Get It Right...ALMOST Every Time!

Get It Right...ALMOST Every Time!

This is a discussion on Get It Right...ALMOST Every Time! within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; If doing jobs right 99% of the time was good enough~~~~~~~~~~ In each year there would be: 200,000 wrong drug prescriptions Unsafe drinking water for ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Get It Right...ALMOST Every Time!

  1. #1
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,882

    Get It Right...ALMOST Every Time!

    If doing jobs right 99% of the time was good enough~~~~~~~~~~

    In each year there would be:

    200,000 wrong drug prescriptions

    Unsafe drinking water for almost 4 days

    No electricity, water, heat or telephone for 15 minuites every day

    9 misspelled words on every page, in every magazine

    30,000 newborn babies dropped by doctors or nurses


  2. #2
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Dread to think where this one would go if considering contraception - at lower percentages of course!
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  3. #3
    Member Array MechE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    135
    This is what makes things like the Space Shuttle or a 747 airplane so amazing. Say for example there are 1000 major components on an airliner that have to work perfectly or it will crash. This means that 99.9% would not be good enough because there would still be one part that would fail…..and thousands of people fly every day.

    Here is another one. With all the different types of land mines out there in the world, hand held mine detectors typically have a 75% to 85% probability of detecting mines. In my former job I used to be a combat engineer in the army. Those numbers send a chill up my spine.

    When you look at numbers it really put things into perspective.
    "EVERYONE is operating with only partial information" :hand27:
    Some Wise Guy, USA 2001

  4. #4
    Assistant Administrator
    Array P95Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    South West PA
    Posts
    25,484
    Say for example there are 1000 major components on an airliner that have to work perfectly or it will crash. This means that 99.9% would not be good enough because there would still be one part that would fail?.
    Fortunately this is where built-in redundancy comes in - the ''fail-safe'' approach where duplication or even triplication covers against total failure.

    When I have to fly - I try not too be too ''analytical'' - to save on pucker factor
    Chris - P95
    NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.

    "To own a gun and assume that you are armed
    is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."


    http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array firefighter4884's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    686
    If I had my quality and reliability book around I could tell you the way the number of systems and components that perform the same function determines your failure rate and MTF..or mean time between failures....

    but alas...the book is at school...and I don't remember much of the class (i slept through more htne half the lectures. hey, it happens when the prof talks in a complete monotone..."
    Firefighter / EMT - Always Ready. Ever Willing.

    ~Never do anything that you don't want to have to explain to the paramedics...~

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    The design standards for commercial aviation are something like one crash involving fatalities for every billion flight hours, which I think they achieve.

    The acceptable risk (as defined by the NRC) for a US nuclear power plant is a core damage event with large release every 100,000 reactor years of operation, which everyone except the old USSR (Chernobyl) is on the way to achieving.

    The acceptable risk for the Space Shuttle (per NASA) is the loss of the vehicle every 200 flights and loss of the crew every 2000 flights. NASA isn't even close, losing Shuttle and crew once every 57 flights.

  7. #7
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    22,156
    Quote Originally Posted by AutoFan
    The acceptable risk for the Space Shuttle (per NASA) is the loss of the vehicle every 200 flights and loss of the crew every 2000 flights. NASA isn't even close, losing Shuttle and crew once every 57 flights.
    I think the first analysis said that there would be a loss of orbiter and crew at something less than every 100 flights, a goal not met. But then I stopped working on Shuttle stuff about 1990. Everything I've worked on since has been sent up on rockets!

    Still, for an "experimental" craft, the loss rate isn't bad!
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  8. #8
    VIP Member Array Bud White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Away - Health Problems
    Posts
    17,352
    think i would skip being on flight 57 if it was me

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array AutoFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Arid Zone A
    Posts
    1,563
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle
    I think the first analysis said that there would be a loss of orbiter and crew at something less than every 100 flights, a goal not met. But then I stopped working on Shuttle stuff about 1990. Everything I've worked on since has been sent up on rockets!

    Still, for an "experimental" craft, the loss rate isn't bad!
    Yeah, I was quoting the NASA goals circa 2002, the last time I saw them in print. Who knows what it is now.

    But they weren't supposed to be "experimental" craft, they were supposed to be reliable, cheaper than rockets, and heavy/large payload haulers. Right now I'd much rather go up in Rutan's craft than anything NASA has!

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Accuracy is King, but Monarchys do fall from time to time
    By CR Williams in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 24th, 2011, 07:22 PM
  2. Left the P229 at home for the first time in a long time
    By maddy345 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 8th, 2011, 10:57 PM
  3. Long-time reader, first-time poster
    By NIS350ZTT in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 9th, 2010, 07:14 PM
  4. Long time reader, first time poster.
    By Hokiebird in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 18th, 2009, 07:10 AM
  5. 1st time flying with my Glock...and 1st time scare...
    By athos76 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 01:16 PM