Longer parachute repack cycle petition (USA)

Right on! I think anyone in his right mind will rather fly with an out of
pack chute than leave it on the ground, so personally I don't understand
what's the big deal about the FAA requirements. Everyone can decide on the
repack cycle that suites them, as long as wearing a chute is optional. I
think the "risk" to fail a ramp check is much smaller than the risk of
leaving the chute on the ground. And as far as I know, flying with out of
pack chute should have no impact on insurance claims.

Ramy

wrote in message
ups.com...
Quite right. We should be required to pack chutes weekly, just to be
on the safe side.

Of course, it's actually illegal to fly with an out-of-pack-date chute.
If we were legally required to pack weekly, then the practical reality
is that many more pilots might choose to fly without their chutes. The
result of a one-week requirement would not be that everyone would carry
better safety equipment (parachutes repacked recently), but that many
of us would carry no safety equipment at all. One pilot dead because
of a law like this would be one pilot too many.

We already have a law like this. The regulation currently reads, "No
pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for
emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it has been
packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger
within the preceding 120 days"

That's right: it is illegal to carry something that might be used in an
emergency. Before I lose the rule's supporters, I can suggest an
alternative that may satisfy their objections (below). However, I
really strongly object to a rule that restricts a pilot's right to be
prepared for an emergency. I don't much care about the fact that
there's an exception (the 120 days). The basic rule ("no parachute for
emergency use") simply philosophically and logically shouldn't exist in
the first place.

I used to be with a glider community where everyone repacked once a
year, or once every two years (taking grief from their buddies for
that) - but to fly without a parachute was considered nuts. Here, we
repack every 120 days, but if a parachute is out of pack date we don't
just say "you should get that repacked," we also say "and leave it in
the car until you do - you don't want to get ramp-checked!" My former
flying community would have considered that kind of thinking the height
of irresponsibility. So do I.

I want to clarify something here. I object to making it illegal - for
any reason - to carry a parachute under circumstances where it would be
legal to fly without any parachute. On the other hand, I think a
180-day rule (or 120-day, if we must find a collective way to keep
riggers busy) makes sense for flights where a parachute is required
equipment. Parachutes are required for aerobatics, and I believe that
reserves are required for skydiving.

I believe that for best safety the regulation should read something
more like "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
REQUIRED TO BE available for emergency use to be carried in that
aircraft unless..."

Meanwhile, those of us who carry parachutes, not because we are
required to but simply out of an abundance of caution can do so without
someone making the ideal the enemy of the good, telling us to go
without because we have done merely a good, rather than an ideal job of
repacking. We're being responsible when we carry a parachute, and more
responsible if it was recently repacked, not the other way around.

Cheers!


wrote:
For me this comes down to what is your life worth? Use that chute just
once and the cost seems to be no longer be a factor.