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