X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 12:19:07 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nschwmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.189.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.9e) with ESMTP id 6855881 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 02 May 2014 09:25:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.189.149; envelope-from=john@jjts.net.au Received: from nschwcmgw05p ([61.9.190.165]) by nschwmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20140502132451.IGTR14630.nschwmtas05p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwcmgw05p> for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 13:24:51 +0000 Received: from [192.168.15.26] ([110.142.219.220]) by nschwcmgw05p with BigPond Outbound id x1Qo1n00A4luXCm011QpdS; Fri, 02 May 2014 13:24:51 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=XNWyuHdE c=1 sm=1 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:17 a=fS4xg2TqOVMA:10 a=RciwD_7PrvcA:10 a=mCSqThwqAAAA:8 a=PemM0k2gAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=jjqUt_clAAAA:8 a=7Gmt7pp5u1R2y-0GzhAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=rnYgdqcAs4AA:10 a=-ZBvsNeBbbMA:10 a=CVU0O5Kb7MsA:10 a=GUBIx0MMhpEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=CH4iJiGOuBdtgYOX:21 a=jeKRcbPLzyLfCbkx:21 a=s9gFOG2COee6g0hurXgA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=UY60frPIMigPbJMQ:21 a=d8fIZgIo8VUVQT92:21 a=vHkbVCzoSeayF6OS:21 a=6xIvA0WTx9AVOJiHBW+VeQ==:117 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.1.140326 X-Original-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 21:24:47 +0800 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper From: John Smith X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper References: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3481910689_1305862" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3481910689_1305862 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Yes - of course a secondary (or safety) latch COULD hinder egress, but it MAY NOT and in fact SHOULD NOT if it is cleverly / properly designed in accordance with our design criteria. If it does materially hinder egress = =AD its a BAD design =AD and should not be considered further. I would have thought that was obvious. Does a regular car door latch hinder egress? Apart from the fact that you have to pull the handle, I think the answer is =B3no=B2 unless you drive a car with two internal (may be even three) and two external door handles on a single door which all need to opened on either side to get the door open! Actually =AD has anyone ever inadvertently knocked that little switch usually at the front of the arm rest in amongst the electric window switches =AD and then parked up and tried to open the door=8Ahmmmmm. Seems like a lot cars hav= e that feature =AD so, seems like a bad design if you had to get out in a hurry!! More than a few million recalls required=8A. But let=B9s stick with the concept of the mechanical car door latch (and forget the electric safety lock) - what happens when the car door swings shut or it is gently closed, but not quite hard enough for it to completely latch? If we could come up with something like that, and provided moving either of the internal or external canopy handles to the open position releases the latches =AD that would more than satisfy our design criteria, would it not? =20 I can assure you that for my part, avoiding a deleterious "secondary consequence=B2 such as hindering egress or external emergency access is and has been front of mind for months - and I=B9d be very surprised if that was any different to others looking at this. Trouble is =AD trying to find a solution that achieves this simply with the minimum of modification to the existing mechanism / components is proving elusive. Apart from a complete redesign of the current claw assembly to act a like a regular car door latch, I=B9m running out of ideas=8A=8A Anyone else got any ideas (that won=B9t unduly hinder egress)? Regards, John =20 John N G Smith Tel / fax: +61-8-9385-8891 Mobile: +61-409-372-975 Email: john@jjts.net.au From: Kevin Stallard Reply-To: Lancair Mailing List Date: Friday, 2 May 2014 7:26 pm To: Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper > This would work except there is a consequence for adding a secondary latc= h. >=20 > The only issue I have with it is that a secondary latch could prevent som= eone > from exiting the airplane when they need to in a hurry. Just like the po= le > problem, if the latch prevents someone from exiting the airplane (in the = case > of a fire, for example), then is it worse or better than having the canop= y > open in flight? >=20 > Unlike moving utility poles, there is a secondary consequence for adding = a > latch. >=20 > Thanks, > Kevin >=20 > ________________________________________ > From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Case= y > [casey.gary@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 5:40 AM > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper >=20 > Although I'm not directly affected, not being a Legacy owner, I feel the = need > (okay, urge) to put in my 2 cents worth. This discussion reminds me of o= ne I > had once with a safety expert that was giving some reasons for the much l= ower > vehicle accident rate here than in Europe. She said that one factor is t= hat > here we are uniformly moving light poles away from roadways. She pointed= to a > pole that was next to the street and said, "that pole will kill someone > someday. We don't know when, but it will. That's why we're moving it." > There was no discussion of the fault or even why someone might die, just = a > statement of fact. I think the same is true of the canopy problem. The > incorporation of a secondary latch will result in fewer deaths. You can = argue > about the pilot's (as a group) skill level, or their attention to checkli= sts > or warning lights, but in the end there will be more people alive if seco= ndary > latches are there. Isn't that enough reason to go ahead with it? > Just my thought on the subject. > Gary Casey >=20 > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.ht= ml >=20 --B_3481910689_1305862 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Yes - of course a second= ary (or safety) latch COULD hinder egress, but it MAY NOT and in fact SHOULD= NOT if it is cleverly / properly designed in accordance with our design cri= teria.   If it does materially hinder egress – its a BAD design &= #8211; and should not be considered further. I would have thought that was o= bvious.

Does a regular car door latch hinder egress= ? Apart from the fact that you have to pull the handle, I think the answer i= s “no” unless you drive a car with two internal (may be even thr= ee) and two external door handles on a single door which all need to opened = on either side to get the door open! Actually – has anyone ever inadve= rtently knocked that little switch usually at the front of the arm rest in a= mongst the electric window switches – and then parked up and tried to = open the door…hmmmmm. Seems like a lot cars have that feature – = so, seems like a bad design if you had to get out in a hurry!! More than a f= ew million recalls required….

But let’s= stick with the concept of the mechanical car door latch (and forget the ele= ctric safety lock) -  what happens when the car door swings shut or it = is gently closed, but not quite hard enough for it to completely latch? &nbs= p;If we could come up with something like that, and provided moving either o= f the internal or external canopy handles to the open position releases the = latches – that would more than satisfy our design criteria, would it n= ot?  

I can assure you that for my part, avoid= ing a deleterious "secondary consequence” such as hindering egress or = external emergency access is and has been front of mind for months - and I&#= 8217;d be very surprised if that was any different to others looking at this= . Trouble is – trying to find a solution that achieves this simply wit= h the minimum of modification to the existing mechanism / components is prov= ing elusive. Apart from a complete redesign of the current claw assembly to = act a like a regular car door latch, I’m running out of ideas…&#= 8230;  Anyone else got any ideas (that won’t unduly hinder egress= )?



Regards,

John
John N G Smith
Tel / fax:    +61-8-9385-8891
Mobile:      +61-409-372-975
Email:         john@jjts.net.au
=

From: Kevin Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net<= /a>>
Reply-To: Lancair Mailing = List <lml@lancaironline.net>= ;
Date: Friday, 2 May 2014 7:26 pm=
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper

This would work ex= cept there is a consequence for adding a secondary latch.

The only issue I have with it is that a secondary latch could prevent= someone from exiting the airplane when they need to in a hurry.  = Just like the pole problem, if the latch prevents someone from exiting the a= irplane (in the case of a fire, for example), then is it worse or better tha= n having the canopy open in flight?

Unlike moving u= tility poles, there is a secondary consequence for adding a latch.

Thanks,
Kevin

___________= _____________________________
From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary = Casey [casey.gary@yahoo.com]
=
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 5:40 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Le= gacy White Paper

Although I'm not directly affected= , not being a Legacy owner, I feel the need (okay, urge) to put in my 2 cent= s worth.  This discussion reminds me of one I had once with a safe= ty expert that was giving some reasons for the much lower vehicle accident r= ate here than in Europe.  She said that one factor is that here we= are uniformly moving light poles away from roadways.  She pointed= to a pole that was next to the street and said, "that pole will kill someon= e someday.  We don't know when, but it will.  That's why= we're moving it."  There was no discussion of the fault or even w= hy someone might die, just a statement of fact.  I think the same = is true of the canopy problem.  The incorporation of a secondary l= atch will result in fewer deaths.  You can argue about the pilot's= (as a group) skill level, or their attention to checklists or warning light= s, but in the end there will be more people alive if secondary latches are t= here.  Isn't that enough reason to go ahead with it?
Jus= t my thought on the subject.
Gary Casey

-= -

 --B_3481910689_1305862--