Re: Heathrow = Thrust Reversers deployed

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> >
> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm not
> >> 777 qualified.
> >
> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one FADEC
> > on each engine) would fail like that is seriously puzzling. Did they
> > possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ? That's given problems in the
> > past.
>
> Nope.

Yes it has.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote
> >> >
> >> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm not
> >> >> 777 qualified.
> >> >
> >> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one FADEC
> >> > on each engine) would fail like that is seriously puzzling. Did they
> >> > possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ? That's given problems in the
> >> > past.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Yes it has.
>
> Where's my money

Where are your answers ?

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm
>> >> >> not 777 qualified.
>> >> >
>> >> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one
>> >> > FADEC on each engine) would fail like that is seriously
>> >> > puzzling. Did they possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ?
>> >> > That's given problems in the past.
>> >>
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> > Yes it has.
>>
>> Where's my money
>
> Where are your answers ?
>


Where's my money? This ain't no charity, wannabe boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> >
>> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm not
>> >> 777 qualified.
>> >
>> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one FADEC
>> > on each engine) would fail like that is seriously puzzling. Did they
>> > possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ? That's given problems in the
>> > past.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yes it has.
>



Nope.


Bertie
>
>

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> Eeyore > wrote
> >> >
> >> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm not
> >> >> 777 qualified.
> >> >
> >> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one FADEC
> >> > on each engine) would fail like that is seriously puzzling. Did they
> >> > possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ? That's given problems in the
> >> > past.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Yes it has.
> >
>
> Nope.

This PROVES you WRONG !

"We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback
(reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes powered
by GE Model GE90-115B engines.

Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a software
algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software version A.0.4.5
(GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/07577b0b9213888985256930005117ca/0dd44fe2beb1f516862571f9006b5dad!OpenDocument

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote
>> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> How about digital equipment failure (soft or hard)? No, I'm
>> >> >> not 777 qualified.
>> >> >
>> >> > That seems a possibility although how 2 independent systems (one
>> >> > FADEC on each engine) would fail like that is seriously
>> >> > puzzling. Did they possibly have a recent firmware upgrade ?
>> >> > That's given problems in the past.
>> >>
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> > Yes it has.
>> >
>>
>> Nope.
>
> This PROVES you WRONG !
>
> "We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust
> rollback (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series
> airplanes powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines.
>
> Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a
> software algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software
> version A.0.4.5 (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/075
7
> 7b0b9213888985256930005117ca/0dd44fe2beb1f516862571f9006b5dad!
OpenDocum
> ent
>


Nope, it doesn't.

Wannabe boi.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> This PROVES you WRONG !
>
> "We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback
> (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes powered
> by GE Model GE90-115B engines.
>
> Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a software
> algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software version A.0.4.5
> (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "

I thought the BA 777 had Rolls-Royce engines.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> This PROVES you WRONG !
>>
>> "We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust
>> rollback (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series
>> airplanes powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines.
>>
>> Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a
>> software algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software
>> version A.0.4.5 (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "
>
> I thought the BA 777 had Rolls-Royce engines.
>

What does your's have? radio shack speakers?


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > This PROVES you WRONG !
> >
> > "We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback
> > (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes powered
> > by GE Model GE90-115B engines.
> >
> > Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a software
> > algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software version A.0.4.5
> > (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "
>
> I thought the BA 777 had Rolls-Royce engines.

It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which requires software.
Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.

My comment doesn't relate to who made the rotating machinery, but the opportunity
for a software induced failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > This PROVES you WRONG !
>> >
>> > "We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust
>> > rollback (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER
>> > series airplanes powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines.
>> >
>> > Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a
>> > software algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software
>> > version A.0.4.5 (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). "
>>
>> I thought the BA 777 had Rolls-Royce engines.
>
> It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which
> requires software. Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's
> controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>
> My comment doesn't relate to who made the rotating machinery, but the
> opportunity for a software induced failure.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FADEC
>


Wow, a clueless-clueless connection. These are always entertaining!

Bertie
>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which requires software.
> Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.

Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or elsewhere
(like an autopilot)?

Boeing never should have made the Airbus mistake.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which
>> requires software. Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's
>> controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>
> Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or
> elsewhere (like an autopilot)?


He doesn't fjukking know an more than you doo, idiiot.



Bertie
>

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which requires software.
> > Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>
> Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or elsewhere
> (like an autopilot)?

At least part of the FADEC system is installed right next to the engine itself. It's a
*system* not just one box.


> Boeing never should have made the Airbus mistake.

FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus. Do you think mechanical linkages
are any more reliable ?

Graham

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus.

I was thinking about the general move to fly-by-wire in recent Boeing
aircraft.

> Do you think mechanical linkages are any more reliable?

Absolutely. How often have mechanical throttle linkages for all engines
broken simultaneously in non-fly-by-wire airliners?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which
>> > requires software. Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's
>> > controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>>
>> Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or
>> elsewhere (like an autopilot)?
>
> At least part of the FADEC system is installed right next to the
> engine itself. It's a *system* not just one box.


Nope.
>
>
>> Boeing never should have made the Airbus mistake.
>
> FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus. Do you think
> mechanical linkages are any more reliable ?


Fjukkwit planespotter. At least you've flund a little friend at your same
level.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus.
>
> I was thinking about the general move to fly-by-wire in recent Boeing
> aircraft.
>
>> Do you think mechanical linkages are any more reliable?
>
> Absolutely. How often have mechanical throttle linkages for all engines
> broken simultaneously in non-fly-by-wire airliners?


Why, you don't fly anyway...


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus.
>
> I was thinking about the general move to fly-by-wire in recent Boeing
> aircraft.

Why just Boeing ?


> > Do you think mechanical linkages are any more reliable?
>
> Absolutely.

They're not.

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > FADEC happened long ago. It's nothing to do with Airbus.
>>
>> I was thinking about the general move to fly-by-wire in recent Boeing
>> aircraft.
>
> Why just Boeing ?


Oh this should be good.
>
>
>> > Do you think mechanical linkages are any more reliable?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> They're not.

Very good.

Bertie

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Eeyore writes:
>
>> It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which
>> requires software. Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's
>> controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>
> Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or
> elsewhere (like an autopilot)?
>
> Boeing never should have made the Airbus mistake.

Please remark that the so called "FADEC" is part of the engine and is mounted on the engine normally. It does not belong to the
aircraft manufacturer. There are other computers in the aircraft side to calculate the inputs to the FADEC. These computers
calculate the thrust demand and are giving this to the engine's FADEC.

Hope this helps.

--

Gruß Guybrush

>Mails landen im Mülleimer!<

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Guybrush Threepwood" > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>>> It does. But both the relevant RR and GE engines use FADEC which
>>> requires software. Neither engine has a mechanical throttle. It's
>>> controlled ENTIRELY by electronics.
>>
>> Is the FADEC part of the engine or a separate box in the cockpit or
>> elsewhere (like an autopilot)?
>>
>> Boeing never should have made the Airbus mistake.
>
> Please remark that the so called "FADEC" is part of the engine and is
> mounted on the engine normally. It does not belong to the aircraft
> manufacturer. There are other computers in the aircraft side to
> calculate the inputs to the FADEC. These computers calculate the
> thrust demand and are giving this to the engine's FADEC.
>
> Hope this helps.
>

Got Grog?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Why just Boeing ?

Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before Boeing.

> They're not.

So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
airliner?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Why just Boeing ?
>
> Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
> Boeing.
>
>> They're not.
>
> So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
> airliner?
>


Several, moron.

In fact, I've had a double throttle jam!





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Why just Boeing ?
>
> Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
> Boeing.
>
>> They're not.
>
> So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
> airliner?
>

Plenty, fjukkwit. I've had several double throttle jams myself, moron.


Bertie

[Chris Rowland]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Eeyore writes:
> >
> >> Why just Boeing ?
> >
> > Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
> > Boeing.
> >
> >> They're not.
> >
> > So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
> > airliner?
> >
>
> Plenty, fjukkwit. I've had several double throttle jams myself, moron.

Of course you have, flying your rubber band airplanes!

Say fjukkwit again, we can't get enough of your nonsense! Thank goodness
you are around to bless us.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Chris Rowland > wrote in news:4793793D.C8EE11E6
@spamners.quit:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Eeyore writes:
>> >
>> >> Why just Boeing ?
>> >
>> > Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
>> > Boeing.
>> >
>> >> They're not.
>> >
>> > So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on
an
>> > airliner?
>> >
>>
>> Plenty, fjukkwit. I've had several double throttle jams myself,
moron.
>
> Of course you have, flying your rubber band airplanes!
>
> Say fjukkwit again, we can't get enough of your nonsense! Thank
goodness
> you are around to bless us.
>
>



My pleasure

Really.



Bertie

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Why just Boeing ?
>
> Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
> Boeing.
>
>> They're not.
>
> So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
> airliner?

Mechanical throttle linkages went out with the DC3, all modern
aircraft since the 1950's have had electrical or electro-mechanical control
systems. Early engines so equipped include the Bristol Siddeley
Viper designed in 1953

While not used on commercial aircraft they have indeed caused failures
on GA aircraft, an airworthiness directive for the Pt-220C reads

<Quote>
Instances have been reported of throttle quadrants pulling off the fuselage
skin to which they were glued and nailed during manufacture. Both front and
rear cockpit throttle quadrants must therefore be inspected for looseness
immediately and if found loose must be repaired prior to the next flight
</Quote>


Think about the problem of running a mechanical control system
to the engine hanging on a Boeing 707 pylon. In fact FADEC's
have contributed to the far greater reliability of modern engines.

Keith

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>>> Why just Boeing ?
>>
>> Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before
>> Boeing.
>>
>>> They're not.
>>
>> So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
>> airliner?
>
> Mechanical throttle linkages went out with the DC3, all modern
> aircraft since the 1950's have had electrical or electro-mechanical
> control systems. Early engines so equipped include the Bristol
> Siddeley Viper designed in 1953

The brits were the ony ones who did that.
>
> While not used on commercial aircraft they have indeed caused failures
> on GA aircraft, an airworthiness directive for the Pt-220C reads
>
> <Quote>
> Instances have been reported of throttle quadrants pulling off the
> fuselage skin to which they were glued and nailed during manufacture.
> Both front and rear cockpit throttle quadrants must therefore be
> inspected for looseness immediately and if found loose must be
> repaired prior to the next flight </Quote>
>
>
> Think about the problem of running a mechanical control system
> to the engine hanging on a Boeing 707 pylon.


Actually, that is exaclty what they did have. Every boeing before this
one had a mechanical linkage up to the FCU. I'm absolutely sure about
this BTW.

Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Keith Willshaw writes:

> Mechanical throttle linkages went out with the DC3, all modern
> aircraft since the 1950's have had electrical or electro-mechanical control
> systems.

How often have those completely failed?

> While not used on commercial aircraft they have indeed caused failures
> on GA aircraft ...

GA aircraft are a different world.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
>> Mechanical throttle linkages went out with the DC3, all modern
>> aircraft since the 1950's have had electrical or electro-mechanical
>> control systems.
>
> How often have those completely failed?
>
>> While not used on commercial aircraft they have indeed caused
>> failures on GA aircraft ...
>
> GA aircraft are a different world.
>


No they aren't.


Bertie

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
> > Mechanical throttle linkages went out with the DC3, all modern
> > aircraft since the 1950's have had electrical or electro-mechanical control
> > systems.
>
> How often have those completely failed?

Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake stopped working
?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Why just Boeing ?
>
> Airbus made the FBW mistake almost from the beginning, years before Boeing.

It's not a mistake, it's the reason they're jockeying with Boeing for number
one supplier of airliners,


> > They're not.
>
> So, how many times have all mechanical throttle linkages broken on an
> airliner?

Too few airliners have them for relevant data to exist.

Graham

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake stopped working?

No.

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> It's not a mistake, it's the reason they're jockeying with Boeing for number
> one supplier of airliners,

I don't think so.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > It's not a mistake, it's the reason they're jockeying with Boeing for number
> > one supplier of airliners,
>
> I don't think so.

The efficiency of their wings has been another factor in their success too.

Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock back regarding
FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using carburettors instead of fuel
injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits are going to regain flight engineers).

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>> stopped working?
>
> No.
>

He's telling the truth


He's never had a car.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote

> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake stopped
> working

Yep. A school bus, at that! I had to pick up the accelerator with my
foot, to get stopped.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake stopped working?
>
> No.

Somehow I doubt you've ever held a driver's license.

[d.g.s.]

On 1/20/2008 5:45 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> I don't think

Yes, that's obvious.
--
dgs

[Jules]

Sir.

By your infantile attacks; you discredit yourself, severely.
You are known by your deeds.

J

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Eeyore writes:
>>
>>
>>>Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>>>stopped working?
>>
>>No.
>>
>
>
> He's telling the truth
>
>
> He's never had a car.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>>> stopped working?
>>
>> No.
>
> Somehow I doubt you've ever held a driver's license.
>

Whoop! here we go with a week long argument about how he once held someone
else's once and some evasive definitions of "held "

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Jules > wrote in news:L9Ukj.8175
:

> Sir.
>
> By your infantile attacks; you discredit yourself, severely.

Nope.


> You are known by your deeds.
>

And you your's.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Eeyore writes:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>>>> stopped working?
>>> No.
>> Somehow I doubt you've ever held a driver's license.
>>
>
> Whoop! here we go with a week long argument about how he once held someone
> else's once and some evasive definitions of "held "

That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
wouldn't be that dense.

What am I saying...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Eeyore writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>>>>> stopped working?
>>>> No.
>>> Somehow I doubt you've ever held a driver's license.
>>>
>>
>> Whoop! here we go with a week long argument about how he once held
>> someone else's once and some evasive definitions of "held "
>
> That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
> wouldn't be that dense.
>
> What am I saying...
>

Really

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
> . net:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens > wrote in
>>> . net:
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever driven a car whose accelerator, clutch or handbrake
>>>>>> stopped working?
>>>>> No.
>>>> Somehow I doubt you've ever held a driver's license.
>>>>
>>> Whoop! here we go with a week long argument about how he once held
>>> someone else's once and some evasive definitions of "held "
>> That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
>> wouldn't be that dense.
>>
>> What am I saying...
>>
>
> Really

A momentary lapse of reason...

[Mxsmanic]

Rich Ahrens writes:

> That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
> wouldn't be that dense.

I think you'd find that many residents of cities such as New York and Paris do
not have driver's licenses, and that hardly makes them dense. In cities with
adequate public transportation and short distances to cover, a car serves no
purpose.

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock back regarding
> FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using carburettors instead of fuel
> injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits are going to regain flight engineers).

So more aviation rules will be written in blood.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:

> > That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
> > wouldn't be that dense.

> I think you'd find that many residents of cities such as New York and Paris do
> not have driver's licenses, and that hardly makes them dense. In cities with
> adequate public transportation and short distances to cover, a car serves no
> purpose.

Point totally and absolutely missed as usual.

Perhaps you could find an English instructor to help you on your lack
of comprehension of the language.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
>> wouldn't be that dense.
>
> I think you'd find that many residents of cities such as New York and Paris do
> not have driver's licenses, and that hardly makes them dense. In cities with
> adequate public transportation and short distances to cover, a car serves no
> purpose.

Whooooooosh!!!

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock back regarding
> > FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using carburettors instead of fuel
> > injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits are going to regain flight engineers).
>
> So more aviation rules will be written in blood.

Accident rates have never been lower. And the probability of walking away from an
accident is similarly now surprisingly good. Better than 50% IIRC.

Graham

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock back regarding
>> FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using carburettors instead of fuel
>> injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits are going to regain flight engineers).
>
> So more aviation rules will be written in blood.

They've all been written that way. All the same for my money
Die-By-Wire is for the birds but since they don't seem to be
bothered by wires maybe there's a lesson in there.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Jan 21, 4:18*am, Jules >
wrote:
> Sir.
>
> By your infantile attacks; you discredit yourself, severely.

Nope.



> You are known by your deeds.
>

And you by your´s


Fjukkwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Rich Ahrens writes:
>
>> That thought occurred to me as I wrote it, but I thought even Anthony
>> wouldn't be that dense.
>
> I think you'd find that many residents of cities such as New York and
> Paris do not have driver's licenses, and that hardly makes them dense.


Obfuscation.

Or you really are that dense,

Either way.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock back
>> regarding FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using
>> carburettors instead of fuel injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits
>> are going to regain flight engineers).
>
> So more aviation rules will be written in blood.
>

Yep.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > Whatever you happen to think, you're not going to turn the clock
>> > back regarding FBW any more than cars are going to re-start using
>> > carburettors instead of fuel injection driven by ECUs (or cockpits
>> > are going to regain flight engineers).
>>
>> So more aviation rules will be written in blood.
>
> Accident rates have never been lower. And the probability of walking
> away from an accident is similarly now surprisingly good. Better than
> 50% IIRC.

Or in your case 100% as you run away delighted with the pics you got for
your album.



Bertie