Night flying in the mountians in a cessna 150,

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that. It's absurd to base any discussion on the
idea that anyone does, and certainly on the idea that it's a common analysis
generally useful to pilots.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that.

Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
be trivial for you to say who that person is.

The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
"arguing".

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

You claim that someone does. In order to truthfully make that claim, you
would have to know of such a person. If you knew of such a person, it would
be trivial for you to say who that person is.

That's right, it was.

The only logical conclusion from your refusal to say who that person is, is
that you are untruthful when you claim that someone does.

No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

As far as "arguing", well...if you're not willing to support your statements
with any factual evidence, I can see why you have such a low tolerance for
"arguing".

I have a low tolerance for arguing with people who insist on knocking
down straw men. Good day.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts. I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose. But again, I am more
than happy to be corrected. Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point. Most convenient for me would be a
link to the Google Groups record of the post, but a Message-ID would be
fine.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
No, your premise is wrong. I have in fact already given you two
examples (and I have even pointed this out to you once already).

Really? I must have missed those posts.

You couldn't have missed them all because you responded to some of them.
But Google is your friend if you want to go back and review.

I don't recall you telling me the
name of anyone using the risk analysis you propose.

Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much. I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

Please feel free to point the posts out to
me...I will happily concede your point.

I don't really care if you concede the point or not, so I'm afraid you
will have to do your own homework.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Another straw man. I didn't tell you their names.

Then you didn't provide the information I requested, and which would support
your claims.

But again, I am more than happy to be corrected.

Once again (because we've trod this ground before too) I doubt that very
much.

Do not pretend to know what I will or will not do. You clearly have no
idea.

I have already corrected you on half a dozen points (including
this one) and you don't seem particularly happy about it.

You have not made a single supportable correction. If you had, there are a
dozen folks in this newsgroup who would be overjoyed to hop on the bandwagon
of proving me wrong. That's just how Usenet is. The utter lack of support
for your claims is evidence enough of their fallacy.

Pete

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that.


Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

Okay, I haven't been following this thread much, but reading a few of
these, I think a number of posters are having serious problems with
probability. The posts by Peter Duniho that I've read, in contrast, do
seem to understand probabilistic reasoning.

Yes, someone could decide to limit their lifetime risk of an engine
failure to P2 by flying exactly N flights. But in real life such a
decision would be insane.

First, if you were to have an engine failure during those N flights, it
would almost certainly not occur on the Nth flight. Therefore people who
have an engine failure are extremely unlikely to ever reach N flights.

Second, for any real world value of N (say N=1000), the marginal
increase in risk for flying N+1 flights would be trivial. P2 is much,
much larger than P1. So having accepted the risk of flying 1000 flights
and having successfully completed them, to decide to stop flying just so
as to avoid passing some given lifetime P2 would be bonkers. Flying that
N+1 flight has a risk of P1, a tiny risk compared to the one the person
accepted (P2) in flying N flights.

--
David Rind

In article ,
David Rind wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

[...]
I just did, but here it is again: if you believe that the risk of an
engine failure on any particular flight is P1 and you are willing to
accept a lifetime risk of experiencing an engine failure at no more than
P2, then you can use these two numbers and the formula for cumulative
probability to solve for N. You can then choose to stop flying after N
flights.

But making that choice is only useful, and only based on correct
information, if you make the choice prior to the first of N flights.

As I said, no one ever does that.


Not so. But it's pointless to argue with you and life is short.

rg

Okay, I haven't been following this thread much

That makes two of you, apparently.

rg