Parachute use in single seat gliders

I guess it's not necessary to mention here FAR 91.307.

Aerobatics without a parachute pass the 91.307 test as long as you are alone in the aircraft. I bring this up only because sometimes walk-on rides request an "exciting" flight and it can be tempting to do what 91.307 would define as "aerobatic" without putting on parachutes - and being responsible for instructing the ride on how to safely use the parachute if the need arises. I (CFIG) certainly do not consider myself qualified to instruct on the use of parachutes.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:06:38 PM UTC+3, BobW wrote:
On 5/19/2016 7:05 AM, N97MT wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:25:37 PM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 02:46:16 UTC+2, wrote:
Best answer, just get it re-packed.

Several years ago someone on the west coast left their chute on the
ground because it was out of date. Got caught in the clouds in wave
and ripped the wings off killing themselves.

Kevin 92

That's a good example of where the decisions of authorities trumps
logic. I can only understand that sort of reasoning if you actually plan
to use your chute for the flight (skydiving).

I have flown with expired chutes (just a couple of days past repacking -
it was club equipment) and I'd rather be bust with an expired chute than
find myself without one in an emergency like the poor sod mentioned
above.

In sport flying I have yet to experience an emergency of such magnitude
where I was forced to commence a flight with an expired parachute. Or to
decide to fly VFR in wave without one in the first place.

Kevin is spot on.

A parachute is worn like any item of clothing, and handled as such when we
climb in and out of the glider. Yet, we spend more money replacing clothes
when the smallest defect appears, than knowing that our emergency parachute
is really functional.

Locally a re-pack costs us $65. Cheap insurance -- especially in a club
setting -- for probably the most neglected item on any glider.


Continuing this (should-oughta be!) thought-provoking thread drift...

Having experienced the changes in "societal thinking" from pre-ubiquitous -
(and ultimately, in the U.S.) mandated - automobile seatbelts, and somewhat
similarly, the trend toward common (also often mandated) use of motorcycle
helmets, the "of *course*!" sensibility of both those devices was "immediately
obvious" to me once I reached my early twenties and realized I wasn't
immortal. Likewise parachute use in gliders...*regardless* of official mandate.

If you care about easily and relatively inexpensively actively minimizing
risk-to-self in driving, motorcycling or soaring (to use 3 common examples) -
soaring also being arguably purely self-indulgent and thus completely
"unnecessary" - seat belts, helmets and parachutes are "Duh!" choices in my
view. And to be redundantly clear - I don't give a hoot WHAT officialdom says
or mandates.

Years ago, my personal parachute was out for repacking, and - not being a
member of the local club at that time - rather than not go soaring that day, I
flew atop a 4-inch-thick pad of foam I had lying about. Talk about feeling naked!

Point being, when it comes to "acceptable soaring risk," about the last thing
I'd be worrying about is being "busted by the FAA" for an out-of-pack-date
parachute. Sure, if you're detected when being about to launch at the field,
it would be like waving a red flag at a bull to launch anyway, but - in the
absence of that unlikely (at non-contest launch settings) scenario - there's a
lot to be said for the philosophy: it's easier to beg forgiveness afterward,
than permission beforehand.

In my view, there's no substitute for good sense combined with a willingness
to "informedly as possible" self-decide your own levels of acceptable risk.
(And, yes, I understand risk decisions have potential to affect family and
friends...) To turn the thought around, the idea of letting unknown
bureaucrats decide my personal "acceptable level of societal/family/self risk"
is beyond bizarre to me. Darwinism - not fear of bureaucratic disapproval - is
sufficiently motivating!

I note that under New Zealand regulations, the parachute repack interval is a year, not six months as in the USA.

Is there a practical difference in level of safety? Almost certainly not.

Would a longer period, such as two years, be near enough to equally safe? Probably.

Maybe parachutes in the USA are subjected to greater environmental extremes, possibly causing items such as rubber bands to perish more quickly.

But probably it's just bureaucratic arbitrariness.

There was a flight out of Truckee a number of years ago where a glider and Aero Commander collied, with the boom of the glider nearly severed, but it stayed attached. The pilot was not wearing a chute and he landed safely, but....

Boy it sure would suck to need a chute and not have one!

The manual that came with my parachute, not one of the "standard"
brands, calls for a 1-year inspect and repack cycle unless your
country's regulations require more frequent inspections. Unfortunately,
we're stuck with 6 months. I understand that in the olden days, it was
1 month.


On 5/20/2016 1:36 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:06:38 PM UTC+3, BobW wrote:
On 5/19/2016 7:05 AM, N97MT wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:25:37 PM UTC-5, Surge wrote:
On Thursday, 19 May 2016 02:46:16 UTC+2, wrote:
Best answer, just get it re-packed.

Several years ago someone on the west coast left their chute on the
ground because it was out of date. Got caught in the clouds in wave
and ripped the wings off killing themselves.

Kevin 92
That's a good example of where the decisions of authorities trumps
logic. I can only understand that sort of reasoning if you actually plan
to use your chute for the flight (skydiving).

I have flown with expired chutes (just a couple of days past repacking -
it was club equipment) and I'd rather be bust with an expired chute than
find myself without one in an emergency like the poor sod mentioned
above.
In sport flying I have yet to experience an emergency of such magnitude
where I was forced to commence a flight with an expired parachute. Or to
decide to fly VFR in wave without one in the first place.

Kevin is spot on.

A parachute is worn like any item of clothing, and handled as such when we
climb in and out of the glider. Yet, we spend more money replacing clothes
when the smallest defect appears, than knowing that our emergency parachute
is really functional.

Locally a re-pack costs us $65. Cheap insurance -- especially in a club
setting -- for probably the most neglected item on any glider.

Continuing this (should-oughta be!) thought-provoking thread drift...

Having experienced the changes in "societal thinking" from pre-ubiquitous -
(and ultimately, in the U.S.) mandated - automobile seatbelts, and somewhat
similarly, the trend toward common (also often mandated) use of motorcycle
helmets, the "of *course*!" sensibility of both those devices was "immediately
obvious" to me once I reached my early twenties and realized I wasn't
immortal. Likewise parachute use in gliders...*regardless* of official mandate.

If you care about easily and relatively inexpensively actively minimizing
risk-to-self in driving, motorcycling or soaring (to use 3 common examples) -
soaring also being arguably purely self-indulgent and thus completely
"unnecessary" - seat belts, helmets and parachutes are "Duh!" choices in my
view. And to be redundantly clear - I don't give a hoot WHAT officialdom says
or mandates.

Years ago, my personal parachute was out for repacking, and - not being a
member of the local club at that time - rather than not go soaring that day, I
flew atop a 4-inch-thick pad of foam I had lying about. Talk about feeling naked!

Point being, when it comes to "acceptable soaring risk," about the last thing
I'd be worrying about is being "busted by the FAA" for an out-of-pack-date
parachute. Sure, if you're detected when being about to launch at the field,
it would be like waving a red flag at a bull to launch anyway, but - in the
absence of that unlikely (at non-contest launch settings) scenario - there's a
lot to be said for the philosophy: it's easier to beg forgiveness afterward,
than permission beforehand.

In my view, there's no substitute for good sense combined with a willingness
to "informedly as possible" self-decide your own levels of acceptable risk.
(And, yes, I understand risk decisions have potential to affect family and
friends...) To turn the thought around, the idea of letting unknown
bureaucrats decide my personal "acceptable level of societal/family/self risk"
is beyond bizarre to me. Darwinism - not fear of bureaucratic disapproval - is
sufficiently motivating!
I note that under New Zealand regulations, the parachute repack interval is a year, not six months as in the USA.

Is there a practical difference in level of safety? Almost certainly not.

Would a longer period, such as two years, be near enough to equally safe? Probably.

Maybe parachutes in the USA are subjected to greater environmental extremes, possibly causing items such as rubber bands to perish more quickly.

But probably it's just bureaucratic arbitrariness.

--
Dan, 5J