Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:06:54 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2241447@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.66; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=dOJOGXRWPVKC0ROXteKLxI6MfTC5yKggi8JYBOyI6cEZ3I41kg7YOgkRzcSTzcNL;
  h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
From: "Douglas Brunner" <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net>
References: <list-2241252@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lancair announcement?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I am not necessarily an advocate of the BRS, I was just commenting on 
deployment speed.

I am not sure that I would want a BRS on my plane.  The circumstances in 
which
it would be useful are limited:
- Over the mountains, engine out a night is one, but I don't fly over the 
mountains at night.
- Totally disoriented in the clouds is another, but in that situation being 
able to slow it down to 160 is problematic.
- Engine out over the water is another and I do fly over water.

On the other hand, if there wasn't too much of a weight and cost penalty I 
am not
sure that it would be a bad thing.

D. Brunner

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hamid Wasti" <hwasti@lm50.com>
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:38 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: lancair announcement?


> Douglas Brunner wrote:
>> Airplane needs to be slowed to about 160 before you
>> pull the chute.
> Which leads to the question: If you have that much control over the 
> airplane, why would you want to pull the chute?
>
> Regards,
>
> Hamid
>
> --
> For archives and unsub 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html