tucumseh said:
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?
I did not
hint at anything of the kind, I simply used the analogy, as did TD, to highlight certain points; not to compare the maintenance and operating of the 2 types of vehicle.
My first point was in connection with the statement by TD that only some areas of the Nimrod are checked during the AF/BF maintenance procedures. My point was that this is true of any vehicle. You check what is known to be a major potential hazard or what you know to have a history of failure - you do not, and can not, check EVERY single item of the aircraft (or car). I will use this again to help you understand - do you check your brake pipes at the start and end of every journey? No? Why not? These are a potential source for the cause a major accident. You don't check them because there is no recognised history on your car of them failing and as such do not fall under the normal items to be checked. You probably do, however, check your tyres regularly.
My second analogy was used to highlight the differences in the rate, severity and potential risks to the vehicle of leaking liquids (be it fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids or water). A slight seep and a steady flow are both leaks, but one is acceptable whilst the other is not.
And Beags, I am fully aware of the differences between Nimrod and airline ages and operations, I was simply pointing out that nobody in the aviation industry checks EVERY component of the aircraft,
just in case. Even vintage bi-planes probably do not have every single nut, connection and component checked before every flight - although I imagine the checks would be more thorough than those carried out on a C172. Nimrods undergo hours of checks during turns, but you can not check every single component for every flight - that is what minor and major servicing is for.
MadMark!!!
