Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?

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.

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.
Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes.

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
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.
Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes.

Good Sir, I submit your insult is out of place. I am not a materials expert nor a parachute expert nor have I professed to be, though I do have much experience with both. The point is the safety culture, nothing else! It is not economics, conflicts of interests, nor it is not materials sciences (although that is ancillary). We are talking in a public forum of extending the service life of emergency equipment against manufactures and PIA, recommendations, and without engineering studies. I personally, do not think young pilots and hopefuls need to hear this type of talk and think it is acceptable. As I said before, I have written manufacturers and gotten service life extensions, I played within the lines, not by my leave. Experienced pilots need to put forth an example for the younger pilots, that is a personal commitment of mine to aviation. I am a bit surprised that I stand alone on this matter while being insulted.

I've never been accused of economy of phrasing myself, so I feel I must leap to Bob's defense, Jonathan.

You apparently have a law degree so I assume you're familiar with the concept of conflict of interest. If Allen Silver were not thought to be a good guy and an entertaining presenter (I met him when I attended his session at the SSA convention years ago), many would have already accused him of conflict of interest. As the author of the 20-year rule, he stood to benefit from his sale of parachutes. Indeed, I bought my last one from him precisely because his rule made it almost impossible for me to get my 22-year-old chute repacked. Several riggers told me my chute could be perfectly serviceable (as several others tested it and confirmed) but they simply couldn't afford the exposure of going against the PIA's 20-year-life rule put in place by Allen, given this country's litigious society.

I've already recounted my less-than-smooth experience in that purchase from him so I won't repeat it here, except to say that how he presents himself and my own experience were two very different things in terms of attention to detail, responding to requests, and following the manufacturer's packing instructions. I finally sent my chute to ParaPhernalia to get it done right. His cutting the shroud lines of another poster's chute because of its age and shipping it back destroyed is yet another example of behavior I find objectionable.

As for Para-Phernalia, I can't blame them for writing in a 20-year life. Their lawyers probably told them it was prudent (they know the potential for other lawyers to sue the company better than any of us do). And, to be perfectly frank, it's in their economic best interests to have happy customers purchasing a new chute every 20 years rather than whenever the old one fails the pull test by a rigger. Plus there are all those sales to pilots whose other-brand chutes are passing 20 years old. No one can say they're doing anything unethical. But that doesn't alter the apparent conflict of interest.

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:49:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I've never been accused of economy of phrasing myself, so I feel I must leap to Bob's defense, Jonathan.

You apparently have a law degree so I assume you're familiar with the concept of conflict of interest. If Allen Silver were not thought to be a good guy and an entertaining presenter (I met him when I attended his session at the SSA convention years ago), many would have already accused him of conflict of interest. As the author of the 20-year rule, he stood to benefit from his sale of parachutes. Indeed, I bought my last one from him precisely because his rule made it almost impossible for me to get my 22-year-old chute repacked. Several riggers told me my chute could be perfectly serviceable (as several others tested it and confirmed) but they simply couldn't afford the exposure of going against the PIA's 20-year-life rule put in place by Allen, given this country's litigious society.

I've already recounted my less-than-smooth experience in that purchase from him so I won't repeat it here, except to say that how he presents himself and my own experience were two very different things in terms of attention to detail, responding to requests, and following the manufacturer's packing instructions. I finally sent my chute to ParaPhernalia to get it done right. His cutting the shroud lines of another poster's chute because of its age and shipping it back destroyed is yet another example of behavior I find objectionable.

As for Para-Phernalia, I can't blame them for writing in a 20-year life. Their lawyers probably told them it was prudent (they know the potential for other lawyers to sue the company better than any of us do). And, to be perfectly frank, it's in their economic best interests to have happy customers purchasing a new chute every 20 years rather than whenever the old one fails the pull test by a rigger. Plus there are all those sales to pilots whose other-brand chutes are passing 20 years old. No one can say they're doing anything unethical. But that doesn't alter the apparent conflict of interest.

Since you have a law degree, perhaps you could opine on the concept of a waiver of liability we could give to a rigger stipulating that we are aware of the 20-year-life recommendation but are also aware that the specific condition of a chute varies widely and can be established through testing, and that if our chute passes those tests, we agree to release the rigger from all liability relating to any injury or death resulting from use of the chute.

I know waivers are not always worth as much as we would like them to be, but something like this might help reassure a rigger who, like some I've met, have confidence in their ability and common sense but are worried about lawyers and pilots' estates.

I also realize that we would be waiving any rights to sue even for negligence on the part of the rigger in his testing or repacking. I'm good with that. The chances that I'll need a chute are minimal. The chances that it will fail to open or function properly are (I'm told) very small. The chances that rigger negligence would be the cause of that are smaller still.

I have been lauded in the past as someone who attempts to balance safety and real-world considerations in an intelligent and non-preachy fashion. If a competent rigger tells me my chute has tested OK, that's good enough for me (I have an engineering degree long ago so I'm comfortable with the concept of testing, life limits, probabilities, etc.). I know nothing in this world can ever be 100% safe, especially soaring. Trying to make it so gets expensive very quickly and, carried to the extreme, forces me out of this game.

Chip Bearden

Apparently, I am the minority opinion, thank you all for sharing.
Jon

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 6:33:36 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 7:49:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I've never been accused of economy of phrasing myself, so I feel I must leap to Bob's defense, Jonathan.

You apparently have a law degree so I assume you're familiar with the concept of conflict of interest. If Allen Silver were not thought to be a good guy and an entertaining presenter (I met him when I attended his session at the SSA convention years ago), many would have already accused him of conflict of interest. As the author of the 20-year rule, he stood to benefit from his sale of parachutes. Indeed, I bought my last one from him precisely because his rule made it almost impossible for me to get my 22-year-old chute repacked. Several riggers told me my chute could be perfectly serviceable (as several others tested it and confirmed) but they simply couldn't afford the exposure of going against the PIA's 20-year-life rule put in place by Allen, given this country's litigious society.

I've already recounted my less-than-smooth experience in that purchase from him so I won't repeat it here, except to say that how he presents himself and my own experience were two very different things in terms of attention to detail, responding to requests, and following the manufacturer's packing instructions. I finally sent my chute to ParaPhernalia to get it done right. His cutting the shroud lines of another poster's chute because of its age and shipping it back destroyed is yet another example of behavior I find objectionable.

As for Para-Phernalia, I can't blame them for writing in a 20-year life.. Their lawyers probably told them it was prudent (they know the potential for other lawyers to sue the company better than any of us do). And, to be perfectly frank, it's in their economic best interests to have happy customers purchasing a new chute every 20 years rather than whenever the old one fails the pull test by a rigger. Plus there are all those sales to pilots whose other-brand chutes are passing 20 years old. No one can say they're doing anything unethical. But that doesn't alter the apparent conflict of interest.

Since you have a law degree, perhaps you could opine on the concept of a waiver of liability we could give to a rigger stipulating that we are aware of the 20-year-life recommendation but are also aware that the specific condition of a chute varies widely and can be established through testing, and that if our chute passes those tests, we agree to release the rigger from all liability relating to any injury or death resulting from use of the chute.

I know waivers are not always worth as much as we would like them to be, but something like this might help reassure a rigger who, like some I've met, have confidence in their ability and common sense but are worried about lawyers and pilots' estates.

I also realize that we would be waiving any rights to sue even for negligence on the part of the rigger in his testing or repacking. I'm good with that. The chances that I'll need a chute are minimal. The chances that it will fail to open or function properly are (I'm told) very small. The chances that rigger negligence would be the cause of that are smaller still.

I have been lauded in the past as someone who attempts to balance safety and real-world considerations in an intelligent and non-preachy fashion. If a competent rigger tells me my chute has tested OK, that's good enough for me (I have an engineering degree long ago so I'm comfortable with the concept of testing, life limits, probabilities, etc.). I know nothing in this world can ever be 100% safe, especially soaring. Trying to make it so gets expensive very quickly and, carried to the extreme, forces me out of this game.

Chip Bearden

Apparently, I am the minority opinion, thank you all for sharing.
Jon

Thanks for speaking up, Jonathan. I'm with you and the 'silent majority'.

On 6/3/2018 7:26 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

snipped for brevity/clarity...

...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!
This has become a long thread. Time for a factual summary?

Fact 1 - Conflicting conclusions exist between professional/certified
'chute-riggers. Allen Silver supports a 20-year service life...and has
(allegedly/apparently) chosen to act as if he is Parachute Safety King. Don
Mayer - pointing to FAA guidelines on an extensive website - supports actual
'safe-condition confirmation testing.'
( http://www.parachuteshop.com/service_life_limits.htm )

Fact 2 - I'm aware of only one U.S. parachute manufacturer who specifies a
20-year life-limit on their 'chutes. (I infer the others are OK with
'safe-condition confirmation testing.')

So what's a person to do...whether young or not? I encourage folks to develop
their critical thinking skills...then act accordingly.

Tangentially, I find written nuanced thought not something generally amenable
to 'bullet-pointing' and thus inherently 'somewhat prolix.' So be it...

Bob W.

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