Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <42A5FCFB.6060500@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:00:59 -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-987644@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-987644@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jim Sower wrote:

>
> In general, how many single points of failure did he start out with, 
> how many remain and how did he remediate the ones he has fixed?  What, 
> if anything, is he doing to address the rest, or why do they "not count"?


This may or may not be more to the point, but if parts count isn't a 
measure of reliability, then how does increasing parts count increase 
reliability?  That is, how do you determine if a redundant system will 
improve things, make them worse, or just make the plane so heavy that it 
won't fly?  (which is fairly safe, but sort of counterproductive 8*)

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