Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <42A5C068.5070002@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:42:32 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: rotary risks. MTBE and the gospel ...
References: <list-986793@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-986793@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

al p wick wrote:

>There are three components that define RISK. Most of your comments
>address only 1 of those, the failure rate. Yes, it's a little tough to
>nail the fail rate on the rotary engine. The other two components have
>equal weight. What EFFECT the failed component will have on flight. How
>likely to notice the defect before flight. It's not too difficult to
>assess those two components accurately. So if we have the discipline to
>use these methods, we've got most of the risk equation nailed. 
>  
>

No, Al.  We're still sitting at square one. What EFFECT will a broken 
wing spar have on flight.  Fairly dramatic, I dare say.  So where does 
that get us?  What will we do differently, now that we have this 
valuable knowledge?

Without the failure rate, the rest of the equation is nearly useless.  
Anything multiplied by 0 is still 0.  All FMEA can do for us is to point 
out systematically which failure rates need to be driven to 0, but I 
think we already had a pretty good handle on that.  HOW to drive the 
failure rates down?  Now there's the bugaboo that keeps this list active.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |