Looking for B-17 video...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost
better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove at
low
heat.

Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb and
there
is
no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.

Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
Pieces"
when an FAE occurs.

You mean aluminium dust?

Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
gun,
just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how deeply
Hall's
NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.

Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch" beyond
the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

Get your story straight. I have not made any comment regarding the
reliability of 747's or any other Boeing A/C.

I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA & NTSB did not order implementation of "Specified Operating Protocols"
as SOP for operators of Boeing A/C to minimize the "Inherent Danger"
associated with the "Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" on a whim.

Your failure to accept reality is a "prime example" of 1 hand refusing to
acknowledge the other, which causes many problems in the A/C world.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA has already capitulated to the "wire fire" theory and NTSB is of no
concern to me.

Paroting obvious lies does not make you less of a liar, Nesbitt.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

snip
I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

An out and out lie and a conclusion which Nesbitt is completely
unqualified
to draw.

snip of additional false statements

Challenge FAA & NTSB, not the messenger, "Me".

FAA has already capitulated to the "wire fire" theory and NTSB is of no
concern to me.

snip

Please elucidate as to "Detail & Specifics" re;"your statement above.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:


I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1 from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
condition?

Surely, with the thousands of Boeings operating around the
world such an "inherently dangerous" condition would
manifest itself in "aluminum rain".

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:20:36 GMT, "Ralph Nesbitt"
wrote:


I have stated that

A=: "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" results in an "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" across a broad spectrum of a Boeing A/C/s flight profile.

B=: This has been determined to be a "Safety of Flight".

C=: To minimize/eliminate to the extent possible the "Inherently
Dangerous
Situation" due "The Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" across the majority of
the
flight spectrum of any given A/C, "Implementation of Specified Operating
Protocols" have been mandated by Air Safety Regulation/Safety Oversight
Organizations" world wide.

To my knowledge nothing "Design Philosophy" wise has changed that would
eliminate "The Inherently Dangerous Situation CWT" issue on Boeing A/C
across the models with CWT's irrespective of whether a given A/C was #1
from
the line or the latest 1 off the line.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

Would you care to provide us with a list of all of the Boeing
aircraft that have "blown up" due to this "inherantly dangerous"
condition?

Surely, with the thousands of Boeings operating around the
world such an "inherently dangerous" condition would
manifest itself in "aluminum rain".

Most certainly.