|
|
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 |
|
|