X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:06:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2241275 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:53:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.128.185; envelope-from=jffisher@gmail.com Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b27so952156fka for ; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:52:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=Cw7URggeaxKeNm3fltJP8RJtYFCiKOi4Ap49N2QRTUUihh2IBzNYe1FoyBoYIH6gsqNrfjW7UGhzPGuThu9EBjkJ8fnEs65PfJs+7p3Y6ucvGtCWaUl0KpMeI6pt2WGW0suCleHVWyDzhgg5WmYnOHQFHk23ai3+cMjC2BYUu5s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=mxDUmOP1K6ZqHq4OfczzvBH5hmxc1SjMXzUXtZ6s4pHGo3ZmDudV2TipnvJWpX3KP/oKEcvYcORRaBQW2YFVoKCKb1dd1629y+zOd1V+dkg1/iOMAkroE8208Jwx+Nu/EQM7fA4CLO9pN1vCfbhiziZkl192xma17K0Rnmy0pEo= Received: by 10.82.114.3 with SMTP id m3mr6360buc.1186195976998; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.177.9 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:52:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 21:52:56 -0500 From: "Jeremy Fisher" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lancair announcement? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_112489_28005198.1186195976964" References: ------=_Part_112489_28005198.1186195976964 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I don't think that there can be any question but that an aircraft parachute could be a life saver even with a 160 kt limit. Just think about: Engine failure at night Pilot incapacitation Partial control failure Engine failure over the sea Instrument failure Weather going under limits with no diversion Structural failure Etc Early ejection seats had all sorts of limits and could not be used in some circumstances. It did not stop them saving many pilots. I see this as a major step forward in flight safety. I don't see the downside that you apparently do. Jerry Fisher On 8/3/07, Hamid Wasti wrote: > > 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 > ------=_Part_112489_28005198.1186195976964 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
I don't think that there can be any question but that an aircraft parachute could be a life saver even with a 160 kt limit.  Just think about:
 
Engine failure at night
Pilot incapacitation
Partial control failure
Engine failure over the sea
Instrument failure
Weather going under limits with no diversion
Structural failure
Etc
 
Early ejection seats had all sorts of limits and could not be used in some circumstances.  It did not stop them saving many pilots.  I see this as a major step forward in flight safety.  I don't see the downside that you apparently do.
 
Jerry Fisher


 
On 8/3/07, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:
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

------=_Part_112489_28005198.1186195976964--