Originally Posted by
LeadSled
Bull,
Go back and re-read ##42 and ##43, you are missing Dick's whole point.
Tootle pip!!
No, you're missing the point. Dick is implying that, by allowing twin engine ETOPS, they are making air travel less safe. The statistical data simply doesn't back that up.
Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
TDracer. I have not made any claim based on gut feeling.
I take advice from experts. And I use commonsense to decide which advice is correct when there are differences.
I can can see why you post anonymously!
I see, you can't back up your posts with data, so you resort to insults. Nice....
If you'd bothered to talk to actual certification experts, you'd know that 'safe'
is clearly defined in the certification regulations - in short is says if the probability of a catastrophic outcome is less than one in a billion flight hours (i.e. 10-9/hr), it's safe. ETOPS regulations are based on that requirement. Every critical system on the aircraft is certified based on that one in a billion requirement.
Any aviation expert worth their salt would know that. Somehow your experts don't. I guess that's why your experts are anonymous.
You repeatedly
imply that ETOPS is somehow less safe, but never actually say it in so many words, then proclaim "
I have not made any claim" . You clearly have an agenda - you're not fooling anyone.
You could just as well start a thread that asks 'when will a quad end up in the drink?'. It's clearly an unanswerable rhetorical question. Funny thing about random events, no one seems to know when they will happen.
BTW, as far as my handle and posting anonymously, anyone who really cared could figure out who I am in about five minutes - people who know me immediately recognize it as my nickname. Heck it's on my license plate.