Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,421 posts)
3. Where have we seen this tactic before?
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 08:26 PM
Jun 2014

Oh yeah, every forum where you've bullshat your way into a corner.

> So, let me get this straight.

> "the FAA itself" has actually verified your position?


It most certainly did, to anyone who actually has some understanding of the subject matter. You can "beg to differ" all you want. Someone who thinks "load" in structural engineering only means "weight" -- and that that's all the FAA cares about! -- is manifestly unqualified to understand either FAR 25 or the direct answer I got from the FAA about limit and ultimate loads.

But let's put that assertion to the test. In his response, Mr. Johnson said, "The loads then that are considered would include such loads flight maneuver, gust, torsion, delta P."

"Flight maneuver" would indeed be those g-loads you've been talking about, which are covered the Flight Loads section. Please explain the rest of that sentence in your own words, and then explain to me why you think they are excluded from the 1.5 factor of safety.




Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»The "Jury", The...»Reply #3