Well, Ted,

I see your point, but in my experience riggers are VERY professional.
One or two incidents like this at the local skydiving
club (where the jumpers know their equipment just as well
as the rigger, in many cases) and that guy is moving on.

I don't think the excessively short repack cycles are
anyones INTENTIONAL desire to make a problem. I don't think rigger
attitudes about how incredibly critical the parachute is
can be considered out of place. Both of these things just lack
perspective. And the FAA goes to the "professional" organization
to get opinions. They just don't understand that
PIA and USPA aren't the sum total of wisdom in the entire
world about parachutes. The users of the emergency chutes
have wisdom too. This isn't intentionally overlooked, it's
just much harder to get feedback from a less concentrated
group.



For example, I'm likely to choose an emergency chute that is
5% less likely to open safely but allows me to sit comfortably
on it for 5 hours instead of only 2. In fact, I'd
pay 20% more for this feature.

Riggers would say this is crazy talk. The parachute opening
is the most important thing! Well, that's true, but
only if you try to open it. That's the part they don't
understand. And they don't understand that the extra fatigue
caused by a wicked uncomfortable chute can cause an accident.

Is there such a chute? Probably not. But you get my point...

article 1106289159.505cc1fc175211f038a97c7bee2c4ae4@teran ews,
Ted Wagner wrote:
Not just that, Mark. A repack is like a surgical procedure, carrying with it
the risk of something going wrong, like leaving the closing loop locked with
a cheater pin or a tool left under the stitches. How many of us undergo
voluntary surgical procudures because some nameless doc says we have to.
Much rather have the procedure done on an irregular basis by a doc I know
and can trust and can even watch.

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41ef0ac1$1@darkstar...
Ted,

Yes, you might be right. The whole idea of having a parachute
in the glider may just be a bad idea anyway. Sure there are
a minute number of saves using a parachute, but where are the
statistics about how many people were killed
when the extra weight of the chute against their back
crushed their lungs during a high-G impact?

I'd like to see some crash test dummies in a car with
chutes on, and have them slam into walls at high speed.
One wonders how much the extra pounds on the back
multiplied by the Gs of impact
may help the shoulder harnesses and seatbelt
cut into the ribcage and lungs.

Yeah, the riggers and parachutists don't talk about that
part too much. Or how the extra pounds marginally raised the
stall speed just enough to cause a fatal stall/spin instead of
a close call or less-than-fatal injury.

Kind of like going to a donut shop and asking for recommendations
for dinner. Riggers and sport parachutists have a pretty
strong opinion about how important parachutes are...

In article . com,
wrote:
180 days would still be at least 185 days too long. The only argument
for sticking with 120 or 180 days is the work that the riggers would
lose.

I just had my skydiving reserve repacked two months ago. That cost me
$75, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get to use it before it's
due again. It's a scam and I'm sick of it.

ted/2NO



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd