X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:56:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.226] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.3) with ESMTP id 1377398 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:01:08 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.249.82.226; envelope-from=akadamson@gmail.com Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i29so2005949wxd for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:00:24 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:x-mimeole:thread-index:in-reply-to:sender; b=FhJ4fkhNVIVEvG1LaAIOe4JHeIMOXfsyALoDL2SGou73BunZp6QLBErEOzibl2YdAWTgy6UkgBN+rLc6r1SR9Uw5zD54OIzoBHf4ILiJ7FtOTbrdazMZ0q9kEw9icywbJhBIhkb6f7VmlRduH57f94xJE0NP45VilIBrlNJTHRg= Received: by 10.70.59.17 with SMTP id h17mr1287525wxa; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:00:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from Typhoon ( [68.68.82.92]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id h14sm9876522wxd.2006.09.12.10.00.22; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:00:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "Alan K. Adamson" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Low Alt. Bailout X-Original-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:00:31 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <009e01c6d68c$f55a0200$2401a8c0@highrf.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Thread-Index: AcbWiWKd47EAeqSCTGe6HvEqaH/OzAAAtLpQ In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Alan Adamson Ok, so I don't usually do this... But. Kevin, if I may...please allow me to pick on you with good intent... I suspect most responded the way they did, only because of the "fanaticism" of your conviction. Really no other reason, and that isn't necessarily bad. However, most will jump to the same conclusion that I did... If you are that concerned about your life, that it would cause you to *require* a parachute when you fly, then why on earth would you *build and fly* an experimental airplane in the first place. Again, I stated above to make the point that I suspect most aren't willing to put in words... I don't have anything against your philosophy, nor your requirements, nor how you go about them. But I suspect your staunch position caused a few to ponder the above... Good luck, hope to meet you something and swap build stories... I'd guess I'm about 75% done with 90% more to go... As they say :).. Alan Adamson Atlanta, GA Legacy FG (in carbon, with and IO550) -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Marvin Kaye Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:35 PM To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: [LML] Re: Low Alt. Bailout Posted for Kevin Kossi : Hamid, I bet the Extra 200 Pilot was glad he had a Chute, and used it at what looks an altitude below 1,200 AGL. The NTSB report of the NJ crash being highly fragmented is meaningless unless you take in to account the radar tapes and the way the plane impacted the ground through crash scene photos and a study of the ground scar. The pilot just as well may have had the plane under control enough to bail, and fought to land it all the way to the ground. Had he had a parachute, he may have survived. I don't understand why some people are against others using something that is proven to save lives. I guess it's a matter of guilt and misery loves company. Just because one does not have the foresight or want to make the effort to take into consideration something that is proven to save lives, (although I realize not under all circumstances) does not mean they have to try to convince others it is fruitless to have the foresight and to make the effort Regards Kevin Kossi Legacy 60% New York -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/