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

[Gary[_5_]]

I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
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

[Dan Marotta]

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 used
> chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
> 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

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I recently had a conversation with Dan at Para-Phernalia. 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.

I sell the Para-Phernalia Softie parachutes. They are great products.

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 used
>> chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>> 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
>

[Frank Whiteley]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 07:14:58 -0700, Gary wrote:

> I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
> chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
> 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

20 would be good. The manufacturer of my chute lifed it at 15 years.

Frank Whiteley

[Andy Durbin]

At 14:14 05 July 2011, Gary wrote:
>I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
>chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>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
>

Neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge my rigger, have a concern that
my chute is over 20 years old.

I've owned it since new and know how it has been taken care of. However
I would not consider buying a chute that was over 20 years old.

Andy

[Paul Remde]

Hi Andy,

Good point. As long as it is a parachute that I took good care of, I
imagine it would be fine after 20 years. But I also wouldn't buy a used
parachute that is that old.

Paul Remde

"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
...
> At 14:14 05 July 2011, Gary wrote:
>>I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
>>chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>>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
>>
>
> Neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge my rigger, have a concern that
> my chute is over 20 years old.
>
> I've owned it since new and know how it has been taken care of. However
> I would not consider buying a chute that was over 20 years old.
>
> Andy
>

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

Check EBay they have some good parachutes listed from time to time.


My sister and her husband are both parachute riggers. They both repair
old parachutes. I asked them last week over dinner the same question
you are asking. Both said that as long as a parachute is still in good
condition and will pass the repack inspection, not to worry.

Buy an old parachute of eBay and use your extra cash for other glider
stuff.

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

I think you may find it's a manufacturere stipulated thing (at least in
some cases), like a TBO on engines in powered airplanes.

At 00:31 06 July 2011, Scott Alexander wrote:
>Check EBay they have some good parachutes listed from time to time.
>
>
>My sister and her husband are both parachute riggers. They both repair
>old parachutes. I asked them last week over dinner the same question
>you are asking. Both said that as long as a parachute is still in good
>condition and will pass the repack inspection, not to worry.
>
>Buy an old parachute of eBay and use your extra cash for other glider
>stuff.
>

[Jim Cook]

At 14:14 05 July 2011, Gary wrote:
>I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
>chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>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
>
I used to have my 20+ year old parachute packed by a very senior inspector
who told me that the life span of a parachute was precisely six months; the
recommended time between inspections. If the chute passed it's inspection
then there was no reason to get rid of it.
When I sold the parachute,along with a glider,the new owners took it to a
different inspector who advised them to buy a new one because of it's
age.
Best plan seems to be to find an inspector that you trust and take his
advice.

[BruceGreeff]

My rigger was happy to repack until 32+ years old. When the stitching on
the webbing started showing age damage - so now I need to replace it
before next repack. 1979-2011 is not bad...

The fabric and shrouds all tested fine, the container is good.
Just the stitching.

Bruce

On 2011/07/06 2:31 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
> Check EBay they have some good parachutes listed from time to time.
>
>
> My sister and her husband are both parachute riggers. They both repair
> old parachutes. I asked them last week over dinner the same question
> you are asking. Both said that as long as a parachute is still in good
> condition and will pass the repack inspection, not to worry.
>
> Buy an old parachute of eBay and use your extra cash for other glider
> stuff.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[GC[_2_]]

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. When was the last case of a parachute
which had been packed on schedule and certified by a qualified rigger
failing when needed? Or even failing when pulled on the ground and tested?

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

What do they mean by liability reasons? Do they now warrant their
chutes for 20 years unqualified by inspection? Or do they say no matter
how well they're treated, they won't last more than 20 years? Even in
very low UV environments such as Scandinavia? If 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 used
>>> chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>>> 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
>>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 6, 1:07*am, Chris Rollings > wrote:
> I think you may find it's a manufacturere stipulated thing (at least in
> some cases), like a TBO on engines in powered airplanes.
>

If it were just like TBO for engines in airplanes in would *not* be
mandatory. There is no legal requirement to do anything at TBO for
an airplane operated under Part 91. Many engines run well long past
TBO and far too many fail shortly after being overhauled.

Andy

[Gary[_5_]]

On Jul 6, 9:15*am, 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. *When was the last case of a parachute
> which had been packed on schedule and certified by a qualified rigger
> failing when needed? *Or even failing when pulled on the ground and tested?
>
> Where is the industry research which shows that 20 years is the maximum
> safe life? *Is this research on the pack?, the canopy?, the harness? the
> metal components? *Or are they reducing the quality of the components
> they use everywhere so that a proper inspection schedule of all
> components no longer guarantees safety? *Or is this a solid vote of no
> confidence in the parachute rigging profession?
>
> What do they mean by liability reasons? *Do they now warrant their
> chutes for 20 years unqualified by inspection? *Or do they say no matter
> how well they're treated, they won't last more than 20 years? *Even in
> very low UV environments such as Scandinavia? *If 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 used
> >>> chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
> >>> 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

[Dan Marotta]

Wow! These answers are so much better than I got when I posed the question
last year! Great information. I've owned my Pioneer since about 1987 and
always taken good care of it so, as long as it passes inspection, I will
continue to use it. It's very comfortable.

I agree with others that I'd never buy a parachute that old but I know where
mine's been.


"Jim Cook" > wrote in message
...
> At 14:14 05 July 2011, Gary wrote:
>>I apoligize of this has been discussed in the past. Looking for a used
>>chute I keep running into talk of 20 year life span for parachutes. Is
>>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
>>
> I used to have my 20+ year old parachute packed by a very senior inspector
> who told me that the life span of a parachute was precisely six months;
> the
> recommended time between inspections. If the chute passed it's inspection
> then there was no reason to get rid of it.
> When I sold the parachute,along with a glider,the new owners took it to a
> different inspector who advised them to buy a new one because of it's
> age.
> Best plan seems to be to find an inspector that you trust and take his
> advice.
>

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

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
>

[[email protected][_2_]]

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?

[Tony[_5_]]

On Jul 6, 8:19*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:07*am, Chris *Rollings > wrote:
>
> > I think you may find it's a manufacturere stipulated thing (at least in
> > some cases), like a TBO on engines in powered airplanes.
>
> If it were just like TBO for engines in airplanes in would *not* be
> mandatory. * There is no legal requirement to do anything at TBO for
> an airplane operated under Part 91. *Many engines run well long past
> TBO and far too many fail shortly after being overhauled.
>
> Andy

The 20 year recommended life limit on Softie parachutes is also not
mandatory, merely recommended. So, it is pretty much just like engine
TBO for Part 91 operations.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 6, 7:41*am, Chris Rollings > wrote:
>
> 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.

Are you aware of any case in which a sport skydiving accident resulted
in a sucessful claim against a rigger or chute manufacturer? In the
much smaller group of pilot fatals after bailout is there any history
of a sucessful claim?

Andy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

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?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[GC[_2_]]

On 7/07/2011 00:41, Chris Rollings wrote:
> 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.

Exactly! So what good does it do to put an arbitrary life on the chute?
He's going to need good liability insurance regardless.

So he should make it as well as seems reasonable and trust the
packer/rigger to decide the life in accordance with FAA maintenance
guidelines and established professional practice.

GC


\
>
> 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
>>
>

[howdy]

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/pages/inf_Skydiving_articles.php#RestOfTheAnswers

MK

[Alan[_6_]]

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

[Dan Marotta]

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
>>
>

[Andy[_1_]]

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/pages/inf_Skydiving_articles.php#Rest...
>
> MK

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

Andy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

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