Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 13:38:37 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5529820@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=173.201.192.109; envelope-from=hwasti@lm50.com
From: Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Necessity of A/C in IV-P?
References: <list-5527898@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5527898@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ted Noel wrote:
> 3. Flight testing with a competent test pilot.
>
> I think #3 is best since it deals with the variabilities of the 
> installation and creates a hard VNE number.
Does it? How much margin do you have? Testing is intended to validate 
engineering analysis, not to substitute it.

> Also, there are a lot of A/C installations flying. This implies a 
> degree of safety.
Does it? How does your installation compare to the flying installations? 
How much safety margin do they have and how much will you have? How far 
have they pushed their airframe (intentionally and unintentionally) and 
how far will you push yours?

All that the flying installations indicate is that no one has done 
anything in their aircraft that has led to the airframe failing due to 
the modifications. Maybe there is enough margin that it has not 
compromised safety at all. Maybe it has cut deeply into the safety 
margin and there have been a lot of very close calls that no one has 
known about.  Without a real engineering analysis taking the big picture 
in mind, no one really knows.

Regards,

Hamid