![]() |
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 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |
FORSALE: HARD TO FIND CESSNA PARTS! | Enea Grande | Products | 1 | November 4th 03 12:57 AM |
Headlight for night flying | Paul Tomblin | Piloting | 22 | September 27th 03 09:32 AM |