Do not answer Mxsmanic

[Greg Farris]

He is not a pilot - yet argues with the most experienced of them.

He does not participate in any threads other than the ones he initiates,
which should serve as ample proof of his disingenuous nature.

He throws out threads to provoke regulars here, admitting he "knows
nothing" then argues and bickers to death with experienced pilots and
instructors who offer to share some real world experience.

His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
intentions.

Skylune is a blessing compared to this guy.

Leave this virus alone, and perhaps it will go away.

[tony roberts[_1_]]

But this brings to mind the time when I broke my ankle, and after they
took the cast off it felt weird -
I kinda missed it.
Will I get withdrawal?
Is there a support group?
Heeelllp Meeeeee

Tony

transpose Tony and "you're becoming a pain in the ass" to reach me by
email.

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE


In article >,
Greg Farris > wrote:

> He is not a pilot - yet argues with the most experienced of them.
>
> He does not participate in any threads other than the ones he initiates,
> which should serve as ample proof of his disingenuous nature.
>
> He throws out threads to provoke regulars here, admitting he "knows
> nothing" then argues and bickers to death with experienced pilots and
> instructors who offer to share some real world experience.
>
> His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
> meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
> intentions.
>
> Skylune is a blessing compared to this guy.
>
> Leave this virus alone, and perhaps it will go away.

[Peter R.]

Greg Farris > wrote:

> Leave this virus alone, and perhaps it will go away.

He's still around? Not in my rec.aviation.piloting, he nor his threads
are not.

--
Peter

[Skylune[_2_]]

Greg Farris wrote:
> He is not a pilot - yet argues with the most experienced of them.
>
> He does not participate in any threads other than the ones he initiates,
> which should serve as ample proof of his disingenuous nature.
>
> He throws out threads to provoke regulars here, admitting he "knows
> nothing" then argues and bickers to death with experienced pilots and
> instructors who offer to share some real world experience.
>
> His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
> meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
> intentions.
>
> Skylune is a blessing compared to this guy.
>
> Leave this virus alone, and perhaps it will go away.

Why, that's the worst thing anyone has ever said about me, including
the "FU" from Foley.
I must redouble my efforts!

[Gary Drescher]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> He is not a pilot - yet argues with the most experienced of them.

I'm worried that you may give the wrong impression of what the issue is with
this particular contributor, possibly discouraging legitimate participants
from posting here. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone arguing
with the experts, if the person is well informed and argues in good faith
(citing sources for factual claims, for instance).

> He does not participate in any threads other than the ones he initiates,

I don't see why there'd be anything inherently wrong with that, either. (And
he does in fact participate in other threads.)

--Gary

[Jim Logajan]

"Skylune" > wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
>> Skylune is a blessing compared to this guy.
>
> Why, that's the worst thing anyone has ever said about me, including
> the "FU" from Foley.
> I must redouble my efforts!

I see you're posting from Google Groups these days (which prepends the ">"
to the quoted lines, unlike the last Usenet front end you used, which
didn't quote using standard conventions). You also seem to have a sense of
humor. And you properly bottom post. Tsk - you're downright civilized and
practically part of the piloting family now! Yup - you'll need to try
harder!

;-)

[Jay Somerset]

I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

'Nuff said? :-)

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:02:32 +0200, Greg Farris > wrote:

> He is not a pilot - yet argues with the most experienced of them.
>
> He does not participate in any threads other than the ones he initiates,
> which should serve as ample proof of his disingenuous nature.
>
> He throws out threads to provoke regulars here, admitting he "knows
> nothing" then argues and bickers to death with experienced pilots and
> instructors who offer to share some real world experience.
>
> His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
> meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
> intentions.
>
> Skylune is a blessing compared to this guy.
>
> Leave this virus alone, and perhaps it will go away.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jay Somerset >> wrote:

> I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
> rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

or feeding.trolls.

>
> 'Nuff said? :-)

er...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[randall g]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
>> wrote:

>I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
>rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.

So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.






randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"randall g" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
> >> wrote:
>
>>I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
>>rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.
>
> So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.
>

And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
their answers are wrong.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "randall g" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>>I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
>>>rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.
>>
>> So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.
>>
>
> And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
> their answers are wrong.

Something akin to high schoolers arguing economics with Dr. Thomas Sowell:
www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081798.html

[randall g]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:15:45 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"randall g" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:52:54 -0400, Jay Somerset
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>>I tend to agree, and might remind folks that the name of this NG is
>>>rec.aviation.PILOTING, not rec.aviation.SIMULATORS or rec.aviation.GAMES.
>>
>> So what? He's asking real live pilots stuff about real live piloting.
>>
>
>And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
>their answers are wrong.

So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
to participate in or read those threads.





randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

randall g wrote:
>
> So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
> to participate in or read those threads.


It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.

He's not interested in your answers to his questions. He's interested in
demonstrating his superiority to you in aviation matters. The fact that he's
never flown matters not. The fact that you may be infinitely more experienced
does not qualify you to answer his questions in his mind. If it did, how could
his aviation knowledge be superior to yours?

He claims he's been flying sims for 15 years, then he asks if a rudder is
required for coordinated flight? Is that a legitimate question for a 15 year
"pilot"? People try to straighten him out but it would take more time than I
still have on this earth. So many misconceptions, so little willingness to
learn. He's a troll; nothing more.

I should killfile him but I keep finding myself drawn to his posts like a moth
to a flame... I'm never disappointed as he seldom says anything cogent to real
pilots. But he says what he says with such conviction!

Some newbie is going to read one of his pronouncements, believe it, and it's
going to get him killed. Numbnuts will just tsk, tsk the death as the
inevitable proof of his assertion that aviation is unsafe.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[swag]

I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> randall g wrote:
> >
> > So what? It still relates to piloting does it not? Nobody is forcing you
> > to participate in or read those threads.
>
>
> It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
> and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
> answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.
>
> He's not interested in your answers to his questions. He's interested in
> demonstrating his superiority to you in aviation matters. The fact that he's
> never flown matters not. The fact that you may be infinitely more experienced
> does not qualify you to answer his questions in his mind. If it did, how could
> his aviation knowledge be superior to yours?
>
> He claims he's been flying sims for 15 years, then he asks if a rudder is
> required for coordinated flight? Is that a legitimate question for a 15 year
> "pilot"? People try to straighten him out but it would take more time than I
> still have on this earth. So many misconceptions, so little willingness to
> learn. He's a troll; nothing more.
>
> I should killfile him but I keep finding myself drawn to his posts like a moth
> to a flame... I'm never disappointed as he seldom says anything cogent to real
> pilots. But he says what he says with such conviction!
>
> Some newbie is going to read one of his pronouncements, believe it, and it's
> going to get him killed. Numbnuts will just tsk, tsk the death as the
> inevitable proof of his assertion that aviation is unsafe.
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Emily]

swag wrote:
> I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
> message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
> he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
> instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
> any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
> responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
> points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.

Um, he's saying that multiengine rated pilots who don't own twins don't
know what they are talking about. How is that a rational argument?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
randall g > wrote:

> >And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
> >their answers are wrong.
>
> So what?

His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
point of making is useless.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[randall g]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:50:58 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >,
> randall g > wrote:
>
>> >And then he spends the next 20 posts in the thread arguing with them that
>> >their answers are wrong.
>>
>> So what?
>
>His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
>point of making is useless.


That is nowhere near happening here.






randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Morgans[_2_]]

>>His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
>>point of making is useless.

>
> That is nowhere near happening here.

How do you know how many have stopped checking in here, because they do not want
to wade through the high number of irrelevant and unnecessary posts? Almost
every thread gets invaded, whether he started it or not.

I know I am getting close to quiting reading this group for a while, and I have
been reading it for a very long time. I simply don't have enough time for the
nonsense.

I think you are underestimating the power of the troll.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:


>
>
>
> It diverts energy from the newsgroup. If you have limited time to read and post
> and you **** away two thirds of it reading his lectures and the resulting
> answers, then you have very little time left for legitimate posts.

Are you really that dumb? No matter what I or anybody else posts you
just have to read it? Are you kidding me? I bet I don't read 60-70% of
what's posted here. It just doesn't interest me.

[swag]

OK Emily--you made me go back and reread every single one of his posts
to the group to see if he ever said any such thing and the answer is
that he did not. You may have interpolated that if one of his
statements or questions called into question a statement by a
multiengine rated pilot he was saying such a thing. But my reading of
every one of his posts was that he never called anyone a name and he
never said "you don't know what you're talking about." Several of his
questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
uses cheaper fuel?" were treated with disdain. One respondent said
"You can look it up on google, so quit wasting our time." People are
reacting to him with negativity that seems from this casual (and
multiengine owner and rated) observer's perspective to be unearned and
(since everyone seems to cite their negativity as emanating from the
fact that as owners and pilots they must know more than him) quite
bigoted.

Emily wrote:
> swag wrote:
> > I would disagree . I have read with some entertainment the recent 200+
> > message thread about multiengine airplanes and have been impressed that
> > he has been putting forth arguments that were made by my flight
> > instructors and best pilot friends. And he has been doing it without
> > any resort to ad hominem constructs. There have been two categories of
> > responses to him. In my opinion, those that try to emphasize their
> > points with name calling only reflect badly on themselves.
>
> Um, he's saying that multiengine rated pilots who don't own twins don't
> know what they are talking about. How is that a rational argument?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
randall g > wrote:

> >His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
> >point of making is useless.
>
> That is nowhere near happening here.

yeah, right.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily]

swag wrote:
> OK Emily--you made me go back and reread every single one of his posts
> to the group to see if he ever said any such thing and the answer is
> that he did not.

First, you did not read every single one of his posts in the several
hours since I posted. Nice try, but it just isn't possible, I don't
care how fast you read.

You may have interpolated that if one of his
> statements or questions called into question a statement by a
> multiengine rated pilot he was saying such a thing. But my reading of
> every one of his posts was that he never called anyone a name and he
> never said "you don't know what you're talking about."

No, he's too good of a troll for that. But when Chris said he was an
MEI, MX's repsonse was, "But do you own a twin?" Does he believe an MEI
who does not own a twin knows less than an MEI who does? It doesn't
work that way. He DID basically tell Chris that he didn't know what he
was talking about.


> questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
> than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
> uses cheaper fuel?"

If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
learning to do.

[swag]

I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
thread. But thanks for the ad hominem towards me.

Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
interpret it as a legitimate query. I wrestled with many of these
arguments for a long time before changing from single to twin. I had
my MEL for 8 years before changing from single to twin. The pros and
cons are numerous and I did not find any of his points specious.

Finally, Emily, I do have a lot of learning to do. I admit it.

Emily wrote:
> swag wrote:
> > OK Emily--you made me go back and reread every single one of his posts
> > to the group to see if he ever said any such thing and the answer is
> > that he did not.
>
> First, you did not read every single one of his posts in the several
> hours since I posted. Nice try, but it just isn't possible, I don't
> care how fast you read.
>
> You may have interpolated that if one of his
> > statements or questions called into question a statement by a
> > multiengine rated pilot he was saying such a thing. But my reading of
> > every one of his posts was that he never called anyone a name and he
> > never said "you don't know what you're talking about."
>
> No, he's too good of a troll for that. But when Chris said he was an
> MEI, MX's repsonse was, "But do you own a twin?" Does he believe an MEI
> who does not own a twin knows less than an MEI who does? It doesn't
> work that way. He DID basically tell Chris that he didn't know what he
> was talking about.
>
>
> > questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
> > than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
> > uses cheaper fuel?"
>
> If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
> learning to do.

[randall g]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:30:47 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>swag wrote:

>> questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
>> than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
>> uses cheaper fuel?"
>
>If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
>learning to do.


I am a low time private pilot, and I learn from discussions like this.
Insult away.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Emily]

swag wrote:
> I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
> few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
> thread.

My mistake. I assumed you'd read every one of his inane questions in
every thread. Without doing that, you simply can't see the big picture.

> Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
> perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
> interpret it as a legitimate query.

How? Is an MEI who does not own a twin a lesser pilot than one who
does? I think not.

[Emily]

randall g wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:30:47 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>> swag wrote:
>
>>> questions which seemed legit , like--"why is a turboprop more expensive
>>> than a piston, since it has fewer moving parts, is more reliable, and
>>> uses cheaper fuel?"
>> If you honestly believe that is a legit question, you have a lot of
>> learning to do.
>
>
> I am a low time private pilot, and I learn from discussions like this.
> Insult away.

How was that an insult? I was simply saying it's not a legitimate
question.

[swag]

I did not choose to view the question in that vein. I choose to view
it as why indeed does someone have a rating and not choose a multi to
own? Is it safety? is it cost? is it task intensity? If a person who
teaches the rating chooses not to own, perhaps it is a decision worth
examining. It is actually an interesting question. I had the rating
for a long time and flew a single. But I was predominantly flying over
the cornfields of Illinois. Now my home base is the piney woods of
Arkansas and I have chosen to triple the costs of flying in order to
increase my safety margin. In the six months since I have had the
airplane, one engine blew an oil seal, and I was able to get to an
airport safely. So I am happy with my decision. Although my friends
who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
a non turbocharged single.

Emily wrote:
> swag wrote:
> > I did in fact read every one of his posts, and that was easy to do in a
> > few minutes. There really aren't that many authored by him in that
> > thread.
>
> My mistake. I assumed you'd read every one of his inane questions in
> every thread. Without doing that, you simply can't see the big picture.
>
> > Asking if someone who is an MEI owns a twin may be interpreted in a
> > perjorative vein or not depending on your inclination. I choose to
> > interpret it as a legitimate query.
>
> How? Is an MEI who does not own a twin a lesser pilot than one who
> does? I think not.

[Emily]

swag wrote:
> I did not choose to view the question in that vein. I choose to view
> it as why indeed does someone have a rating and not choose a multi to
> own? Is it safety? is it cost? is it task intensity? If a person who
> teaches the rating chooses not to own, perhaps it is a decision worth
> examining.

What about those MEI's among us who don't own a plane at all? I'm not a
poor instructor because I DON'T own one.

The fact is, that's not how his question was posed. CJ posted that he
was an MEI, and MX asked if he owned a twin. Clearly, he was
insinuating that an MEI doesn't know what he is talking about if he
doesn't own a twin.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Newps wrote:
> Are you really that dumb? No matter what I or anybody else posts you
> just have to read it? Are you kidding me? I bet I don't read 60-70% of
> what's posted here. It just doesn't interest me.


No, I'm not that dumb. The people here are. They're the ones who waste their
time answering him. I don't bother answering him; I just insult him.
Apparently that's a waste of time as well, since he keeps getting what he wants
from the group anyway.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

swag wrote:
>Although my friends
> who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
> an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
> a non turbocharged single.


Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
twin; you have twice as many engines. But that's neither here nor there. The
real issue is who suffers the higher injury/death rate after an engine failure.
That should be the bottom line.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
>>> His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
>>> point of making is useless.
>>
>> That is nowhere near happening here.
>
> yeah, right.



Every day a new adventure...



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[swag]

Well it's clearly the bottom line for me but it comes at a cost
differential. And I'm not sure that I really know the answer to that
question, but I think I do. I think that in the piney woods of
Arkansas, a single is in big trouble.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> swag wrote:
> >Although my friends
> > who are still in singles argue (with some validity) that my chance of
> > an engine failure in a turbocharged twin in much higher than theirs in
> > a non turbocharged single.
>
>
> Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
> twin; you have twice as many engines. But that's neither here nor there. The
> real issue is who suffers the higher injury/death rate after an engine failure.
> That should be the bottom line.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

swag writes:

> I wrestled with many of these
> arguments for a long time before changing from single to twin. I had
> my MEL for 8 years before changing from single to twin.

What finally motivated you to change to a twin?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

> Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure in a
> twin; you have twice as many engines.

Not quite twice the chance, but close.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Randall,

> >
> >His actions are typical of trolls that are out to pollute a newsgroup to the
> >point of making is useless.
>
>
> That is nowhere near happening here.
>

I disagree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
>
> > Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure
in a
> > twin; you have twice as many engines.
>
> Not quite twice the chance, but close.

Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?

1 + 1 = 2.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Greg Farris wrote:
> His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
> meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
> intentions.

Two words: kill file. My r.a.p is blissfully Mxsmanic-free. Let those who
want to deal with him deal with him, for the rest, there's the filter.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:b_pXg.2662$lj2.229@trndny01...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:
>>
>> > Of course you have twice as much chance of suffering an engine failure
> in a
>> > twin; you have twice as many engines.
>>
>> Not quite twice the chance, but close.
>
> Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?
>
> 1 + 1 = 2.

No, he's right. It's not basic arithmetic, it's basic probability theory. If
events A and B are independent, then P(A or B) is not P(A)+P(B). Rather,
it's P(A)+P(B)-P(A and B).

For example, consider the probability that at least one of two coin flips
will come up heads. It's not .5+.5=1; rather, it's .5+.5-.5*.5=0.75.

As he said, though, it's close. If the probability of each of the events is
very small, then the probability of their conjunction is comparatively
negligible, and the simple sum of the probabilities is a close approximation
to the probability of the disjunction.

--Gary

[houstondan]

Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
> > His only intention here is to provoke, then watch the show as well
> > meaning people fall victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good
> > intentions.
>
> Two words: kill file. My r.a.p is blissfully Mxsmanic-free. Let those who
> want to deal with him deal with him, for the rest, there's the filter.

////////////

aha!

is it not proof of the success of his evil plot that even tho you
claim to be "blissfully Mxsmaniac-free" you have been successfully
enlisted in aid of his "vicarious game(??!?)" by participating in a
thread where he is the subject and indeed personally typing HIS name on
your very own personal computer while sitting on your own personal home
in your bunny slippers and shorts thus invoking the name of evil
yourownself?

aha indeed sir!!

i've always had a fondness for illiterate censors and book burners who
show up with a weenie-on-a-stick.

actually, the more i read your first paragraph; " His only intention
here is to provoke, then watch the show as well meaning people fall
victim to his vicarious game, and to their own good intentions." the
more i like it except that word "vicarious" seems unfortunate. i may
just steal that one for my epitaph.

you may resume...i rest.

dan

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?
>
> 1 + 1 = 2.

If the probability of any single engine failing is p, then the
probability of either of two engines failing is 1-(1-p)^2. So if p =
0.001, the probability of a failure with a single is 0.001, and the
probability of a failure with a twin is 0.001999--not twice the
probability of a failure in a single.

If the probability of a failure were one in ten, the probability for a
single would be 10%, and the probability for a twin would be 19%.

If you flip a coin once, the probability that you will get heads at
least once is 50%. If you flip a coin twice, the probability that you
will get heads at least once is 75%--not 100%.

It requires slightly more than basic arithmetic, as you can see.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?
> >
> > 1 + 1 = 2.
>
> If the probability of any single engine failing is p, then the
> probability of either of two engines failing is 1-(1-p)^2.


BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT Wrong again stupid.

Try running your coin toss through this formula.

Tails = engine failure. 50% chance of failure.

Lemme know how you make out.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT Wrong again stupid.
>
> Try running your coin toss through this formula.

I did.

Chance of heads on one toss = 0.50

Chance of heads at least once on two tosses = 1-((1-0.50)*(1-0.50)) =
0.75

Chance of engine failure on single = 0.001

Chance of at least one engine failure with two engines =
1-((1-0.001)*(1-0.001)) = 0.001999

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:35:28 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Steve Foley writes:
>>
>> > Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?
>> >
>> > 1 + 1 = 2.
>>
>> If the probability of any single engine failing is p, then the
>> probability of either of two engines failing is 1-(1-p)^2.
>
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT Wrong again...

Let's assume that the probability of an engine failure is an
astronomically high 0.1% or p=0.001. That means that the probability
of the engine not failing is p = 1 - 0.001 = 0.999.
There are 4 possibilities in the sample space, assuming that the
engine failures are independent, which they sometimes are not:

1. no engine fails. p = 0.999 * 0.999 = 0.998001
2. right engine fails p = 0.999 * 0.001 = 0.000999
3. left engine fails p = 0.001 * 0.999 = 0.000999
4. both engines fail p = 0.001 * 0.001 = 0.000001

Adding all these probabilities gives us a total of 1, showing that the
math is correct.

Adding all the probabilities of any kind of engine failure gives us
0.000999 + 0.000999 + 0.000001 = 0.001999

If the probability of engine failure in a single engine aircraft
remains 0.001, then 0.001999 / 0.001 = 1.999, or pretty darn close to
two. Twice the probability of a failure.

However, the case that we're most interested in is the probability of
both engines failing. The probability of that happening is 0.000001,
one thousandth the probability of total power failure in a single.

What this means is that if you fly a twin, you have roughly twice the
chance that you're going to have to use your diligently honed
engine-out skills than if you were flying a single. It also means that
if your engine-out skills are up to par and you can successfully cope
with an engine emergency, you'll have only one thousandth the chance
of a forced landing due to power failure. That's what you're buying
with the extra cost, fuel, and training. That and more load capacity,
speed, and looking cooler than anyone else on the ramp.

RK Henry

[Neil Gould]

Recently, RK Henry > posted:
>
> However, the case that we're most interested in is the probability of
> both engines failing. The probability of that happening is 0.000001,
> one thousandth the probability of total power failure in a single.
>
> What this means is that if you fly a twin, you have roughly twice the
> chance that you're going to have to use your diligently honed
> engine-out skills than if you were flying a single. It also means that
> if your engine-out skills are up to par and you can successfully cope
> with an engine emergency, you'll have only one thousandth the chance
> of a forced landing due to power failure.
>
Well, I agree with your math up to your last point of there being only
..001 chance of a forced landing due to power failure because the data
doesn't support your conclusions.

Light twins with a single engine failure are sometimes forced to land, and
the percentage of those "landings" that are fatal is considerably higher
for twins than for singles (NTSB 2001 analysis: 27% vs. 17%), although a
higher percentage of the single engine fleet are involved in accidents
(.65% for twins vs. .88% for singles).

I'd surmise that if both engines failed, many critical decisions would be
made for you, and you could then concentrate on engine out skills or
forced landings that would increase the likelihood of survival.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/ARG0601.pdf

Neil

[RK Henry]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:26:19 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>Recently, RK Henry > posted:
>>
>> However, the case that we're most interested in is the probability of
>> both engines failing. The probability of that happening is 0.000001,
>> one thousandth the probability of total power failure in a single.
>>
>> What this means is that if you fly a twin, you have roughly twice the
>> chance that you're going to have to use your diligently honed
>> engine-out skills than if you were flying a single. It also means that
>> if your engine-out skills are up to par and you can successfully cope
>> with an engine emergency, you'll have only one thousandth the chance
>> of a forced landing due to power failure.
>>
>Well, I agree with your math up to your last point of there being only
>.001 chance of a forced landing due to power failure because the data
>doesn't support your conclusions.
>
>Light twins with a single engine failure are sometimes forced to land, and
>the percentage of those "landings" that are fatal is considerably higher
>for twins than for singles (NTSB 2001 analysis: 27% vs. 17%), although a
>higher percentage of the single engine fleet are involved in accidents
>(.65% for twins vs. .88% for singles).
>
>I'd surmise that if both engines failed, many critical decisions would be
>made for you, and you could then concentrate on engine out skills or
>forced landings that would increase the likelihood of survival.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/ARG0601.pdf

Agreed. The analysis is a purely a priori probability model based on a
wild ass assumption. The real world, which is where most of us live,
is a lot more complicated. Many factors affect the outcome.

RK Henry

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:A1vXg.2851$lj2.2800@trndny01...
>> > Basic arithmetic is beyond you too?
>> >
>> > 1 + 1 = 2.
>>
>> If the probability of any single engine failing is p, then the
>> probability of either of two engines failing is 1-(1-p)^2.
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT Wrong again stupid.

Honestly...before you go around using insulting language, you really ought
to make sure you're not the one being stupid.

> Try running your coin toss through this formula.
>
> Tails = engine failure. 50% chance of failure.
>
> Lemme know how you make out.

If you had done the same experiment, you'd have found that his formula is
correct. When the probability of an engine failure is 50%, then when one
engine, you have a 50% chance of failure, and with two engines you have a
75% chance of failure. That is, in fact, what his formula states.

So, to sum up, two things are correct in this thread:

* The chance of failure of any one of N items is not, strictly speaking,
the arithmetic sum of the chance of failure for one of those items alone.

* When the chance of failure is low, the actual chance of failure for
any one of those N items does turn out to be very close to the arithmetic
sum, even though that's not exactly the correct answer.

To any degree of precision relevant to a pilot, a twin has essentially twice
the chance of an engine failure that a single does. But it is true that it
is not *exactly* twice the chance of an engine failure.

Pete