Ummm...with more time and money, this problem goes away, of course.
I think what we are arguing is that the regs and the repack
requirements are marginally silly, and unneccesarily expensive.

Not extremely silly or horifically expensive, just that it
would be better if a few tweaks were introcuced. A little nudge
for the reg and for the repack dates...

No, the expense really wasn't my point. The questions of what the
repack dates should be, that's a whole different topic. I don't know
what they should be.

My point was that the regs prohibit a pilot from doing something that
is safer than the legal alternative. Given that a parachute is out of
pack date, the pilot CAN legally fly WITHOUT it, but CANNOT legally
fly WITH it. Since flying with it is either safer than flying without
it or, in the worst case, no less safe than flying without it, the law
requires behavior (leave it on the ground) that is LESS SAFE than the
illegal alternative (bring it anyway, but without the same confidence
that it will work).

Laws that require unsafe behavior as an alternative to safer behavior
are an abomination.

That was my point.

The connection to the transponder regs was that we all KNOW it's safer
to have a transponder aboard and use it only when it makes sense, but
it's illegal, and sooner or later someone will get ticketed for it.
Just ask the guys who got ramp-checked for the pack dates on
parachutes they weren't even required to have on board.

On the other hand, I have no objection whatsoever to requiring
parachute pack dates for parachutes that are REQUIRED to be aboard the
aircraft for use in an emergency. If you're doing aerobatics you must
have a parachute. It makes sense, then, that there be some legal
definition of what constitutes an acceptable parachute.