will this fly?

"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
...
Well, someone else with this idea just folded.

http://www.morrowaircraft.com/

Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

From AvWeb's AvFlash:

AIR TAXI COMPANY SHUTS DOWN...
Financial problems have grounded SkyTaxi Inc, an Oregon start-up that
received national exposure for its hybrid air service. SkyTaxi, whose
business blended elements of regular airline service and charter
service, vacated its maintenance hangar at the Salem airport and laid
off employees last month.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186236

I've never used a parachute. My uncle and father are USAF Korea vets, and
had them onboard always, and my uncle had to eject out of his F86 once. I
found in his Dad's papers (my grandfather's) the letter my uncle wrote to
him describing this event, Uncle being about 20 at the time: "I was up
about 10 minutes and had to bail out because the flight leader saw smoke and
I had a forward fire warning light on. I ejected at about 14,000 and lost
my helmet. For some reason my foot hung up in the seat but I kicked that
away with no trouble. [describes a small cut he got in his head from a
chute buckle] I'll bet I looked wild when I walked into Wilson Creek (a
very small town) with my chute all over my shoulder and my collar soaked in
blood." I just happen to have this letter at hand now to quote from, it
having surfaced recently.

Your dismissal of the safety benefits of a Cirrus chute just does not fit
with my perception. The first save by such a chute came about just a few
miles from where I live, near Denton Texas. The concept in my view is
brilliant. If I ever buy a single again, it will have one. I had an engine
failure in the last single I owned. I stand by my statement that it might
save lives in the event of an iced-up Cirrus that will be making an
off-airport landing soon.

I know you'll find something arrogant to say about this, so take your last
shot.



"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Dan Thompson" wrote
OK, you win. Cirrus owners are stupid.

Don't speak for the group - the Cirrus owners I've met are actually
quite bright. Of course none of them would suggest that the chute was
a reasonable backup for icing TKS can't handle. In fact, the only
Cirrus owner I ever met who considered the chute an important selling
point had a very interesting reason. He used to own a Bonanza, and
his wfe wouldn't fly with him. Now he has a Cirrus, and his wife will
- she considers it safe because of the parachute. That's worth a lot
to him, since now the plane can be used for family trips.

As dumb as car drivers and bikers.

I have yet to see any evidence that pilots are on average any smarter
than drivers. They are generally somewhat better trained.

They would be idiots to try the chute as a last resort in an iced-up
airplane. I was stupid to mention it. What was I thinking?

I have no idea what you were thinking. Have you ever made a parachute
descent through icing conditions? Have you ever made a parachute
descent at all? This, IMO, is the fundamental problem with the Cirrus
chute. Most of the pilots flying it have zero experience with
parachutes, and thus a very poor understanding of what they're good
for.

Michael

Robert Henry wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...te/808206.html



Most interesting, to me. It supports my contention about controllability,
and states that stopping distance is actually better in all situations
except gravel (which is a rather uncommon road surface). It is plausible to
infer that the ABS vehicles were driven more recklessly based upon the
rollover and off-road accident statistics, but proving/disproving this
remains the issue.



Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year
here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow.


Matt

Dashi wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Dashi wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


Dan Thompson wrote:


"I tend to think this IS a sound argument" This is about the flimsiest
"argument" I've ever seen written, that additional safety equipment, on
balance, makes people less safe because they become more cavalier about
taking risks. It assumes that the people involved are not intelligent
enough to understand the scope of safety benefit and risk reduction

being


provided. You must hang around a dumber group of pilots and airplane

owners


than I do.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is a documented fact.


If this is a "documented fact" you wouldn't mind providing links to the
documents then?

These two address mainly the facts, but not the causes, other than rough
speculation. There are many more similar statistical studies. I can
show you how to use a search engine if you'd like and then you can check
it out yourself.


Thanks for the info, I do know how to use a search engine but you are one of
the few people that I have seen post a statement such as: "this is a
documented fact" and be able to back it up.

Well, I'm not perfect either, but I try not to write or say things that
I can't back up. Sometimes though the memory isn't completely accurate
and I make a statement only to later find that I can't back it up. I
hate it when that happens... :-)


Matt

Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Mike
MU-2


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Matthew S. Whiting" wrote)

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/stats.html


Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.


I've said it before ...repeal all the helmut laws you want - just don't
make
the taxpayers pay for your ICU costs when you quickly run out of
insurance
coverage



As long as we don't make them pay for the ICU costs for heart attacks in
overweight people or those with a poor diet, or people who smoke, or
drink, etc. This is a slippery slope that we really don't want to start
down. Tell me what activities you enjoy and I'll likely be able to
provide all sorts of side effects on society from your activities as well.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Yes, and this is the reason that PA repealed the motorcycle helmet law
this year. The data just doesn't support it. Having said that, I still
always wear my helmet. The reason being that I believe I don't take
extra chances with it and thus actually am safer. However, across the
entire population, this just doesn't appear to be the case. Counter
intuitive to be sure.

I think the issue of safety features increasing risk is mainly when
they are new or unusual and people factor them into their behaviour.
If they are something you don't even think about I am sure they
increase safety.
An example would be stall warning systems. By this argument, they
should make flying more dangerous because people are more likely to
fly close to the stall. If there were only a few aircraft with stall
warning systems that would probably be true. However because everyone
takes them for granted and wouldn't normally think of them until they
go off, I 'm sure they do enhance safety.
Australia has had compulsory helmet (and seatbelt) laws for a long
time, and I don't think they decrease safety because Australian riders
take them for granted and so are unlikely to modify their behaviour
because they are wearing one.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Tazpayers shouldn't pay for ANYBODY's ICU costs unless they are in the ICU
as a direct result of government action.

Yes. I assume he really meant everyone who buys health insurance, but
most of them are also taxpayers. We all pay when anyone with insurance
uses it.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...
Robert Henry wrote:

Gravel AND snow. Snow is quite common for about 5 months of the year
here in PA! My only really bad ABS experience was in snow.

Well, actually, I have quite the opposite - which is not an argument - just
an experience relayed. I learned to drive in New England. Tangentially,
I've always wanted a bumper sticker that read "Graduate: Boston School of
Driving" I think fewer people would tailgate me...when I cut them off. just
kidding

I rear-ended someone once (not even any scratches) on a road covered newly
by snow over a span of about 10 minutes. The white snow was heated by the
warm engines at the intersection in the minutes before I got there. I almost
fell when I got out of the car because the white glaze was extremely slick.
It was extremely thin white ice (like glaze), not black. Moreover, I
couldn't stop and I couldn't steer. If I had ABS, the outcome might have
been different, and it could have been worse as I steered around the car and
went right through the intersection into crossing traffic. I'll never know,
but I do know I couldn't steer and braking was of little effect. I can
actually remember looking at the speedometer going back and forth from 12-15
to 0, 10 to 0.... I was already in first gear in the automatic for
conditions.

Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the road
and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged on
the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.

On another occasion, I was entering an intersection during a downpour. The
intersection was wide and unfamiliar. The two stop signs were four lanes
apart; there are two dedicated turning lanes, one for each right and left
and two through lanes. I was in the left through lane. As I realized there
were cars entering from stops into the crossing intersection, I looked and
found the stop signs for me well out of the visibility restricted peripheral
vision. It was daylight and the pedestrian crossing lines added the
rainwater obscuring the stop line. Honestly, in hindsight, I was driving too
fast for conditions. As I slammed the brakes, I estimated the stopping
distance would put me well into and maybe through the intersection. It
occurred to me also that if I made a right turn into the intersection, I
would have the possibility that vehicles crossing from the left would steer
left of me if I stayed as far right as possible in the breakdown/parking
lane as I turned right onto the crossing street. This also increased the
stopping distance available before the intersection. The car stopped about
30 feet from the corner of the intersection after making the right turn.
Without ABS, I am sure that I would have skidded straight through the
intersection and t-boned the police car (no exaggeration) turning left.
Most likely because of conditions, the police officer didn't come back
around and issue a ticket for failure to stop.

FWIW.

("Robert Henry" wrote)
snip
Later, in the mountains of NY at 1am, there was an inch of snow on the
road
and snowing. A deer was in the middle of the road, there was oncoming
traffic, and I was going about 40. As I got closer and the cars converged
on
the deer, the deer ran in front of me. I was able, somehow, to steer left
into oncoming traffic as the deer went to my right, and steer back into my
lane to avoid the oncoming traffic. When we finally came to a stop, I
stalled the car, and couldn't restart it until I got a grip on what almost
just happened. I know without ABS, I would have hit something.


We drill this into the heads of our high school age nieces: ALWAYS HIT THE
DEER!!!

Hit the deer at the slowest speed possible, sure ...but don't go nuts trying
to avoid contact. Hell, I've had the nieces out practicing hitting deer.
Look! A (real) semi is in the oncoming lane and a (real) huge pickup is
behind you, there's an (imaginary) deer wandering out on the 2 lane road,
and you're doing 50 mph. What do you do?...right now!

Our Answer: Slow down - "thud", watching carefully your rearview mirror AND
for that semi to cross into your lane ...trying to avoid hitting the second
damn deer that just darted out on the other side of the road.

We tell them hitting the deer is about 4th on the list of what's important -
right now. Who's behind you, who's in front of you, and how's your car
moving down the road are all that matter for the next 10 seconds. Drive the
car!! (Hmm. Sounds familiar, like I've heard that somewhere before)

To some of their friends, I'm "the uncle guy" that says always hit the deer.

BTW, congrats on missing that mountain deer. I've only hit one deer in over
25 years of driving, but I was on my motorcycle - so it's worth more points.
g

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif