I believe that the "wrong math" citation that everyone is alluding to
was when he posited that if the probability of one engine failing was
1/1000 then a single engine plane's chance of turning into a glider was
1/1000, but a twin's chance of turning into a glider was 1/1000000,
although the chance of a twin losing an engine was 1/500. Our more
mathematically correct and esteemed colleagues cited the exact formula
(which would correct the 1/500 to 1/500- 1/1000000). I believe that
any engineer worth his salt would call the second term negligible.


John Theune wrote:
Steve Foley wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:BAKXg.9272$ms1.6478@trndny05...

However I've also seen him write on detailed medical and mathematical
subjects and he has demonstrated a fair amount on knowledge.

I can't comment on his medical knowledge, but in the mathematical subjects I
recall, he applied the wrong formula for a given situation.

Pretty mach the same thing he does in aviation matters.


True, he was wrong there also, but he knew enough math to make it appear
reasonable ( and wrong ) Not what I would expect from a minimum wage
earning person. If he had that level of knowledge/training he should be
able to get a better job. I know from what I've seen over the years at
work the ability to be right is not required for getting a job, it's
much more knowing the lingo. I'm sure you run into clueless people at
work before also. One wonders how they keep their jobs but its not
terrible surprising how they got them.
Bottom line is I don't buy his line of poverty as a reason to not learn
more about flying from a professional or even by himself from purchased
book.