[month-index] [thread-index] [prev] [next] [thread-prev] [thread-next]

Martha,

Ever fly in a 727, MD80, 737, Cessna 172. You flew without a chute.
Whats the diff?

Dutch
N507AA - no chute

Martha & Russ Oppenheim wrote:
>
> I have two acquaintances who probably wouldnt be alive today if they
> hadnt had chutes on their planes. One was structural failure (not
> pilot induced), one was pilot incompetence. But they both needed the
> chutes, and they were there. Personally, I wouldnt consider flying
> without a chute (with the pin out :-))
>
> Martha
>
> JWL wrote:
> >
> > This could be the start of a whole new thread. Am I alone in being the only
> > one who is terrified of Ballistic Parachutes? My daily aircraft is borrowed
> > long term, it has one fitted but I never fly it with the safety pin out, the
> > thought of it going off on its own accord doesnt bear contemplating. And
> > having the thing there on the aircraft, staring you in the face when youre
> > doing your walk around; ugh!
> >
> > How many mid air structural failures are there (not pilot induced) when it
> > could be used? Pretty few Id guess, Other than a survivable collision,
> > not very likely, when would you use one?
> >
> > Now sits back and awaits for the inevitable incomng!
> >
> > John
> >
> > LS wrote in message news:94216n$9r$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article ,
> > > "JWL" wrote:
> > >
> > > There is an allowance for certain pieces of safety equipment, like a
> > > ballistic parachute. That is, you can still legally install a ballistic
> > > chute on your machine even if that places it over the overall weight
> > > limit (i.e., you can subtract 25lbs from the actual weight with a chute
> > > installed, something like that).
> > >
> > > I believe the rationale for the weight and fuel limits have to do with
> > > environmental concerns - i.e. a gasoline spill of 5 gallons or less, or
> > > a crash of a flying machine of 254lbs or less, arent considered
> > > impactful enough on the environment to involve the government. A hazard
> > > that might involve more gas or weight than that, though, has to be
> > > regulated.
> > >
> > > Something like that....
> > >
> > > LS
> > > AC fun racer.
> > >
> > > > Thanks guys,
> > > >
> > > > LSs answer is what I was looking for. Id read LSs original to
> > > mean
> > > > that installing an altimeter would violate 103 (not that I knew what
> > > that
> > > > meant) and didnt consider the additional weight of the instrument and
> > > > deck. thought it peculiar that a safety critical instrument would
> > > violate
> > > > something!
> > > >
> > > > TVM
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > > Buck Entriken wrote in message
> > > >
> > > news:CB4781E2D5BE01A2.0F1C48BDB78F3CD7.41788D3F0EDAE962@lp.airnews.net..
> > > .
> > > > > perhaps you were questioning "analogue", or "instrument deck"?
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a dial type instrument "analogue", as opposed to
> > > > > "digital" and instrument deck would be somewhere to mount it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Buck
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
>
> --
> ----------------------
> Russ & Martha Oppenheim
> moppenhm@ix.netcom.com
> ----------------------

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous Message:: Re: Altimeters
Next Message:: Re: BRS - was Altimeters
Previous message in thread:: Re: BRS - was Altimeters
Next message in thread:: Re: BRS - was Altimeters