Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.227; envelope-from=dalemahan@charter.net
Message-ID: <42A5BEDC.7080009@charter.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:35:56 -0500
From: Dale Mahan <dalemahan@charter.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Redundancy
References: <list-987314@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-987314@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

One reason why the various statements pertaining to rotary engine risk 
analysis may be leading to a circular logic that "folds back upon, and 
contradicts its own fundamental assumptions" is that the statements 
actually refer to how the writer FEELS about the subject rather than how 
the writer THINKS about it. This is especially true when the writer has 
to limit himself to technical details and mathematical codifications. 
Mathematics itself is a creative language that can be put to any purpose 
the writer desires at the time.  What is the  intent that is being 
attempted to communicate?  Or...what is the "risk analyst" trying to say?

Dale
   

jesse farr wrote:

> Just remember fellows, two engine planes have four times the failure 
> rate ?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bulent Aliev" 
> <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
>
>> On 6/7/05 10:45 AM, "cardmarc@charter.net" <cardmarc@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hell, they way you guys are talking, we all should add a complete 
>>> second
>>> engine and all its control systems.
>>> Where does this crap stop? Go fly on a four engine airliner.
>>> Marc Wiese
>>
>>
>> Very well said Marc. This is turning into a mental masturbation for few
>> people :) GO FINISH YOUR PLANES!
>
>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>