Parachutes again

that is exactly why they have the requirement.......what you're suggesting
is that it would be OK or better to violate the regulations and take a
chance on it being airworthy... than to comply and know it's
airworthy....that's why they don't simply "recommend" I&R......with this
thinking most parachutes would never be inspected.
tim

"Ramy Yanetz" wrote in message
...
You better violate the FAA regs and fly with an expired parachute than
expiring from not flying with it...

Ramy



"nowhere" wrote in message
om...
The funny thing is that when the chute passes it's 120 day repack
limit you can also just leave it in the trailer when you go flying if
you don't want to violate FAA regs......Sort of like requiring a $50
inspection every four months for motorcycle helmets, if you wear one,
but leaving the wearing of them up to the individual rider.

Allen Silver has nothing against Security Parachutes. He sold me one few
years ago.

Ramy

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
If any one has a question about a Security parachute please contact
Allen Silver at Phone: 1-510-785-7070 · Fax: 1-510-785-9213. This guy
closed the Security after the British bought it and he will tell you
that every single Security parachute needs to be retired or used as a
car cover. In addition Mr. Silver is operating rigging loft and he is a
former president of Parachute Industry Association.

Informative thread.

There seems to be an argument that the 120 day pack rule will not be
increased because the riggers will fight it. That may be true, but the math
may not support the theory that a longer packing interval would decrease
business. I would expect that a longer pack period would significantly
increase the number of pilots that purchase and fly with parachutes -
because they do not have to be bothered with repacking every 120 days.

The problem with the repacking is not the money, it is the inconvenience of
finding a rigger and transporting the chute to and from him (or her).

In my case, I would rather spend twice as much money for someting that I do
not have to repack every 120 days, and since I do not compete I am debating
about not purchasing a parachute at all. I have flown airplanes and more
recently helicopters, with no chute.

I have been considering the BRS at 4 to 5 times the price because it has a 5
year pack cycle, but the weight penalty is unacceptable. And, I have read
about the European sealed chute, but that apparently is not available in the
US.

I am confident that a longer pack cycle would increase use of parachutes and
that would mean more lives would be saved.

Colin N12HS