![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Routine Aviation Career | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 0 | September 26th 04 12:33 AM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Night Flying Tips | BoDEAN | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 04 03:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |