Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?

Imagine one of the European sailplane companies decided innovation was too expensive and reselling what they already make is the way forward and started lobbying EASA and the FAA that all their gliders over 20 years old were unsafe and should be grounded? Throw in some scare stories from mechanics that don't want to work on older gliders. Cause that is exactly what Allen and some of the parachute manufacturers have done. When your product hasn't changed in 50 years best thing you can do is get the gov't to ban and/or industry associations to denounce the old stuff.

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

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'.