USA-Parachute Repack Change?

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

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

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

A study recently came out about obesity and
fatalities in car crashes. It has made
some national news.

http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/te...aper_86775.htm

Apparently, people with a higher Body Mass Index (obesity)
have a higher fatality rate than those with a lower BMI.

The research does not rule out the possibility
of co-morbidity (the fatal rate is just caused because
obese people are just more susceptible to death in general).

But it does suggest that part or all of the morbitity may be
attributable to the extra weight during the crash impact,
and the additional momentum the extra weight creates and
strains the body during high velocity crashes.

For example, a person who weighs 200 pounds at a certain
height would have a higher body mass index if they
weighed 220 pounds. No mention is made of whether
wearing an additional 20 pounds on ones back during a crash
would be equivalent to an increased BMI.

The BMI index is calculated by dividing weight in Kg
by the square of the height in meters.

Studies are inconclusive about possible causes of
the obesity-morbidy data. Further research, including
use of crash test dummies of different
BMIs, is planned to follow up this research.

Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident? Or is the link of BMI to
morbidity in this paper based on correlation
to other factors of obesity (high blood pressure,
difficulty during lifesaving procedures, etc.)?
The researchers haven't yet been able to
get enough data to isolate causality, so
we don't know yet.

But the obese crash test dummies should give some
better ideas in future tests. We'll see...
--

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident?

An interesting question. I didn't read the study, but ...

I suspect car crashes don't relate well to glider crashes, because the
structural strength is so different. The structure of the car allows 30G
and more without serious invasion into the driver's compartment, but
gliders probably can't even do 10 G.

"Obese" generally implies overweight of 20%+, and the parachutes I'm
familiar with are 15 pounds or less, so for even a lightweight like
yourself, that's less than 10%.

The pilots I know that survived crashes were mostly injured from the
waist down. Trunk injuries were inconsequential by comparison.

And finally, major trunk injuries in fatal accidents are generally
attributed to "submarining" under the seat belts, though problem is
better controlled in the newer gliders.

I'm sure the weight of the parachute is a liability in a crash, but the
evidence from crashes seems indicate it's a small factor. On the other
hand, I know several people that would be dead except for their parachute.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Since I needed mine in 1988 when my Open Cirrus broke into two pieces, I
think having it that day was a very good idea.
I don't consider that a 'minute save'.

Fred

"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

Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident?

As opposed to that 20 pounds of silk over your head
allowing you to float down?

In article ,
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident?

As opposed to that 20 pounds of silk over your head
allowing you to float down?

EXACTLY! If you are more likely to
be in a impact where the extra 20
pounds is the difference between life and death,
than to be in a situation where parachuting is
the only option, then wearing a chute is
something to consider.

So how many chute saves have there been compared
to fatal accidents where the pilot almost
survived? If a 20 pound chute adds 4% to impact morbidity,
and lifesaving use of the chute only happens one time
for every 50 impact crashes, then there are things to
consider.

I'm not talking about situations where wearing or not
wearing seems pretty clear. Competitions, aerobatics, test
flights, formation flight may be
pretty hard to argue. And pattern tows, winch launches
in unsoarable weather seem the same way.

But what about ridge soaring alone on a
day away from MTRs, nobody else around, in a
well established sturdy glider?

I wonder, because I have a parachute, and I tend to
fly in an isolated area, with no MTRs and no
company. And I read Kempton Izuno's stuff about
wearing a chute on a wave day and wondering
about being dragged at 40 knots along the ground
if he bailed.

Sure, if you gotta have it to save your life,
then you got to have it. But for every chute
save, how many impact fatalities have there been?
How many of these had a chute as a contributing
factor because they increase effective BMI?

I don't know the answer. But one part of it comes
from the ratio of bailouts to fatal impacts.
I'd really like to see stats on that...
--

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

That's one of the most stupid argument against parachutes I ever heared...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Mark James Boyd" a écrit dans le message de news:
41f186bd$1@darkstar...
In article ,
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident?

As opposed to that 20 pounds of silk over your head
allowing you to float down?

EXACTLY! If you are more likely to
be in a impact where the extra 20
pounds is the difference between life and death,
than to be in a situation where parachuting is
the only option, then wearing a chute is
something to consider.

So how many chute saves have there been compared
to fatal accidents where the pilot almost
survived? If a 20 pound chute adds 4% to impact morbidity,
and lifesaving use of the chute only happens one time
for every 50 impact crashes, then there are things to
consider.

I'm not talking about situations where wearing or not
wearing seems pretty clear. Competitions, aerobatics, test
flights, formation flight may be
pretty hard to argue. And pattern tows, winch launches
in unsoarable weather seem the same way.

But what about ridge soaring alone on a
day away from MTRs, nobody else around, in a
well established sturdy glider?

I wonder, because I have a parachute, and I tend to
fly in an isolated area, with no MTRs and no
company. And I read Kempton Izuno's stuff about
wearing a chute on a wave day and wondering
about being dragged at 40 knots along the ground
if he bailed.

Sure, if you gotta have it to save your life,
then you got to have it. But for every chute
save, how many impact fatalities have there been?
How many of these had a chute as a contributing
factor because they increase effective BMI?

I don't know the answer. But one part of it comes
from the ratio of bailouts to fatal impacts.
I'd really like to see stats on that...
--

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

.. like being better not to wear seat belts in a car
- or have an air bag - because they have been known
to cause injury?

John Galloway

At 23:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
In article ,
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Does having an extra 20 pounds behind you during an
impact of more than 20 Gs cause enough additional
stress to measurably increase the chance of
death in an accident?

As opposed to that 20 pounds of silk over your head
allowing you to float down?

EXACTLY! If you are more likely to
be in a impact where the extra 20
pounds is the difference between life and death,
than to be in a situation where parachuting is
the only option, then wearing a chute is
something to consider.

So how many chute saves have there been compared
to fatal accidents where the pilot almost
survived? If a 20 pound chute adds 4% to impact morbidity,
and lifesaving use of the chute only happens one time
for every 50 impact crashes, then there are things
to
consider.

I'm not talking about situations where wearing or not
wearing seems pretty clear. Competitions, aerobatics,
test
flights, formation flight may be
pretty hard to argue. And pattern tows, winch launches
in unsoarable weather seem the same way.

But what about ridge soaring alone on a
day away from MTRs, nobody else around, in a
well established sturdy glider?

I wonder, because I have a parachute, and I tend to
fly in an isolated area, with no MTRs and no
company. And I read Kempton Izuno's stuff about
wearing a chute on a wave day and wondering
about being dragged at 40 knots along the ground
if he bailed.

Sure, if you gotta have it to save your life,
then you got to have it. But for every chute
save, how many impact fatalities have there been?
How many of these had a chute as a contributing
factor because they increase effective BMI?

I don't know the answer. But one part of it comes
from the ratio of bailouts to fatal impacts.
I'd really like to see stats on that...
--

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