X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:06:57 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm3-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.19] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6562502 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 05:31:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.91.19; envelope-from=casey.gary@yahoo.com Received: from [98.138.90.55] by nm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2013 09:31:17 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.240] by tm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2013 09:31:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Oct 2013 09:31:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 763286.8280.bm@omp1013.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 86199 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Oct 2013 09:31:17 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sra003x7UE5NOK5EqmsppN/OvoYm1cKWaKmVWAEPu1WNuAJQSCeM7cbK8U9GANepuiZJRdbJRd0KjtS+biuwdJ4+iE//MkiUXRN9+g1YL6H27aYPZqzU1mORY6mM+6nWPibsBvbtubkBvbvHo0BPja6fM34TTfr42319Ak1NMg0=; X-YMail-OSG: EJjtBZQVM1nJwkpyPKTg6_mShCXeZtUwkf2QACvUcIRyrlH epcPTKewYwc116InVXH1AtjtV__HQnF62LNPMl.GG6ufND2N2aGanyK8BTTc mqizR37_kW8.j3RQH5A6EiOvmg0nfq794iQv4zNUFy8.AICMaJEttIZXUhqj oYgt7ZycpoeDnGyQdVlCrUTYLWhWL7iEQ9Z7aLtRKv8FK3EEeQqzhDyq1SMO pdBCZ84jP0AqO5EADKYhhtBNmEELEKJ8l.nfsjB7W4UZ7krNSBBqhgZ5uQ3R RWRoxuBjGJTbwxzQdjxCnhSuAgqZo6EniuRUoYcfm12IROKb_o2NV3CxXEqw HF8vauC01kwmFiXExam335_HF6z00pDJDnBN0xEycMEgU_KLzZgO.U5wCsEh GzWdA.RVkfpReAOYEPJDyWSmrPE42D7emDUO.Eq_DFfoIqSKMx8W1PyymOtV 14jAk7eItyZv8DMIjgJx.fmAS3WUCzWyTlzNBbOr18bQScfOZj4FGuyhAIMP LxzXMgJ8Pi4AxPbwjSbc_yS8aoeHv5W4B6A7.Bim0a7egV12V8Unvc3rXirX 3VgsYGcTZON0FG22ns7Gcb_8- Received: from [97.92.63.83] by web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:31:17 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,SSdtIHN1cmUgQ29seW4gd2FzIHJlZmVycmluZyB0byBteSBleHBlcmllbmNlIHdpdGggdGhlIExpZ2h0c3BlZWQgKElJSSkgc3lzdGVtIHRoYXQgZmFpbGVkIDMgdGltZXMgaW4gbGVzcyB0aGFuIDQwMCBob3VycyAoSSdtIG9uIG15IDR0aCBvbmUsIG1ha2luZyAzIGZhaWx1cmVzLCBub3QgNCwgYnV0IEknbGwgc3RheSB3aXRoIDQgZm9yIHRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIGRpc2N1c3Npb24pLiDCoFJlZ2FyZGxlc3MsIDQgZmFpbHVyZXMgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBtYWRlIGZvciBhIHBlci1ob3VyIGZhaWx1cmUgcmF0ZSABMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.160.587 X-Original-Message-ID: <1382607077.82892.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 02:31:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary Casey Reply-To: Gary Casey Subject: Re: Hot TITs on X country leg. LIVP X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-955686164-311179152-1382607077=:82892" ---955686164-311179152-1382607077=:82892 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm sure Colyn was referring to my experience with the Lightspeed (III) sys= tem that failed 3 times in less than 400 hours (I'm on my 4th one, making 3= failures, not 4, but I'll stay with 4 for the purpose of discussion). =A0R= egardless, 4 failures would have made for a per-hour failure rate of 1%, mu= ch, much worse than his .001% that he says is the fleet average. =A0Okay, b= ut the sample size is very small, making the statistic very weak. =A0If we = add one other plane to the statistic, another ES that I know of that has ov= er 1,000 hours on dual Lightspeeds with no failures, the number now is 4 fa= ilures in 2,400 hours, or an hourly failure rate of 0.17%, 6 times "better.= " =A0Still not good, but it illustrates the weakness of coming to a conclus= ion from such a small data set.=0AGary=0A=0A=0AColyn posted:=0A=0ASo to get= to GA accident rates we as a fleet have free of failures that=0Acould cont= ribute to a fatality (on all systems including the pilot) 99.999%=0Aof the = hours flown.=0A=0AA system that fails 1% of the hours flown is about 1000 t= imes more dangerous=0Athan that.=0A=0ASomething to think about when selecti= ng components.=0A ---955686164-311179152-1382607077=:82892 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm sure Colyn was referring to my experience with the L= ightspeed (III) system that failed 3 times in less than 400 hours (I'm on m= y 4th one, making 3 failures, not 4, but I'll stay with 4 for the purpose o= f discussion).  Regardless, 4 failures would have made for a per-hour = failure rate of 1%, much, much worse than his .001% that he says is the fle= et average.  Okay, but the sample size is very small, making the stati= stic very weak.  If we add one other plane to the statistic, another E= S that I know of that has over 1,000 hours on dual Lightspeeds with no fail= ures, the number now is 4 failures in 2,400 hours, or an hourly failure rat= e of 0.17%, 6 times "better."  Still not good, but it illustrates the = weakness of coming to a conclusion from such a small data set.
Gary

Colyn posted:

So to get to GA accident rates we as a fleet h= ave free of failures that
= could contribute to a fatal= ity (on all systems including the pilot) 99.999%
o= f the hours flown.

A system that fails 1% of the hours flown is about 1000 times more = dangerous
than that.

Something to think about when s= electing components.
---955686164-311179152-1382607077=:82892--