X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:44:58 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost06.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.106] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTP id 6483490 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:02:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.106; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-98-85-111-127.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.111.127]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc06) with SMTP id <20130920140219H06004uitoe>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:02:19 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.111.127] From: "Bill Bradburry" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy down in Geraldton, Western Australia X-Original-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:02:21 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <8FDA8B26015B491EA95726FDDE922552@Desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01CEB5E8.7FD21E80" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac61+sFPOd05k9UXTdizj1byxWByLgADk/2w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CEB5E8.7FD21E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A secondary latch is not a bad idea, Gary. I also considered something like a retractable seat belt attachment that would allow the canopy to be raised at a normal speed but not at an explosive speed. But in an airplane there are a lot of stupid pilot tricks that can have a bad outcome. It would be difficult to engineer all of them out. A checklist is a good tool.if you can remember to use it. Bill B _____ From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Casey Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 8:13 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy down in Geraldton, Western Australia I guess it is none of my business, since I don't own a Legacy, but I feel the need to put in my opinion, for what it's worth: I have to respectfully disagree in principle with Gary Week's post. Not because he is wrong, as he is absolutely correct. But, I would treat this as a design flaw - (not)latching the canopy is something that should not be a life-and-death event. The solution is simple - just add a secondary latch, like the hood of most any car has. In that way the canopy can be held open during taxi without relying on the pilot to latch it fully before takeoff. And if the latch does come adrift there is another one to catch it. I just don't like the idea of relying on a human to actively do something that could be a problem. I, too, have heard of more than one report of a problem with this. I just don't like the idea of saying, "just be more careful." The stakes are too high. regards to all, Gary Casey Many thanks Bill for sharing that first hand account of an unlatched canopy.= My comment was a reflection of what I had been told or had read somewhere pr= eviously (not from actual experience) and I am happy to be corrected, especi= ally from those who have been there and done that. Yes we need to carefully check the canopy is latched before takeoff. Thanks a= gain. Gary ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CEB5E8.7FD21E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A secondary latch is not a bad = idea, Gary. I = also considered something like a retractable seat belt attachment that would = allow the canopy to be raised at a normal speed but not at an explosive = speed. But in an airplane there are a lot of stupid pilot tricks that can have a = bad outcome. It would be difficult to engineer all of them out. = A checklist is a good tool…if you can remember to use = it.

Bill B

From: = Lancair Mailing List = [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Casey
Sent: Friday, September = 20, 2013 8:13 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy = down in Geraldton, Western Australia

I guess it is none of my business, since I don't own a = Legacy, but I feel the need to put in my opinion, for what it's = worth:

I have to respectfully disagree in principle with Gary = Week's post. Not because he is wrong, as he is absolutely correct. = But, I would treat this as a design flaw - (not)latching the canopy is = something that should not be a life-and-death event. The solution is simple - = just add a secondary latch, like the hood of most any car has. In that way = the canopy can be held open during taxi without relying on the pilot to = latch it fully before takeoff. And if the latch does come adrift there is = another one to catch it. I just don't like the idea of relying on a human = to actively do something that could be a problem. I, too, have heard = of more than one report of a problem with this. I just don't like the idea = of saying, "just be more careful." The stakes are too = high.

regards to all,

Gary Casey

Many thanks Bill for sharing that first hand account of an unlatched = canopy.=3D

My comment was a reflection of what I had been told or had read = somewhere pr=3D
eviously (not from actual experience) and I am happy to be corrected, = especi=3D
ally from those who have been there and done that.

Yes we need to carefully check the canopy is latched before takeoff. = Thanks a=3D
gain.

Gary

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01CEB5E8.7FD21E80--