Parachutes again

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

Bill Zaleski wrote:


On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.

Is this because you can't tell the difference between a good parachute
and bad parachute, and just assume 20 years is long enough? Or this
there another reason? After all, isn't everything out in the open where
you can examine it?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Graeme Cant wrote:



Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to
make the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if
it's a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more
cost-conscious than the FAA?

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
(2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I have been told something completely different.

I questioned the Strong Enterprises Rep, at the convention, concerning the
issue that some riggers would not repack a chute if it is over 20 years old.
He said that there is no manditory life limit on parachutes for a good
reason. A well cared for parachute may have a life cycle that is longer than
20 years. He told me Strong will repack a 20+ year old parachute if it
passes their tests. It is not an uncommon occurrence.

Why has the FAA not imposed any rule on the estimated life cycle of a well
cared for parachute? I guess they do not see it as an issue, and expect the
riggers to use their best judgement on each parachute inspected, on an
individual basis, and not an overall judgement based solely on the age of
the parachute.

Some people insist that the FAA is correct on repack cycles, but do not
trust the FAA ruling on the absence of an imposed useful life on a well
cared for parachute. Seems inconsistent.

Differing points of view.


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...
On 25 Feb 2005 11:25:39 -0800, wrote:

Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
that is it. End of story.
Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
better explanation.
And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
120 days or fly without a parachute.

Great Post! My sentiments exactly! Just to be clear about what I
did: Even a sport main is under a mandatory 120 repack interval. I
made the jump with the 16 year pack job of a 35' static line rig in my
demo cutaway rig with 2 reserves. Even though a packing card is not
required with a sport main, the 120 day repack reg still applies.

On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.

Bill
D-5523 yes, that number IS correct!

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of the FAA rules. It is illegal to fly
with an expired chute while it is legal to fly without one. Same as with
transponders: illegal to turn them off but legal to fly without them. As
long as absurd rules like these exist, we better use our own judgment
instead. Having said that, I am always flying with a transponder and repack
my chute regularly.

Ramy

"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
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.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:33:29 -0800, Eric Greenwell
wrote:

Bill Zaleski wrote:


On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.

Is this because you can't tell the difference between a good parachute
and bad parachute, and just assume 20 years is long enough? Or this
there another reason? After all, isn't everything out in the open where
you can examine it?



My decision is based solely on economics, liability, and workload. I
have plenty of business and just don't need to have my signature on
thie older stuff. Just like a car that can be perfectly roadworthy
after 20 years of use, the likelhood of an impending failure increases
with age. My opinion, and nothing else. Keep on driving!

The Strong Parachute site states they do not have a 20 year limit ...
it depends on condition at pack and inspection.

http://www.strongparachutes.com/Mess...=32817&sid=222

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
(2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

Because the canister is sealed and impervious to moistu
http://brsparachutes.com/TI_techtips.mgi

Tony V.

correct.......none of the parachutes (major US brands) specifically have a
"life limit" but all these major US manufacturers have a policy, and
recommend these not be used after 20 years and will not normally do the I&R
on their own chutes after the 20th birthday.
tim

"Ken Kochanski (KK)" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Strong Parachute site states they do not have a 20 year limit ...
it depends on condition at pack and inspection.

http://www.strongparachutes.com/Mess...=32817&sid=222

When and if the rules change, I'll also, like everyone else should, comply
with them........until they do however, I am only making the point that
these are today the rules. If the rules should be changed I'll leave this
decision up to the manufacturers who know their products better than any of
us can, and the riggers and yes, also the FAA.I'm not so sure I or many of
us on RAS have the expertise or the ability to take on this liability.
tim


"Graeme Cant" wrote in message
...
Tim Mara wrote:
when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to
see were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review
current, medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider),
and PARACHUTE I&R date....
Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad
you're OK" from the feds ....
You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it
on a ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit
to do a flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you
have an accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and
find you are not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did
pass their written and practical exams didn't you?) and these same
regulations you in fact agreed to comply with when you signed your
application to play with their bat and ball.you CAN expect some
consequence....

Yes, Tim. All of that is true. But just parroting "they set the rules
and you agreed to play" isn't the democracy your (and our) people are
fighting for. This discussion is about whether the rules should be
changed.

Up to now I get the distinct impression from the contributions that the
riggers' union is saying - "We like the rules and we'll fight any attempt
to change them". From the raised voices, it sounds like the consumer is
starting to be heard and nobody likes it. The weakness of your position
is that if there were some logic in the rule, you'd argue it. Your and
the riggers instant resort to FAA sanctions make me feel there is no other
argument.

Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to make
the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if it's
a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more cost-conscious
than the FAA?

GC