"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
If he landed in that pond without the chute I doubt the plane would be as
intact as the photo makes it look.

Planes land in the water without significant apparent structural damage all
the time. They still wind up being a total loss, either because of internal
damage or water damage or something like that. But you can't tell from a
photo how an airplane wound up in the water.

Also, are the chutes prone to deploying after a crash. If so I wouldn't
want to make many hard landings.

The parachute doesn't deploy automatically. However, the pilot very well
could have attempted to deploy the parachute once over the water, but too
low to have much success. In addition, I'm sure that if it hasn't happened
yet, there's bound to eventually be a pilot who pulls the deployment handle
*after* the crash. After all, plenty of pilots who land gear-up attempt to
lower the gear (or at least move the gear handle) once the airplane has some
to a stop.

Again, the fact that the parachute was out doesn't mean that the pilot had
nothing to do with the airplane missing the house.

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

No, it couldn't have. The witness specifically says he saw the parachute
"over the rooftops where I heard the noise".

But even if your alternative quote was possible, that's not the question.
We're not talking about what it could have been. We're talking about your
claim to KNOW what happened, and to KNOW that the pilot was not involved in
missing the houses. Do you have information to support that claim, or don't
you?

Pete