<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: CIVL Plenary: Day 1: Helmets, Harnesses and the Agenda</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xcmag.com/2010/02/civl-plenary-day-1-helmets-harnesses-and-the-agenda/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xcmag.com/2010/02/civl-plenary-day-1-helmets-harnesses-and-the-agenda/</link>
	<description>One of the world&#039;s leading paragliding and hang gliding websites</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:31:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mac</title>
		<link>http://www.xcmag.com/2010/02/civl-plenary-day-1-helmets-harnesses-and-the-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-15146</link>
		<dc:creator>Mac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xcmag.com/?p=6226#comment-15146</guid>
		<description>If you only regard impact as the crucial point we would all have to fly motorcycle helmets, regardless of standard they were tested to. EN966 also defines angles of vision, which is quite important for looking up to your canopy at launch and provides a wider range you can survey when airborne. In this respect the use of EN-approved helmets definitely makes sense. Delegates who voted for this proposal \... decided not to be smarter than the people who established EN966...\ as it can be read later on this site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you only regard impact as the crucial point we would all have to fly motorcycle helmets, regardless of standard they were tested to. EN966 also defines angles of vision, which is quite important for looking up to your canopy at launch and provides a wider range you can survey when airborne. In this respect the use of EN-approved helmets definitely makes sense. Delegates who voted for this proposal \&#8230; decided not to be smarter than the people who established EN966&#8230;\ as it can be read later on this site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Greece</title>
		<link>http://www.xcmag.com/2010/02/civl-plenary-day-1-helmets-harnesses-and-the-agenda/comment-page-1/#comment-14776</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Greece</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xcmag.com/?p=6226#comment-14776</guid>
		<description>Calvo should look into how many joules of force are used when en966 helmets are tested and SNELL tests of a helmet. He might see that many other helmets are much stronger and better than the flying helmets he is advocating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calvo should look into how many joules of force are used when en966 helmets are tested and SNELL tests of a helmet. He might see that many other helmets are much stronger and better than the flying helmets he is advocating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

