# Parachute envy **URL:** \ **Category:** Guest Discussion\ **Created:** [May 7, 2000, 11:55pm UTC](https://forum.cirruspilots.org/t/parachute-envy/36803 "2000-05-07T23:55:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UnknownPreviousUser](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/copa/user_avatar/forum.cirruspilots.org/unknownprevioususer/32/89805_2.png) [@UnknownPreviousUser](https://forum.cirruspilots.org/u/UnknownPreviousUser)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2000, 11:55pm UTC](https://forum.cirruspilots.org/t/parachute-envy/36803/1 "2000-05-07T23:55:55Z")
I got a nice chuckle from the May 2000 issue of Plane & Pilot. Page 40 quotes Lance Neibauer as saying “that the Columbia was the first newly certified airplane that could be legally flown without a parachute.” ThatÂ’s cute. But the article then goes on to say that a full stall “settled into a steady 900 fpm rate of decent, slower than many parachutes. Â… ItÂ’s conceivable that you could ride the stall all the way into the ground and still walk away.” Please! You canÂ’t just ignore horizontal velocity in a forced landing – itÂ’s the total velocity that counts. The Columbia will still be moving at 6000 ft/min compared with the Cirrus parachuteÂ’s 1800 ft/min. Impact forces are a function of speed squared, so the Columbia will crash 10 times harder. Sounds like parachute envy to me.