X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:25:34 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-yx0-f184.google.com ([209.85.210.184] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c3) with ESMTP id 4018785 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 17:51:10 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.184; envelope-from=jffisher@gmail.com Received: by yxe14 with SMTP id 14so2418275yxe.7 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:50:36 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=RY27GZREPhjJYyVZ2K6afyG6Mc73Dci+f3TqZ9z9gZi3YMa8bqvkdTNQG5vsZlbawK NeWOBbP+07TSgZTsQGPDHTM/DJtovetYAN3XJiTk065BTJBDtHuoBKMW3833eyUGOCy/ c02LI3lxVeJSYDe6k9YDGYmhyim+50RU8Bsz4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.247.2 with SMTP id u2mr5840960anh.133.1260744636141; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:50:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:50:36 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Airframe Parachute From: Jeremy Fisher X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636b431f0309144047aa3fc0f --001636b431f0309144047aa3fc0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Rob, The NTSB reports do not seem to support your conclusions. As I read the first one, although the Cirrus web site says otherwise, the pilot was the one who opened the chute in Jamaica, not the passenger, and it was because of an unspecified engine problem. In the other case you quoted, the pilot stalled in IMC and entered a spin at low level. That sounds like a pretty good reason for deploying the chute to me. I personally think that the airframe chute is a potential life saver in many situations where there are few alternatives, especially for less experienced pilots. If it is designed into the airplane from the outset, I suspect that the performance penalty will not be that great. Jerry On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Rob Logan wrote: > > I just don't get it... why someone would deploy a parachute over > a plowed field or if the door is open.. the parachute weight in > fuel is offers soooo many more options. Alittle rain in > the door is much less of a shock then the 4's door blowing > its seal... > > http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx > > sorry, vent mode off. > > Rob > > -- > For archives and unsub > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > --001636b431f0309144047aa3fc0f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob,

The NTSB reports do not seem to support your conclusions.=A0 As= I read the first one, although the Cirrus web site says otherwise, the pil= ot was the one who opened the chute in Jamaica, not the passenger, and it w= as because of an unspecified engine problem.=A0 In the other case you quote= d, the pilot stalled in IMC and entered a spin at low level.=A0 That sounds= like a pretty good reason for deploying the chute to me.

I personally think that the airframe chute is a potential life saver in= many situations where there are few alternatives, especially for less expe= rienced pilots.=A0 If it is designed into the airplane from the outset, I s= uspect that the performance penalty will not be that great.

Jerry

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54 P= M, Rob Logan <Rob@log= an.com> wrote:

I just don't get it... why someone would deploy a parachute over
a plowed field or if the door is open.. the parachute weight in
fuel is offers soooo many more options. Alittle rain in
the door is much less of a shock then the 4's door blowing
its seal...

http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/2009CAPSWorks.aspx

sorry, vent mode off.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Rob

--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L= ist.html

--001636b431f0309144047aa3fc0f--