Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:19:27 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1401039@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=148.78.247.132; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net
From: "Hamid A. Wasti" <hwasti@starband.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Low Alt. Bailout
References: <list-1377334@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1377334@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Posted for Kevin Kossi <kevin@airforcemechanical.com>:
>   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
Kevin,

If you are interested in understanding, I can explain what is obvious to 
most others.  Yes, parachutes can and do save lives.  But they are not 
the panacea that you are trying to make them out to be.  It is better to 
discover that now, rather than at a point when you put yourself in a box 
where that is your only out.

You position is that "[parachutes] save lives, (although I realize not 
under all circumstances)"  When looking at the whole picture 
dispassionately and critically, the analysis clearly shows that 
parachutes do save lives, although in a relatively unusual and 
infrequent set of circumstances.  Even in the accident that you cite, 
only one of the two pilots was able to bail out and that is from an 
airplane that most probably had provisions to make bailing out easier.  
It is also not known what the extent of the damage to the airplane was 
-- the fact that the pilot chose to bail out does not mean that that was 
his only option.

I doubt that there is any disagreement (even between you and me) that 
there are situation where bailing out is simply not possible.  
Similarly, there is little disagreement that bailing may be the only 
viable option in other situations.  The root of the disagreement lies in 
how likely each of these two events is.  My position is that in normal 
everyday GA flying, mostly cross country travel, the likelihood of 
events where a parachute is the only thing that can save your life is 
quite small to the point of being unlikely.  The likelihood is a bit 
higher in training, but there, spending time training with a good 
instructor is far more valuable than hanging all your eggs under a a 
parachute that you can not practice with, an egress plan that you can 
not rehearse and have no way of knowing is even viable.

As others, far more knowledgeable about parachutes than I, have pointed 
out, some of your assumptions about altitude, airspeed and equipment 
capability are not grounded in reality.  They have also pointed out that 
you have not accounted for issues like body position (I did not know 
that that was an issue), tumbling, and a host of other issues.

If you are intent on making this personal and questioning people's 
motives, then let me question yours: You seem to have placed all your 
faith in the belief that a parachute will save you in whatever jam you 
find yourself in.  When faced with facts that question the validity of 
your belief, you attack others and claim that they are not as smart and 
conscientious as you because they have not seen the light.  I guess that 
says more about your position than anything I can say.

Regards,

Hamid