On 6/2/2018 9:47 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see
clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable
difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it
rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots
are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to
manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to
find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day.
Personally, my life is worth the cost...


On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful
age of stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
as the approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have
differing views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned),
but it's also a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any
importance- and (also arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure
quotient.'

Nice attempt at diversion from the original point under discussion - a point
memory says was originally mooted by you (I didn't back-check the thread). In
any event, my main points - which I'll reiterate in a second - had zero to do
with my mechanic-ing talents (or not). You might as well argue that because I
am NOT a professional mechanic, I indulged in greater risks in my attempts to
continue operating vehicles whose mission hadn't changed from the date I
purchased them...and was therefore a fool taking foolish reliability
risks...than to imply only my wonderful mechanic-ing skills have allowed my
vehicles to prosper over time. (For the record: a) *I* don't consider myself
anything close to really good mechanics (some of whom I've had the pleasure to
know); and b) neither vehicle has ever left me stranded on a trip. That's more
than many glider pilots I know can honestly report, while driving far newer
vehicles.)

As for 'chute manufacturer recommendations' I'll simply point out you
neglected to mention the potential of conflict of (business) interest they
inevitably have. I'm not suggesting in any way their motivations aren't pure,
simply that it's in their business interests to suggest/mandate regular
replacement...reGARDless of risk - perceived or real.

Back to my main points:
- age alone is a poor/crude measure of risk (for
parachutes/gliders/lotsa-other-manmade things);

- acceptance of personal risk is, well, personal;

- to 'sensibly' (whatever that means) argue *for* safety is a good thing - I
regularly attempt to do it myself (and still have all my fingers, toes and
eyeballs);

- private citizens seeking to mandate/force their conception of 'acceptable
safety' on the rest of affected society is all-too-often nothing more than a
form of
totaliarianism/elitism/a-proxy-for-other-historically-proven-less-than-wonderful-isms/etc.;

- the actual material-related risks to older parachutes (insofar as they
relate to the potential for disastrous failures of the 'chutes) are - in the
engineering sense of things - relatively straightforward and pretty much
'piecewise mitigatable.'

Clearly your and my ideas related to acceptance of personal risks (as measured
by those related to 'chutes), differ. I'm OK with that. I'm (far) less OK with
anyone seeking to mandate their acceptable personal risk level upon my
(continuing) existence...as I suspect you would be with me attempting to
reciprocate that approach in my turn. Discussing pros and cons? A great thing.
Choosing to be king? Not so great.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com