|
|
Let me answer with a question.
In the section labeled "The Hazzard and Potential Causes" Where is the data?
The whole section is anecdotal, and the layman concludes that when the canopy opens that perhaps one of these causes is killing people.
What if, and I emphasize if, none of these are really a factor?
Can't see out your canopy? Loosen your straps and Sit Up!
Don't have a lot of control authority? Increase your airspeed (lower the nose or increase the throttle or both). I don't remember who it was but his canopy was open he was at 110 knots and his controls were mushy. Really!!!!!???? Uuuggg! The controls can be mushy at 110 with the canopy closed for crying out loud.
If the canopy opens, the airplane is flyable and you close your eyes and then you crash. What was the cause, the canopy or your eyelids?
Causality is a tricky to put your finger on, it is an elusive beast.
Thanks,
Kevin
On May 2, 2014, at 12:52 PM, David Williams <david@fahrencorp.com> wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the ģerroneousē information
> to all of us?
>
> David Williams
>
> On 5/2/14, 10:19 AM, "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hamid,
>>
>> I apologize for leaving that idea with you. That isn't the intent.
>>
>> I should have said:
>>
>> "The idea is that we want people to KNOW whether or not the airplane is
>> flyable. If it is flyable, then if the canopy opens..".
>>
>> What I am trying (perhaps poorly) to communicate is what we have to focus
>> on, "knowing". Once we really know what is going on, then we can bring
>> forth real solutions that can have consistent outcomes.
>>
>> Right now, we don't and this report, while it contains accident reports,
>> it also contains erroneous information that then leads to conclusions
>> that are not built on a good foundation. I really think this stuff has
>> to go. We shouldn't release this as is.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2014 4:27 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote:
>>>> The idea is that we want people to KNOW that the airplane is flyable.
>>>> That if the canopy opens, they still need to (and can) fly the airplane.
>>> You have been complaining that the report portrays suppositions as
>>> facts. And then you are doing exactly the same thing yourself. That
>>> severely undermines your credibility and leads people to not take your
>>> arguments seriously.
>>>
>>> The facts are that so far we are aware of one person, with unknown and
>>> unique training and experience, flying an airplane that is
>>> aerodynamically different than every other Legacy, under unknown
>>> conditions of weight & balance, was able to land with an open canopy.
>>>
>>> You are making a huge and untenable leap of logic extrapolating that
>>> once incident to mean that every Legacy, with its unique aerodynamics,
>>> under every allowable combination of weight & balance, will be flyable
>>> by a proficient pilot with an open canopy.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Hamid
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> For archives and unsub
>>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> For archives and unsub
>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
>
>
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
|
|