X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:24:54 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c1) with ESMTP id 684387 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:05:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=skipslater@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=gMCbJya634Bp7AnmnBndwj9aOF0zzIRgfPa03jc6N4yZIXieJRR594QuoEv3AJ4m; h=Received:Message-ID:Reply-To:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.237.86.178] (helo=Skip) by smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1E9AfC-00067y-0D for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:04:42 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003901c5ab64$189cb690$ca02470a@Skip> Reply-To: "Skip Slater" From: "Skip Slater" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Columbia Spin X-Original-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:03:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C5AB29.469536C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-ELNK-Trace: cbee950bdf563876c8ad50643b1069f8239a348a220c26090f507ed65eba22ea988a0cc89e9874cc548b785378294e88350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.237.86.178 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C5AB29.469536C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob, Of course you're correct about the Columbia spin that necessitated = spin chute deployment. My point was that the spin chute was probably = deployed earlier (higher) than necessary in order to provide a greater = altitude margin for deployment, stabilization, jettison and recovery. = Had the pilot used some more altitude, he may very well have been able = to recover from the spin. We'll never know. Skip Slater ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C5AB29.469536C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rob,
   Of course you're correct = about the=20 Columbia spin that necessitated spin chute deployment.  My point = was that=20 the spin chute was probably deployed earlier (higher) than necessary in = order to=20 provide a greater altitude margin for deployment, stabilization, = jettison and=20 recovery.  Had the pilot used some more altitude, he may very well = have=20 been able to recover from the spin.  We'll never know.
   Skip Slater =20
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C5AB29.469536C0--