
>> almost all of that is the result of those 5 minute computer checks
>> (and assuming a preposterously high flight rate). Since it's a 5
>> minute check it can be done overnight. Maintenance time reduced by
>> adding a preposterously high periodicity check.
>
>In your fairy tale world, but not in the real world of aviation.
>
>For starters, for airplanes with cables, the cable would be checked
>for slack or play around the pulleys and the pulleys would be inspected
>for wear. As cables come in pairs, you would do both at the same time
>and it would take all of about a minute. The idea of having a computer
>contolled cable and pulley system in an airplane is just ludicrous.
>
><snip giant pile of nonsense spew>
>
>> Whether it needs it or not. And how do you decide just which bits
>> need it every 100 hours? Periodicity must be specified SOMEWHERE for
>> that part. You say the maintenance manual doesn't have it, so where
>> is it?
>
>FAA requlations.
>
><snip>
>
>>>> Every 12 months whether it needs it or not and whether that's too long
>>>> or not. Yeah, right.
>>>
>>>Yeah, right, it is the fucking law.
>>>
>>
>> Then the law, sir, is an ass.
>
>So here we have it, McCrap who knows nothing about aviation knows better
>what is to be done than the FAA with about a century's worth of
>accumulated knowledge and thousands of actual aviation professionals.
>
><snip remaining crap>
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 02:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <48ng5d-s6p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #57007 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > I note that you've carefully deleted all context from my remarks, you > intellectually dishonest cunt. I snipped out all your silly bile, you cantankerous ignorant idiot. Show me something in 14 CFR that is contrary to what I have said or shut the fuck up. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <577a65b2$0$13833$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56901 |
On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote: > 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? Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new aircraft ? Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during certification. MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented. > 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. Starting with the Airbus A320, FAA and other certification agencies learned an important lesson: they can't apply old rules to new planes. For the A320, they failed to properly test the software that ran the plane because they weren't used to doing so and allow a buggy aircraft to enter service. If the FAA were to regulate SpaceX, it would not accept engineers "we think this is good for 11 flights". They would want to see actual experience duringa flight test period and this is exactly what SpaceX is doing. And SpaceX will have a very good idea of how many times a stage can be re-used, how much it costs to refurb between flights, how many they can succesfully land etc. It may exceed 11 flights, it be less than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-06 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n46rnbln19fvdpt2dt2lie41kkko14tjco@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56906 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new
>aircraft ?
>
No, that would have been Jimp the Chimp, who you dragged in by
crossposting back to an airplane group when we're talking about a
rocket.
>
>Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during
>certification.
>
But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.
>
>MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a
>plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF
>is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented.
>
But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.
>
>> 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.
>
>Starting with the Airbus A320, FAA and other certification agencies
>learned an important lesson: they can't apply old rules to new planes.
>For the A320, they failed to properly test the software that ran the
>plane because they weren't used to doing so and allow a buggy aircraft
>to enter service.
>
Wow, it only took 'em how many decades to figure that out?
>
>If the FAA were to regulate SpaceX, it would not accept engineers "we
>think this is good for 11 flights". They would want to see actual
>experience duringa flight test period and this is exactly what SpaceX
>is doing.
>
Well, that will never happen, thank God. If it were to happen, where
do you think they're going to get the numbers they start with; pull
'em out of some bureaucrat's ass? No, they'll get them from those
engineers whose opinions you say they wouldn't accept.
You understand that SpaceX currently is NOT in 'flight test', right.
They're selling rocket launches.
>
>And SpaceX will have a very good idea of how many times a stage can be
>re-used, how much it costs to refurb between flights, how many they can
>succesfully land etc.
>
They have a pretty good idea of most of that now, because, unlike you,
engineers don't just pull shit out of their asses and shout 'Eureka!'.
>
>It may exceed 11 flights, it be less than that.
>
If you roll two dice, the total may meet or exceed three or it may be
less than that. If you think those odds are even approximately equal,
you must lose fortunes at the craps tables.
Do you know what a three sigma confidence estimate is?
--
"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 | 2016-07-07 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <imj05d-qd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56923 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >>On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >>Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new >>aircraft ? >> > > No, that would have been Jimp the Chimp, who you dragged in by > crossposting back to an airplane group when we're talking about a > rocket. Nope, I never said FAA did that. What I said was a manufacturer MAY specify maintenance and inspection schedules that are MORE stringent than FAA requirements in the maintenance manual. >>Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during >>certification. >> > > But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of > service. You got that part correct. The manufacturers maintenance manual has to be PRODUCED during cerification. That does not mean any procedure has to be actually performed during cerification. >>MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a >>plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF >>is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented. >> > > But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of > service. ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification, but rather is about aircraft operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 14:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <577e9a67$0$51667$b1db1813$15bdbe48@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #56925 |
On 2016-07-06 20:17, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification, > but rather is about aircraft operations. There is more to ETOPS than operations. In order to get ETOPS xxx certification, the airplane has to demonstrate high MTBF numbers while in operation. And generally, a new plane gets low ETOPS number and it is increased in time as its empirical data shows sufficient reliability.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-07 19:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sol25d-g97.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56929 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2016-07-06 20:17, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification, >> but rather is about aircraft operations. > > There is more to ETOPS than operations. In order to get ETOPS xxx > certification, the airplane has to demonstrate high MTBF numbers while > in operation. So you agree it is "about aircraft operations" as I said. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dktunbl08faiifah26bisboprbmshmemo9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56925 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >>>On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>>Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new >>>aircraft ? >>> >> >> No, that would have been Jimp the Chimp, who you dragged in by >> crossposting back to an airplane group when we're talking about a >> rocket. > >Nope, I never said FAA did that. > >What I said was a manufacturer MAY specify maintenance and inspection >schedules that are MORE stringent than FAA requirements in the maintenance >manual. > Actually you never said that (either). >>>Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during >>>certification. >>> >> >> But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of >> service. > >You got that part correct. > >The manufacturers maintenance manual has to be PRODUCED during cerification. > >That does not mean any procedure has to be actually performed during >cerification. > So they'll certify based on zero evidence? Wow, you just make shit up as you go, don't you? >>>MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a >>>plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF >>>is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented. >>> >> >> But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of >> service. > >ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification, >but rather is about aircraft operations. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS > So Mezei is wrong but you don't bother to correct until I post? That's really quite telling, Mr Ego. -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-08 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cp855d-ojh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56945 |
In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >>That does not mean any procedure has to be actually performed during >>cerification. >> > > So they'll certify based on zero evidence? Wow, you just make shit up > as you go, don't you? Non sequitur. Certification is based on engineering data and flight testing, not by going though the ongoing maintenance procedures. One more time; certification and on going maintenance are two separate things. During the certification process, the maker has to GENERATE a maintenance manual for on going maintenance. During certification things like the flaps down stall speed is verified. During on going maintenance the flap hinges are inspected for wear. Two different things. Two different things. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-10 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <la35ob997elsj3cs006tnmvvmqrd2pr32o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56952 |
Chimp, I'm getting neck pains from trying to follow your changes of
direction.
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>That does not mean any procedure has to be actually performed during
>>>cerification.
>>>
>>
>> So they'll certify based on zero evidence? Wow, you just make shit up
>> as you go, don't you?
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>Certification is based on engineering data and flight testing, not by
>going though the ongoing maintenance procedures.
>
>One more time; certification and on going maintenance are two separate
>things.
>
>During the certification process, the maker has to GENERATE a maintenance
>manual for on going maintenance.
>
>During certification things like the flaps down stall speed is verified.
>
>During on going maintenance the flap hinges are inspected for wear.
>
>Two different things.
>
>Two different things.
>
The maintenance plan is the basis for what gets inspected when (you
say). The maintenance plan never gets executed (you say), including
little details like part duty cycles and such (you say). This means
that the FAA certifies a pig in a poke.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web