In article ,
Andy Durbin wrote:
One year at Hobbs, New Mexico, every contestant's parachute was
checked for currency by an FAA inspector. The infamous "ramp check".
Don't know how many he found but he probably had a nice day away from
the office.

NSF, the organizer of contests at Hobbs, now has a rigger available
before most (all?) contests and he does a lot of business.


Andy (GY)

Hmmm...no doubt chutes were required for the contest, and formation
flight was definitely going to happen. Another benefit of
the inspection was it made the rigger available the following
year for a bunch of pilots who were "on the fence."

This is a situation where I might go the other way. Just
like seat belts or helmets being inspected and required
during a sanctioned car race, there is a group of organizers
who have a vested interest in each pilot having safety
equipment.

I'm willing to bet the FAA "ramp checker"
didn't do this AFTER the flight, with a subsequent violation,
but before the flight as a prevention measure and no violation.
The inspectors I've met have been hired for their wisdom,
experience, and judgement, and not for their ability to
meet a quota...

This brings up one other marginal disadvantage to increasing
repack cycle: fewer qualified and paid riggers available.
A double-edged sword.

I'm still going to say the 6 month cycle is better (improving
technology has its advantages), and chute wearers in
single seaters shouldn't generally have
a repack requirement or violation by the FAA.
But I'd certainly support
contest organizers requiring "current" chutes if it
reduced their liability (just like sanctioned car races
require certified helmets and dated, refilled
fire extinguishers).

I'll add that in Calif., fire extinguisher refill
cycles have gone from 1 to 5 years (maybe 6?). Again,
improving technology eventually should be recognised and
the benefit passed on to the user/consumer...