Tim,

You wrote:

"you're trying to re-write everything to sway what I have said....and
what I
have said is that this is a regulation....ands without this regulation
there
would be (some.fill it in again) who would/could/might never have
their
parachutes inspected by someone who can find difficulties, problems...
Speak with any good rigger or manufacturer, you will find that all of
them
have found chutes that have had problems, could fail.....if you are
suggesting leaving this up to individuals "judgment" then I guess it
would
also be OK for pilots to do their own annual inspections and the like
also...
tim
BTW; I have had to use a parachute from a glider...maybe if you had
this
same experience you might not be so willing to strike up this
argument."


Honestly, I'm not trying to change what you said, I played back what
you said in an effort to get you to think about it. From your
reaction, I think you're shocked by the replay.

The law doesn't say "pack your damn chute, you idiot." It says "no
pilot of a civil aircraft shall allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried aboard unless..." That's a shocking
statement. You're right to be shocked.

I hear what you're saying: of course recently-packed parachutes are
safer (although at least one rigger has told me that in her opinion
all the re-packing is the biggest source of parachute wear and tear!).
But I imagine a parachute that was packed 2 years ago is at least 90%
likely to work, and I know a seat cushion is 0% likely to work. Why
cite someone for taking the safer, albeit imperfect option of bringing
the out-of-date parachute? I understand people SHOULD re-pack their
chutes, but GIVEN that they notice their chute is now out-of-date,
what choice, from a public policy point of view, do you want them to
make about whether or not to bring it in the aircraft? Is that even a
real question?

No, it's not like annual inspections, because they are REQUIRED and a
parachute isn't. If we REQUIRE parachutes then you're absolutely
right: there has to be a definition of what an acceptable parachute
is. Perhaps that's what you're suggesting, and maybe it's not a bad
idea. But we don't require them, so we certainly shouldn't prohibit
someone carrying a less-than-perfect one when we allow them to carry
none at all. It's like having a radio and using it: it's optional,
and we should encourage people to do it, not cite them for
technicalities when they're trying to do the sensible thing and doing
no harm in the process.

Your belief is that this law causes more people to keep their
parachutes safe. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My belief is that
anal types like myself, who worry about whether or not they're legal,
are anal about their parachutes too, and people who aren't... aren't.
The problem is that, being anal, I HAVE wondered whether I should fly
with an out-of-date chute and risk getting fined on landing - or just
leave it in the car and avoid risking the hassle with the FAA. That
shouldn't even BE a question! I like to hope that, if the situation
ever arises, I'll bring the chute rather than obey the law. But
that's a ridiculous statement to have to make.

You've had to use a parachute to exit a glider. I'm very glad it
worked. I'm very glad you had it. And I oppose any regulation that
would have made it illegal for you to have had one, under any
circumstances whatsoever - not even if it hadn't been repacked in a
decade! I assume your chute had been repacked within the preceding
120 days, but if it had been out of date, it might have worked anyway.
If it had been in your car, it wouldn't have.