canopy breaking tool?

Also, it would mean flying with a pipe bomb in the cockpit.

Pipe bomb with a steel spike in the end. FARs or no FARs, that is the
operative statement. It also has to be built to survive the crash and
turnover, safetied to not go off until triggered despite the G-loads
of a hard landing and turnover (not to mention normal flight)...

Build in a kick-out panel between the seat and rudder pedals, maybe?

On 18 Sep 2003 18:02:45 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

Also, it would mean flying with a pipe bomb in the cockpit.

Pipe bomb with a steel spike in the end. FARs or no FARs, that is the
operative statement. It also has to be built to survive the crash and
turnover, safetied to not go off until triggered despite the G-loads
of a hard landing and turnover (not to mention normal flight)...

....and be usable if one has only a single arm or hand available, and that
hand deadened by cold or shock. Makes a safety a lot harder to work,
especially if the tool comes out of the rack first.

Ron Wanttaja

Dave Hyde wrote in message ...
Russell Duffy wrote:

Rusty (building 3 planes for every one that Dave finishes g)

OW! Who stuck the 'kick me' sign on my back?

Dave 'Only 3? I'm not done yet' Hyde

Far side cartoon: "Bummer of a Birthmark, Hal"
http://store1.yimg.com/I/coolrags_1753_1742593

It's only because you're so CLOSE, and the Natives are
restless for the First Flight report.

Sydney

PS Mike said "sure" and would be happy to talk specifics.

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..
On 18 Sep 2003 18:02:45 -0700, (Corrie) wrote:

Also, it would mean flying with a pipe bomb in the cockpit.

Pipe bomb with a steel spike in the end. FARs or no FARs, that is the
operative statement. It also has to be built to survive the crash and
turnover, safetied to not go off until triggered despite the G-loads
of a hard landing and turnover (not to mention normal flight)...

...and be usable if one has only a single arm or hand available, and that
hand deadened by cold or shock. Makes a safety a lot harder to work,
especially if the tool comes out of the rack first.

Ron Wanttaja

All good reasons to fly open cockpit, eh, Ron? ;-)

Corrie wrote:

All good reasons to fly open cockpit, eh, Ron? ;-)

But with a roll bar!

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:18:00 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

All good reasons to fly open cockpit, eh, Ron? ;-)

But with a roll bar!

I'd be happy enough with the key to the roll mini-bar. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

There is certainly no law against carrying personal firearms in a
privately owned plane.

Bryan Martin wrote:

in article .net,
Flightdeck at wrote on 9/17/03 8:50 AM:

Here is the question. I used the 32 cal blank shells because that was the
most direct way to get the gas pressure I needed in the chamber. I made one
version that used a modified 410 shot gun shell - but it required more bulk
than the 32 cal shell firing mechinism. And, I considered using the
internal volume of the "pry tube" as a pressure chamber for high pressure
Nitrogen, but the complexity of the filling fittings and the explosive
decompression valve was too much work. Also, it would mean flying with a
pipe bomb in the cockpit. I happened to be describing the device to a
friend over a $100 cup of coffee one day and a fellow in the next booth
overheard the conversation. He volunteered that the device violated FARs
because it could be considered as carrying an "explosive device" in a civil
aircraft.


If a .32 blank is considered an explosive device illegal to carry in a civil
aircraft, then every bush pilot in the country is in violation of the law by
carrying firearms in the cockpit for survival in case of forced landing. As
I understand it, in some areas a firearm is required by law to be carried in
the airplane. And of course, gasoline must be far too dangerous to carry in
an airplane.

--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 04:37:04 GMT, "Bruce A. Frank"
wrote:

:There is certainly no law against carrying personal firearms in a
rivately owned plane.

Depends on what state you're in. Don't try it in Massachusetts.

:There is certainly no law against carrying personal firearms in a
rivately owned plane.

Depends on what state you're in. Don't try it in Massachusetts.


Airports are federally controlled despite the state cops (in Logan's case)
patrolling. If you secure your fire arm in the aircraft when you leave it there
should be no problem.

My 2000 Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide says nothing about it. Now
I am curious and will call ATF.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On 22 Sep 2003 05:29:50 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

:
::There is certainly no law against carrying personal firearms in a
:rivately owned plane.
:
:Depends on what state you're in. Don't try it in Massachusetts.
:
:
:Airports are federally controlled despite the state cops (in Logan's case)
atrolling. If you secure your fire arm in the aircraft when you leave it there
:should be no problem.
:
:My 2000 Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide says nothing about it. Now
:I am curious and will call ATF.
:
an, U. S. Air Force, retired

I've heard anecdotal stories of people being arrested at Logan when
they change planes with disassembled, unloaded firearms in their
checked bags. May be urban legend.

At LAX the cops on patrol are a branch of the LAPD. I think if you
violate a state law - like rape, robbery, murder or theft - on the
airport grounds they're going to have something to say about it.
Heck, if you violate a city ordinance, like providing unlicenced
park-and-ride shuttle service - they'll stop you quicker than you'd
think.