Actually, the ballistic parachute idea has been discussed before. Its not
very feasible, as it would take at least 6 chutes the size of a football
field EACH to bring down a 747 safely. Obviously it would not work because
they would want to bunch together and tangle. I have seen test footage of
these on small airplanes and they work pretty good, the impact is about that
of a 25mph automobile crash, definitely survivable. As for big planes, one
highly trained Marshal and a pilot with a gun gets my vote. In case anybody
doesn't know, all Israeli airliners are like this, in addition, they have
double bulkheads between the pilots and passengers. Pretty safe from
terrorists.
Mark Kuzia
flyboy01@mediaone.net
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/flyboy01/home.html
1995 Dakota 13.79 @ 102.45 mph "Fastdak"
~360ci, 5-spd, 8 3/4 rear / 3.90-SG
1994 Dakota 15.36 @ 91.56 mph
~318ci, 5-spd, 3.90 LS (bone stock, no mods)
----- Original Message -----
From: <Pukeloser@aol.com>
To: <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:23 PM
Subject: DML: Re: F.A.M.
> Unfortunately putting that in our taxes would mean that even those who
don't
> fly would be paying for it. I'm a firm believer in low taxes. I would
gladly
> pay $20 extra per ticket to have a sky ranger and a ballistic parachute
> attatched to the plane.
>
> John S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:49 EDT