"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
The story from the link above. I like how the pilot was given credit for
avoiding the houses even though the chute was depolyed.

Do you have information other than what's in the story? Because nothing
in the quoted news story indicates that your interpretation of events is
correct.

For example, “A big splash was all I heard, then over the rooftops where I
heard the noise, there was a parachute”. If you notice, the witness heard
the splash and THEN saw the parachute. For all we know, the parachute was
deployed after, or immediately prior to, the crash and that the airplane
was in fact under positive control by the pilot up to the point of
ensuring a landing (crash or otherwise) in the retention pond.

Remember, it's a ballistic parachute. A rocket pulls the parachute away
from the airplane, and a witness on the ground could very well see the
parachute deployed, even if the airplane did not actually descend under
the parachute.

The fact that the pilot was in critical condition, and one passenger in
serious, further supports the idea that the airplane was not actually
descending under the parachute. After all, while no one has claimed that
the parachute results in a soft landing, critical injuries should be
extremely unlikely.

So, do you have other information that would contradict the Fire Chief's
statement that the pilot guided the airplane away from the houses?
There's nothing in the article that suggests that statement was wrong, and
in fact the rest of the article does support the statement, at least
circumstantially.

Pete


If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look. Also, are the chutes prone to deploying
after a crash. If so I wouldn't want to make many hard landings.

The quote about seeing the chute could have easily meant, "...there was a
parachute,IN THE WATER."