Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 12:19:25 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6856144@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.25; envelope-from=bbradburry@verizon.net
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@verizon.net>
References: <list-6855712@logan.com>
In-reply-to: <list-6855712@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Ac9l+WkBW3H69H4eRL+xkh4q5IMjswADng7g

It seems that we have gone far afield on this canopy issue.  I think the
White Paper is a great effort and brings many ideas to the table.  I don't
understand why anyone would cast aspersions on either it or the author.  He
did a great job in my estimation.
The problem is that this is not a simple problem with a simple fix.
Everything has consequences.  
These are experimental planes and we need to accept the fact that everyone
will select their own "fix" for this problem if they even see it as a
"problem" that needs a "fix".
A good friend with an RV-9, which has a sliding canopy, lost his engine on
long final (12 miles out) and landed in brush.  The nose wheel caught the
brush and flipped him upside down.  Fuel and fumes were all around him and
his passenger for over a half hour while they cut an opening in the canopy
to pull them out.  For some reason they didn't catch fire and they didn't
die in the crash.
If you flip a Legacy upside down, don't plan on that kind of luck!

Should we start a discussion about emergency egress from an upside down
Legacy?  A lot of simple problems are not that easy to solve after they are
created in error...like unlatched canopies, or upside down planes, etc.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Kevin
Stallard
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 6:27 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper

This would work except 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 airplane
(in the case of a fire, for example), then is it worse or better than having
the canopy open in flight?

Unlike moving utility 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
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper

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
one I had once with a safety expert that was giving some reasons for the
much lower vehicle accident rate 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 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 checklists or warning lights, but in the end there will be more
people alive if secondary latches are there.  Isn't that enough reason to go
ahead with it?
Just my thought on the subject.
Gary Casey

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