Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Jun -> Here

From: DRudiak@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:46:01 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 02:09:22 -0400
Subject: Re: 'Roswell-- Anatomy of A Myth' - Part 2/6

Kent Jeffrey gave the following example supposedly illustrating how more
advanced technologies are inherently more reliable.  Therefore the chances of
a flying saucer crash were infinitesimally small.

  >For example, because of the high reliability of
  >their engines, long-range, twin-engine commercial jetliners are
  >now authorized to fly nonstop across the North Atlantic....

  >With today's industry-average engine-failure rate of less than
  >one failure per 100,000 flight hours, the chances of both engines
  >of a two-engine jetliner failing during a given hour of flight
  >are less than one out of 10 billion. Figuring 50,000
  >aircraft-ocean crossings per year, and factoring in such
  >variables as average time over the water and average distance
  >from land, the odds are less than fifty-fifty of a double-engine
  >failure and consequent ditching in the North Atlantic of even one
  >such aircraft over the next 10,000 years.

Today I just gave one example of a JAL 747 crash from a dozen years ago
caused by simultaneous loss of four supposedly independent hydraulic systems,
something that supposedly couldn't happen.  However, a blown bulkhead sheared
all four lines, lying side by side in the tail section.  That's the problem
with statistical calculations of failure rates.  Their based on assumptions
of independence of systems, which aren't necessarily independent in
unexpected situations.

Now here's another example more to the point and straight out of today's
news.  This concerns a plane crash which occurred recently in which all four
engines appeared to simultaneously fail because of a design flaw.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 1997

Air Force Knew Engines Had Failed

Before a rescue plane crashed off Cape Mendocino last fall, the Air Force had
issued a directive about how to handle the type of engine problems the plane
encountered, a reserve pilot has told investigators.

The Air Force has said the November 22 crash that killed 10 Oregon-based
crewmen was the first time that that all four engines had failed on an
HC-130P cargo plane.

But buried in the Air Force's 700 page report on the crash is testimony from
a reservist who said his engineer had fixed a similar problem on a flight
nearly five years earlier based on information in an Air Force directive.

In the previously undisclosed testimony obtained by the Associated Press,
Major Walt Mulder [Fox Mulder's brother??] told investigators he was flying
from the United Kingdom to Bermuda in 1992 when gauges indicated a similar
loss of power to his engines, appeared to be flaming out.

Normal procedures would have been to shut down the engines to avoid fire.
But Mulder's engineer had read a directive to pull a circuit breaker instead
to synchronize the engines.

-------


In brief, even with redundant systems to greater lower the odds of failure,
Sh*t  still happens.