A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Safety of GA flying



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #17  
Old July 27th 06, 06:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Barney Rubble
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Safety of GA flying

I can read numbers, the ^ was somehow missed from the copy/paste process, my
guess is that this is because it was superscripted in the original article.
Appologies for the mistake...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...

Barney Rubble wrote:
Yes it is, if you go back to the original question posed by the OP, he
was
asking about the root cause of accidents. It is a fact (links at the
end)
that Jet/turbine and piston engines have different MTFB's Of course it
is
not the only factor in an accident, but engine failure is a fairly
serious
matter and not normally something a pilot can do much about (assuming he
is
operating the equipment by the book).

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309069831/html/60.html
To paraphrase the report:-
The in-flight shutdown (IFSD) rate, a measure of reliability, for gas
turbine engines in large commercial aircraft is 0.5 shutdowns for every
105
hours of flight. For single-engine military jet aircraft, the IFSD rate
is 2
for every 105 hours. The IFSD rate for light aircraft piston engines is
considerably worse, about 5 to 10 for every 105 hours.


These "statistics" are obviously bogus and simply pulled out of thin
air.


No he just doesn't know how to read numbers it wasn't 105 hours it was
10^5 hours or 100,000 hours. I have no desire to read the whole report but
it is a 2000 report titled, "Uninhabited Air Vehicles: Enabling Science
for Military Systems."





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus Hose-and-Drogue Mike Naval Aviation 26 July 11th 06 11:38 PM
ADV: Mountain flying & instruction: Idaho, Colorado, Utah! [email protected] Piloting 0 April 14th 06 05:02 PM
Mini-500 Accident Analysis Dennis Fetters Rotorcraft 16 September 3rd 05 11:35 AM
FLYING magazine safety article Bob Korves Soaring 27 June 30th 05 01:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.