Longer parachute repack cycle petition (USA)

I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120 days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Evidence to support this claim could come from NASA.
A recent TV programme showed details of the project
to land a probe on Titan one of the Saturn moons

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/index.cfm

The landing was controlled by parachute. They appeared
to perform well as the probe is now sending back data.

The journey took the best part of 7 years........

Dave
PS Some stunning photos on the web site.


At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Further evidence if required of longer repack times.

My own club in the UK use sports parachutes made by
Thomas Sports UK and following negotiations with the
manufacturer the recommendation for club 'chutes is
6 months.

The 'chutes are stored in a warmed cabinet and inspected
before each days use. The are used on a daily basis
and as club equipment they get some rough handling.
Any faults and the equipment is sent for a repack.

This practice has been in use for well over 10 years.
Does it work?

About 4 years ago a member of the club had a problem
with an ASK 18 and jumped at around 1500 max AGL.
Eye witnesses suggest that is was lower. The chute
did its job and the pilot landed with no injuries.


The incident was documented as is the repack history
of the parachute, which incidentally is back in service.


Dave.

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark J. Boyd

We should wait for the NPRM to come out before making comments, as the
petition comment period is closed, and further comments probably won't
be accepted.

M B wrote:

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark J. Boyd

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.

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.

wrote in
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"
(snip)

About 20 years ago there was an article in Australian Gliding showing the
results of tests of parachute opening time versus time since repack. I
don't remember the details but the fastest opening times were found to be
at one year since repack.
-Bob Korves

wrote:

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.

But that would make sense.


Parachutes are required for aerobatics....

Only when carrying non-crew members.

91.307(c) "Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing
an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft
carrying any person (other than a crew member) may
execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds...."


Jack