To: | fot@autox.team.net |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: [FOT] SA2005 Helmets |
From: | "john price" <jprice1@txcyber.com> |
Date: | Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:19:18 -0600 (CST) |
Delivered-to: | mharc@demo.fatchancegarage.com |
Reply-to: | "john price" <jprice1@txcyber.com> |
Sender: | owner-fot@autox.team.net |
I was asking the question because my helmets are both SA 2000. I find it interesting that a 10-year old helmet is "possibly compromised" because of age or involvement in an accident. I am managing several research projects for helicopter rotor blades of composite construction. Some of these blades are almost 15 years old and haven't reached their fatigue life yet and are considered safe to fly. We are even patching bullet holes and putting them back on the aircraft. At $250 to $400 bucks a pop for a helmet, I would like to see the science behind a decision to disallow a helmet because of its age. === Help keep Team.Net on the air === http://www.team.net/donate.html === unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net === Archives at http://www.team.net/archive === http://www.team.net/the-local |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [FOT] ARE Silverstones (resend), Robert M. Lang |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [FOT] SA2005 Helmets, Bill Babcock |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [FOT] SA2005 Helmets, REK46 |
Next by Thread: | RE: [FOT] SA2005 Helmets, Bill Babcock |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |