Text 23869, 102 rader
Skriven 2012-04-19 12:20:00 av MICHAEL LOO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GLEN JAMIESON
Ärende: 1 t/o 1 l 556
=====================
 ML> Considering that the cost incurred from a planeful of casualties
 ML> would exceed the value of the aircraft itself, safety is the
 ML> largest concern.
 GJ> Everything is a compromise, including safety.  No transport is 100%
 GJ> safe, as indicated by the regular crashes of flying machines, ships,
 GJ> cars and bicycles.

I am not claiming that "Ted wants you to be SAFE!" the way
a certain retired preflight announcement did. I am claiming
that the ensurance of life and limb is the most important
concern for the airlines because of the cost factor. If the
savings in not doing safety inspections and repairs were
such that they could cover the cost of a few passenger
losses, the airlines would be perfectly happy to lose some
hulls here and there. Alaska and Southwest have among others
been implicated in failure to inspect and repair, with
embarrassing and in one fairly recent case disastrous results.

   The first requirement of an aircraft is that it
 GJ> should fly and carry a revenue-earning load of passengers and/or
 GJ> cargo.

This is quite different from the first requirement of an
airline, which is to survive fiscally intact. It was pointed
out by me and others that back in the 1980s and 1990s the
best way for United (to take a pertinent example) to turn a
profit would be to leave the passenger carrier business
altogether. There was a diversificatory period in which it
bought various other enterprises - computer companies, car
rental companies (I forget which), and the Hilton and Westin
hotels. Unfortunately, it continued to stick with its original
mission, and as air transportation became more unprofitable,
instead of doing what was sensible and shut down, it divested
its profitable operations to gain vast infusions of liquidity,
which it promptly squandered, with the most serious blow
coming in the downturn after September 11, 2001.

 GJ> Safety is very important, but when you read that vital structural
 GJ> components of most modern aircraft have to be inspected regularly and
 GJ> if cracks exceed the allowable size, the bits have to be replaced,
 GJ> that may give cause for worry.

The airlines are skating that thin maintenance line, always have.
What skews the system in favor of my peace of mind is the fact
that the potential cost of losing me (and 100-300 equivalent others) 
is prohibitive.

 GJ> One of the interesting features of metals is that some metals, such as
 GJ> steel, will develop fatigue cracks if repeatedly stressed beyond their
 GJ> "endurance limit", but if stressed less than that limit, they will
 GJ> never fail, no matter how many times the stress is repeated.  BUT,
 GJ> most metals, in particular aluminium alloys, have no such endurance
 GJ> limit, and will eventually fail under repeated stress.  Aeroplanes are

Returning to someplace where you have useful information to
convey, I like that very much.

 GJ> in cycling of stresses.  Main components, such as wings and fuselages
 GJ> should last the normal life of the aircraft without failure, but
 GJ> should still be checked regularly for developing cracks.  Some early
 GJ> 737s used for frequent short-haul routes have had fuselage failures.

Indeed. Other aircraft of Boeing and other manufacture as well.

 GJ> I hope this hasn't frightened you too much, but if worried about what
 GJ> plane to fly in, look for something that has been in service without
 GJ> failure for a couple of years, but not an ancient jet that is near the
 GJ> end of its life.

That has not been a major concern for me, though I must admit
that I have avoided airlines that employ MD-8x and MD-9x aircraft
(Delta and American, mostly) using that partially as an excuse.

 ML> You seem to have an overplus of respect for those physically
 ML> larger than yourself.
 GJ> Self-preservation breeds such respect.

I don't worry about those larger than myself. I worry about
those more skillful than myself. And firearms and other
loud noise producing machinery.

------------- Recipe Extracted from Meal-Master (tm) v6.30 ------------------

     Title: CATHY'S BAKED CHICKEN
Categories: Poultry Main dish Low-cal
  Servings:  4

      2 ea Chicken breasts, halved             1 c  Fresh bread crumbs
    1/2 t  Onion powder                      1/2 t  Garlic powder
    1/4 t  Cayenne pepper                    1/8 t  Ground ginger
    1/3 c  Plain low-fat yogurt

  Preheat oven to 400F. Lightly spray a medium size shallow baking dish
  with vegetable spray. Rinse chicken and pat dry.  In a shallow pan,
  combine bread crumbs, onion powder, garlic powder, cayenne pepper and
  ginger.  Dip chicken in yogurt, then into crumb mixture.  Place in
  prepared dish. Bake uncovered, 45 to 50 min, or until tender.
  Source: cyberealm bbs

-----
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 And Still Here. Join Us: www.DocsPl (1:123/140)