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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message
... [...] and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known. Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't very useful information if you don't know what N is. It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. That is a matter of opinion. Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so useful. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero. For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience? It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my lifetime. Duh. And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that exceeds one's risk tolerance. Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career. I doubt one exists. If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, you are without a point (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause that's the kind of guy I am). Pete |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote Sure, if the engine quits it will be ugly, but that is a very remote possibility and one that I accept every now and again if the trip is important enough. Matt Do me a favor, and settle a bet. Would you mind telling us how old you are? 45. Who won the bet? :-) Matt |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... [...] and have determined the number of trials (flights) in advance. No. That statement is true regardless of whether N is known. Knowing that your chances of having an engine failure are 1-(1-P)^N isn't very useful information if you don't know what N is. As I pointed out before (and will point out again later on -- watch for it) it is useful because you can choose your risk tolerance and then solve for N (assuming of course you know P). It's not a useful calculation for the purpose of this discussion. That is a matter of opinion. Tell me how I'm going to use the information then. Since you think it's so useful. 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. No one knows before they've started flying how many flights they will make in a lifetime. That is not necessarily true. My mother, for example, knows exactly how many flights in GA aircraft she will make during her lifetime: zero. For a person who will never make a flight in a GA aircraft, why in the world would I consider at all how many engine failures she'll experience? It's like trying to figure out how many live births I'll have in my lifetime. Duh. No, because in my mother's case the number is zero because she has *chosen* to make it zero. (Perhaps I should have made it clear that I am a pilot, and so my mother can, if she chooses, go flying with me any time she wants.) Your analogy is faulty because you cannot choose to get pregnant. And just in case you're too dimwitted to extrapolate from this example I'll spell it out for you: one can *decide* on the basis of this calculation to stop flying after some number of flight because flying more than that results in a cumulative probability of disaster that exceeds one's risk tolerance. Only if they make that decision prior to flying those hours. I haven't met a single person who has ever done such an analysis of their flying career. I doubt one exists. Just because you are not personally acquainted with someone who has chosen to avail themselves of the utility of this calculation does not mean that such people do not exist. (And even if it were true that no one in the world has availed themselves of this utility (which it isn't) that would not prove that the calculation is without utility.) If you can find me one, I'll stand corrected. I very much doubt that. You seem not to have noticed, but we've actually already done that experiment, and you stubbornly cling to your position regardless. Not only are you wrong, but you are clearly, demonstrably, and self-evidently wrong. If you don't believe me, you can actually *do* this experiment. Don't play the lottery or go flying until your engine fails. Get a die. Pretend that rolling a six means your engine has failed. Now ask yourself: are you more likely to roll a six if you roll it once, or if you roll it 100 times? Clearly if you roll it once your chances are one in six, and if you roll it 100 times the chances of rolling AT LEAST ONE SIX in those hundred trials is very close to 1. (0.99999998792532652 to be precise). Otherwise, you are without a point Whereas you seem to have one on the top of your head. (I'll refrain from any implication that YOU are dimwitted, just 'cause that's the kind of guy I am). Hey, if the shoe fits, I'll wear it. Will you? rg |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: wrote in message ... [...] Of course your odds of having an engine failure with two engines is double of what it would be with one, and quadruple with four. Only approximately. The only reason doubling (or quadrupling) the number of engines doubles (or quadruples) the chance of an engine failure (approximately) is that the failure rate is so low. For example, if the failure rate were 50%, a doubling of that would cause you to expect an engine to fail each flight (a 100% chance of failure), when in fact the chance is actually only 75%. It is somewhat ironic that you should be the one to point this out in light of the argument we are having in another branch of this thread because this is precisely the point I was making. The condition of the probability of failure on a single trial P being low is precisely the condition that allows you to approximate the formula for cumulative failure 1-(1-P)^N as P*N. If you think about it, there is absolutely no difference in the risk calculation between making one flight with four engines and four flights with one engine (except insofar as the probability of failure for one engine over four flights are not quite independent of each other if it's the same engine each time). rg |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Running out of fuel is not my idea of "engine failure".
Well, statistically, it is THE reason for engine failure. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |