Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 07:26:48 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-6855698@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=63.230.26.161; envelope-from=kevin@arilabs.net
From: Kevin Stallard <kevin@arilabs.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: Legacy White Paper
Thread-Index: Ac9lMim73hjy95GeTOunfffJdX7zagAVhj/7
References: <list-6854276@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6854276@logan.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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 someo=
ne from exiting the airplane when they need to in a hurry.  Just like the p=
ole problem, if the latch prevents someone from exiting the airplane (in th=
e 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 ne=
ed (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 mu=
ch lower vehicle accident rate here than in Europe.  She said that one fact=
or is that here we are uniformly moving light poles away from roadways.  Sh=
e pointed to a pole that was next to the street and said, "that pole will k=
ill someone someday.  We don't know when, but it will.  That's why we're mo=
ving it."  There was no discussion of the fault or even why someone might d=
ie, just a statement of fact.  I think the same is true of the canopy probl=
em.  The incorporation of a secondary latch will result in fewer deaths.  Y=
ou 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