What's the deal with 20 year life span on chutes?

Take a look at this link from Strong parachutes. Scroll down and find
their answer to the question. Settles it for me.

http://www.strongparachutes.com/page...stOfTheAnswers

MK

In article Eric Greenwell writes:
On 7/6/2011 8:04 AM, wrote:
Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

I don't think they need to do to avoid liability, at least in the US.
Isn't the limitation on manufacturer's liability only 18 years?

It may be now, but note what was happening to general aviation manufacturing
before that was changed. Back in the early '80s, most of the GA manufacturers
were shutting down production. Cessna shut down single engine production in 1986.

As noted on AVweb, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)
immunized makers of GA aircraft against lawsuits for defects in products
older than 18 years. However, the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled
that the flight manual is part of the aircraft, so any revisions to the
manual may restart the clock each time. Clearly, the manufacturer would
have trouble defending not revising the manual if changes needed to be
made. This may break the 18 year limit of liability.

Perhaps the manufacturer will decide that, rather than wait for 18 years to
go by with no revisions, that at the 20 years they will cut their liability
by issuing a manual revision that says the aircraft is not airworthy after
that point.

I thnk that Greg raises a potentially frightening possibility.

Alan

What you say would also be true with a brand new parachute. Sad, but
true...


"Chris Rollings" wrote in message
...
If I was a parachute maker - which, thank the Lord, I'm not sir - I would
probably want to put a life on my products (a) to try to protect myself
from product liability litigation, particularly in the USA and (b) to try
to generate repeat sales. This would have to be balanced against what
life - if any - my competitors put on their products.

If somebody jumps from an aircraft in the USA, wearing a parachute, and
hits the ground without the parachute having been sucessfuly deployed, I
think it is a near certainty that there would be a claim made against the
parachute manufacturer and/or the last packer. I also think it highly
likely that the claim would result in a large sum being awarded, almost
regardless of the actual cause of the failure to deploy.

At 13:52 06 July 2011, Gary wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:15=A0am, GC wrote:
On 6/07/2011 03:17, Paul Remde wrote:

Hi,

They have
recently put a note in their manual stating that the life limit is
20
years. They do that for liability reasons. I can't say I blame them
-
after seeing how some pilot take care (not) of their parachutes.

Rubbish!

This is simply an attempt to sell more parachutes based on the usual
process of thickly spreading FUD. =A0When was the last case of a
parachut=
e
which had been packed on schedule and certified by a qualified rigger
failing when needed? =A0Or even failing when pulled on the ground and
tes=
ted?

Where is the industry research which shows that 20 years is the
maximum
safe life? =A0Is this research on the pack?, the canopy?, the harness?
th=
e
metal components? =A0Or are they reducing the quality of the
components
they use everywhere so that a proper inspection schedule of all
components no longer guarantees safety? =A0Or is this a solid vote of
no
confidence in the parachute rigging profession?

What do they mean by liability reasons? =A0Do they now warrant their
chutes for 20 years unqualified by inspection? =A0Or do they say no
matte=
r
how well they're treated, they won't last more than 20 years? =A0Even
in
very low UV environments such as Scandinavia? =A0If the reason really
is
liability, why isn't the life limited only by inspection when used in
jurisdictions other than the USA?

They're certainly not a great product if they now last less than half
the life regularly attained by many earlier chutes.

Rubbish!

GC



Paul Remde

"Dan Marotta" wrote in message
...
It's about riggers wanting to sell you a new parachute rather than
packing a perfectly serviceable item.

I posted a similar question almost a year ago and was met with a
barage of questions about what my life is worth, etc. Totally
useless
replies.

In the US there is no life limit on your parachute if it will pass
all
required tests and inspections. The trick is to find a rigger who
will
accept the work. I was fortunate in this regard and my 37 year old
Pioneer Thin Pack is still in service. It will remain in service as
long as it is serviceable.

"Gary" wrote in message

.=
...
I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a
use=
d
chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for
parachutes.
I=
s
it solely up to the rigger to pack or refuse a chute that age?

Still looking for a used chute that will not break the bank after
recently buying an ASW-20.

Thanks, Gary Adams GA2- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wow, All good info. Thanks all for the replys. The rigger I plan on
using (TA) is a fellow clubmember of mine at CCSC and someone I trust.
I like the idea that the life span is 180......
GA2

On Jul 6, 7:43*pm, howdy wrote:
Take a look at this link from Strong parachutes. *Scroll down and find
their answer to the question. *Settles it for me.

http://www.strongparachutes.com/page...icles.php#Rest...

MK

Looks like a good answer to me since I fly with a Strong chute.
Thanks for the reference.

Andy

Any evidence for that remark? I have not heard of any parachute
manufacturer being sued in that situation. Anyone can sue, of course,
but "highly likely that the claim would result in a large sum being
awarded" seems without any basis.

On 7/7/2011 7:01 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
What you say would also be true with a brand new parachute. Sad, but
true...


"Chris Rollings" wrote in message
...
If I was a parachute maker - which, thank the Lord, I'm not sir - I would
probably want to put a life on my products (a) to try to protect myself
from product liability litigation, particularly in the USA and (b) to try
to generate repeat sales. This would have to be balanced against what
life - if any - my competitors put on their products.

If somebody jumps from an aircraft in the USA, wearing a parachute, and
hits the ground without the parachute having been sucessfuly deployed, I
think it is a near certainty that there would be a claim made against the
parachute manufacturer and/or the last packer. I also think it highly
likely that the claim would result in a large sum being awarded, almost
regardless of the actual cause of the failure to deploy.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 7/7/2011 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
In Eric writes:
On 7/6/2011 8:04 AM, wrote:
Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

I don't think they need to do to avoid liability, at least in the US.
Isn't the limitation on manufacturer's liability only 18 years?

It may be now, but note what was happening to general aviation manufacturing
before that was changed. Back in the early '80s, most of the GA manufacturers
were shutting down production. Cessna shut down single engine production in 1986.

As noted on AVweb, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)
immunized makers of GA aircraft against lawsuits for defects in products
older than 18 years. However, the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled
that the flight manual is part of the aircraft, so any revisions to the
manual may restart the clock each time. Clearly, the manufacturer would
have trouble defending not revising the manual if changes needed to be
made. This may break the 18 year limit of liability.

Perhaps the manufacturer will decide that, rather than wait for 18 years to
go by with no revisions, that at the 20 years they will cut their liability
by issuing a manual revision that says the aircraft is not airworthy after
that point.

That sounds very unlikely to me, as it would mean they are leaving the
aircraft business - who would buy a plane from them after that? If they
want out, all they have to do is sell the assets and go home. There is
no reason to destroy the value of the aircraft, nor is it obvious to me
the manufacturer can simply declare an aircraft "not airworthy" without
showing there is a defect in it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz