On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:39:15 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
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

Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either “Totalitarian”, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. I write for the several young eaglets I mentor, and all the other eaglets that read our posts. The safety culture on this thread is not something I want someone new to soaring thinking to pervasive or correct! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you?
While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free.
More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product.
One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials.. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits.