X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:21:47 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web55706.mail.re3.yahoo.com ([216.252.110.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with SMTP id 3188942 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:38:23 -0400 Received: (qmail 58522 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Sep 2008 04:38:22 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=ajjK+ntL+07VDNR6n/aDPUnC0FPH6pXwxJLDorPQOkuFD5IIfDPZl1KunjZZAD8U3dltqPN7QazSQxX71WZktFQD5VK5NhwwRCD6Zo/y3EtLgwazihm2Hc2OcQU8qZUjBfpvC3BFDtEnQIPzXRAXLEC2spLxLdzMB2zZe8phLZs=; X-YMail-OSG: dwCLXgMVM1lPGbAoU6tMfFUf29qptCd3VLsU1Z607ZUUrBpnYdHFCue9POExB_kYvosz0vkWYrDLEVR5OJcP7C0n7EZnt6GJwBaYF8S5s5TUuW6ITkuVK3lLo8DQo4lcgmvNNeB52zhRpIVuL1.n.KJpDZn5DPvM7ngJgIhijHcx9OCtaSejeHnf9IK4 Received: from [24.172.238.114] by web55706.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:38:22 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1096.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218.2 X-Original-Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:38:22 -0700 (PDT) From: J H Webb Subject: Re: [LML] Re: SkyCatcher flat spins and crashes...... X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1376848481-1222490302=:58040" X-Original-Message-ID: <487071.58040.qm@web55706.mail.re3.yahoo.com> --0-1376848481-1222490302=:58040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The point I was making is that the airplane is reusable after deploying a s= pin chute, but is junk after using the ballistic chute. Makes financial sen= se to not depend on the Ballistic chute for recovering from a non-responsiv= e spin.=0A=A0=0AJack Webb=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jo= hn McMahon blackoaks@gmail.com=0A=0A=0AOne of the reports I read mentioned = there was a failure of the ballistic chute before he bailed out.=A0 It may = be that they were depending on it if a problem developed rather than instll= ing a traditional spin recovery chute.=0A=0A=0AOn Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:32= PM, J H Webb wrote:=0A=0AWhat surprises me is that th= ere is no mention of a spin chute. =0A=0A=0A=0A --0-1376848481-1222490302=:58040 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

The point I was making is that the airplane is reusable after deploying a spin chute, but is junk after using the ballistic chute. Makes financial sense to not depend on the Ballistic chute for recovering from a non-responsive spin.

Jack Webb

----- Original Message ----
From: John McMahon blackoaks@gmail.com

One of the reports I read mentioned there was a failure of the ballistic chute before he bailed out. It may be that they were depending on it if a problem developed rather than instlling a traditional spin recovery chute.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:32 PM, J H Webb <airmale4@yahoo.com> wrote:

What surprises me is that there is no mention of a spin chute.

--0-1376848481-1222490302=:58040--