X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:03:11 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c4) with ESMTP id 2622729 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:45 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.c43.23fe4b85 (41811) for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:02 -0500 (EST) From: VTAILJEFF@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:26:02 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Reliability Question X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1198855562" X-Mailer: AOL 9.0 VR sub 5006 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1198855562 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/27/2007 8:47:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, rwolf99@aol.com writes: By the way, I personally don't believe the failure probability numbers that the systems safety engineers come up with. I believe that the actual rate of failure is significantly higher. Rob, You are correct. The actual rate can be higher. In actuality the numbers 1 x 10 (-9) is probably for Part 25 aircraft (airliners) and not GA (Part 23) where the allowed failure rate I believe is lower. However, I *do* believe that using this methodology has given us a fleet of aircraft whose reliability we are comfortable with. Comfort is a "state of mind"- not connected necessarily to reality. Jeff **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) -------------------------------1198855562 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 12/27/2007 8:47:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 rwolf99@aol.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>By the=20 way, I personally don't believe the failure probability numbers that the=20 systems safety engineers come up with.  I believe that the actual rat= e of=20 failure is significantly higher. 
 
Rob,
 
You are correct. The actual rate can be higher. In actuality the number= s 1=20 x 10 (-9) is probably for Part 25 aircraft (airliners) and not GA (Part 23)=20 where the allowed failure rate I believe is lower.
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>However,=20 I *do* believe that using this methodology has given us a fleet of aircraf= t=20 whose reliability we are comfortable with.
Comfort is a "state of mind"- not connected necessarily to reality.
 
Jeff



-------------------------------1198855562--