Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?

[[email protected]]

OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life limit," but we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old chute.

So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can you lucky folks who know who they are provide some contact information? I would be willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to extend the usefulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.

I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new in 2000 from Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided a great deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community). I am not willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice but has to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who may not treat their vital piece of survival equipment properly.

You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk with the rubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who leave the thing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish suitable for mold cultivation and so on.

Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your rigger might be grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a beer. However, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is unlikely..

[Roy B.]

Dona Mayer at Pepperell MA wrote the article referenced below and has been repacking my Security 150 for over 30 years now. Every time he does he asks me if I want to sell it (so he can buy it).You can ship it to him and he will ship it back, I think.
ROY
See:http://www.parachuteshop.com/service_life_limits.htm

[Roy B.]

Don Mayer at Pepperell MA has been doing my Security 150 repack for over 30 years and wrote the article referenced below. I think you can send him the chute UPS and he will send it back same way (I drop off and pick up mine).. Very good service including repairs if needed.
ROY
http://www.parachuteshop.com/service_life_limits.htm

[Roy B.]

See:
http://www.parachuteshop.com/service_life_limits.htm

Don has been doing my Security 150 for over 30 years.

ROY

[Michael Opitz]

At 01:54 01 June 2018, wrote:
>OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life
limit,"
>b=
>ut we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old
chute.=20
>
>So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can
you
>luck=
>y folks who know who they are provide some contact information?
I would be
>=
>willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to
extend the
>use=
>fulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.
>
>I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new
in 2000
>fr=
>om Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided
a
>gre=
>at deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community).
I am
>no=
>t willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice
but
>has=
> to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who
may not
>tre=
>at their vital piece of survival equipment properly.
>
>You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk
with the
>r=
>ubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who
leave the
>th=
>ing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish
suitable
>f=
>or mold cultivation and so on.
>
>Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your
rigger might
>b=
>e grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a
beer.
>Howe=
>ver, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is
>unlikely=
>..
>

I have a master rigger here in CT that has just repacked my 40 year
old Strong Para Cushion Back (which I bought new, so we know
where it's been all along). If nobody has one closer to NM, I can get
you his info.

RO

[Mike C]

Mark,

I had my 20 year old Strong 303 repacked here in Albuq. Strong's have no TSO 20 year limit, so my old parachute, in very good condition, easily passed. I would not post the Master Rigger's name here without permission.

Mike

[Mike C]

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:54:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life limit," but we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old chute.
>
> So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can you lucky folks who know who they are provide some contact information? I would be willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to extend the usefulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.
>
> I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new in 2000 from Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided a great deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community). I am not willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice but has to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who may not treat their vital piece of survival equipment properly.
>
> You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk with the rubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who leave the thing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish suitable for mold cultivation and so on.
>
> Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your rigger might be grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a beer. However, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is unlikely.


PARA-PHERNALIA

1.4 SERVICE LIFE
Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time, therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve
line of emergency parachutes



The Softie has a TSO 20 year limit, so you are right, probably no one will repack your chute.

Seems like Strong Parachutes are the best value when longevity and resale value are considered.

Mike

[JS[_5_]]

It is just propaganda.
Please look at the Parachute Shop link that Roy posted. Then open the response letter from FAA.
Without a Service Bulletin being issued, it's merely a recommendation by the people who want to sell you another chute. If you abuse the chute it may be valid. Look after a chute and it lasts much longer.
Or don't put any effort in, and believe that Budweiser is "the king of beers" because Anheuser Busch said so.
Jim

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 8:12:38 PM UTC-7, Mike C wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:54:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life limit," but we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old chute.
> >
> > So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can you lucky folks who know who they are provide some contact information? I would be willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to extend the usefulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.
> >
> > I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new in 2000 from Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided a great deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community). I am not willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice but has to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who may not treat their vital piece of survival equipment properly.
> >
> > You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk with the rubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who leave the thing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish suitable for mold cultivation and so on.
> >
> > Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your rigger might be grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a beer. However, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is unlikely.
>
>
> PARA-PHERNALIA
>
> 1.4 SERVICE LIFE
> Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time, therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve
> line of emergency parachutes
>
>
>
> The Softie has a TSO 20 year limit, so you are right, probably no one will repack your chute.
>
> Seems like Strong Parachutes are the best value when longevity and resale value are considered.
>
> Mike

[Mike C]

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 9:58:00 PM UTC-6, JS wrote:
> It is just propaganda.
> Please look at the Parachute Shop link that Roy posted. Then open the response letter from FAA.
> Without a Service Bulletin being issued, it's merely a recommendation by the people who want to sell you another chute. If you abuse the chute it may be valid. Look after a chute and it lasts much longer.
> Or don't put any effort in, and believe that Budweiser is "the king of beers" because Anheuser Busch said so.
> Jim
>
> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 8:12:38 PM UTC-7, Mike C wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 7:54:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life limit," but we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old chute..
> > >
> > > So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can you lucky folks who know who they are provide some contact information? I would be willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to extend the usefulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.
> > >
> > > I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new in 2000 from Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided a great deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community). I am not willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice but has to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who may not treat their vital piece of survival equipment properly.
> > >
> > > You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk with the rubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who leave the thing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish suitable for mold cultivation and so on.
> > >
> > > Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your rigger might be grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a beer.. However, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is unlikely.
> >
> >
> > PARA-PHERNALIA
> >
> > 1.4 SERVICE LIFE
> > Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time, therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve
> > line of emergency parachutes
> >
> >
> >
> > The Softie has a TSO 20 year limit, so you are right, probably no one will repack your chute.
> >
> > Seems like Strong Parachutes are the best value when longevity and resale value are considered.
> >
> > Mike

This helps clarify it.

FAR 65.129 -
No certificated parachute rigger may -
(e)
Pack, maintain, or alter a parachute in any manner that deviates from
the procedures approved by an FAA administrator OR the
manufacturer of the parachute; or
(f)
Exercise the privileges of his certificate and type rating unless he
understands the current manufacturer’s instructions for the operation
involved.

[Dan Marotta]

Mark,

There's a Master Rigger in the east mountains who inspects both of our
chutes, those of the glider FBO, and a lot of the ABQ club's equipment.Â*
He also presents an annual parachute safety clinic for the club.Â* I'll
give you his contact information next time I see you or you could
probably get it from the airport manager.

On 5/31/2018 7:54 PM, wrote:
> OK, I understand the various interpretations of the "20 year life limit," but we don't have a rigger locally that will touch a 20 year old chute.
>
> So, apparently there are riggers that WILL offer this service. Can you lucky folks who know who they are provide some contact information? I would be willing to pay shipping both ways and pay the repack fees to extend the usefulness (or potential usefulness) of my chute.
>
> I have a Para-Phernalia "Softie," manufactured and purchased new in 2000 from Allen Silver, (who is actually a really nice guy that has provided a great deal of valuable guidance and service to the gliding community). I am not willing to knock him for what is probably intended as good advice but has to, unfortunately, encompass the entire range of customers who may not treat their vital piece of survival equipment properly.
>
> You know, the guys who just leave their chute in a hot car trunk with the rubber stowage bands melting into the riser cords, the ones who leave the thing in a high-humidity environment and turn it into a Petri Dish suitable for mold cultivation and so on.
>
> Any contact info would be welcomed by many on RAS, plus your rigger might be grateful enough for the added business that he might buy you a beer. However, having been in the company of jumpers, I realize that this is unlikely.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Roy B. wrote:
> Don Mayer at Pepperell MA has been doing my Security 150 repack
> http://www.parachuteshop.com/service_life_limits.htm

Another happy customer of Don's here - just UPS your chute to him.
Best Regards, Dave

[[email protected]]

I was not aware of Para-Phernalia's 20-year life (which seems to check out based on quick research). I don't believe it's common knowledge. If I had known about it, I would not have bought mine. At age 67, saying I won't buy another one is probably not that threatening. :) But I won't.

You can talk all you want about the per-year cost over 20 years, but it's still $2,000+. Knowing it's a wasting asset regardless of how well you care for it is discouraging.

Chip Bearden

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:23:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I was not aware of Para-Phernalia's 20-year life (which seems to check out based on quick research). I don't believe it's common knowledge. If I had known about it, I would not have bought mine. At age 67, saying I won't buy another one is probably not that threatening. :) But I won't.
>
> You can talk all you want about the per-year cost over 20 years, but it's still $2,000+. Knowing it's a wasting asset regardless of how well you care for it is discouraging.
>
> Chip Bearden

I am on my third chute, would love to buy another in seventeen years, when this one times out. It is not a "wasting asset", it is a depreciating asset used as a/the safety device. I have never had a car for twenty years, a couch, a bed, a pillow, a climbing rope, boat.... Put aside $100 per year, or cut one Starbuck's trip a week for a year and you are move than covered (I assume you will invest your $100). It is really not a big burden if you plan for it. And it is your butt! I have had a few classes in material sciences. Anyone remember the acid wash thingy?

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:31:56 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:23:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I was not aware of Para-Phernalia's 20-year life (which seems to check out based on quick research). I don't believe it's common knowledge. If I had known about it, I would not have bought mine. At age 67, saying I won't buy another one is probably not that threatening. :) But I won't.
> >
> > You can talk all you want about the per-year cost over 20 years, but it's still $2,000+. Knowing it's a wasting asset regardless of how well you care for it is discouraging.
> >
> > Chip Bearden
>
> I am on my third chute, would love to buy another in seventeen years, when this one times out. It is not a "wasting asset", it is a depreciating asset used as a/the safety device. I have never had a car for twenty years, a couch, a bed, a pillow, a climbing rope, boat.... Put aside $100 per year, or cut one Starbuck's trip a week for a year and you are move than covered (I assume you will invest your $100). It is really not a big burden if you plan for it. And it is your butt! I have had a few classes in material sciences. Anyone remember the acid wash thingy?
Acid mesh problem was a manufacturing error that took a lot less than 20 years to show up. Replacing parachutes every 20 years wouldn't have avoided anything. Do you throw out your glass gliders when they are 21 years old? Parachutes and glass gliders are both made out of petroleum if one can't be determined to be safe after 20 years neither can the other. It's funny we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers that have spent their lives tied down outside yet some try to convince us that a parachute that spends most of its life in a bag stored in a closet is unairworthy at 21 years old.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 6/1/2018 11:31 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:23:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> I was not aware of Para-Phernalia's 20-year life (which seems to check out based on quick research). I don't believe it's common knowledge. If I had known about it, I would not have bought mine. At age 67, saying I won't buy another one is probably not that threatening. :) But I won't.
>>
>> You can talk all you want about the per-year cost over 20 years, but it's still $2,000+. Knowing it's a wasting asset regardless of how well you care for it is discouraging.
>>
>> Chip Bearden
>
> I am on my third chute, would love to buy another in seventeen years, when this one times out. It is not a "wasting asset", it is a depreciating asset used as a/the safety device. I have never had a car for twenty years, a couch, a bed, a pillow, a climbing rope, boat.... Put aside $100 per year, or cut one Starbuck's trip a week for a year and you are move than covered (I assume you will invest your $100). It is really not a big burden if you plan for it. And it is your butt! I have had a few classes in material sciences. Anyone remember the acid wash thingy?

Hmmm...

Everything has a lifespan, but 'humanly repurposed mechanical stuff' (e.g.
parachutes, gliders, cars) end-of-life condition is typically far less digital
than 'organic lives' (e.g. humans).

You don't have to have been an engineering major to have had a materials
science class or two (I was/did) but it may or may not be helpful. In any
event, it's already been noted 'the acid wash thingy' had zero to do with
'normal lifespan' and became apparent well before 'the magic 20 years' had
passed. I still have my original parachute (a 1953-ish round Navy canopy in an
older Army pack [or perhaps vice-versa - it's been a long time]); last (not
the first) time it was 'used in anger' was 1975; last time repacked was ~1995
(it tested just fine, in every respect).

When was the last 1-26 built? It surely woulda been fun to've attended the
2018 World 1-26 Champeenships recently completed.

How many 1st generation glass gliders have been found structurally kaput
'merely' because of age? The first C-172 still flies, in more or less original
- as in restoration not critically necessary - condition.

I sold my first glider tow vehicle for $500 after 37 years of glider towing
use; it had cost me ~$2600 new. Perhaps had I washed it more than a few times
the first year I owned it (and never thereafter), the unibody may not have
rusted so rapidly. It was registered, running and roadworthy the day I sold it
(the $500 was for its 3rd engine...which soon powered a 1961 Mercury Comet).
The only other vehicle I've ever purchased was made in 1990 and remains a
daily driver, albeit with only 245,000 miles on it to date and only the timing
belt (2X) and brake linings (1X) having required routine replacement; I
replaced spark plugs, once, out of curiosity - it wasn't necessary, based on
fuel mileage. A fully-independent-suspensioned vehicle, based on tire wear
patterns it has never had/needed a wheel alignment, nor has it required
anything more than occasionally rotating fronts-to-rears to maximize tire life
wear rates. Dangerously, neither vehicle ever had airbags or weighed more than
2600 lbs, fueled and oiled. Both vehicles took/continue-to-take wife and I on
tens of thousands of back road dirt miles, many of them of the 'seriously
dodgy' persuasion.

More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful age of
stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) as the
approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have differing
views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned), but it's also
a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any importance- and (also
arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure quotient.'

Bob W.

P.S. BTW, the number of times either of the above-mentioned vehicles ever
required attention of professional mechanics (as opposed to me, strictly a
dollar-sensitive, wrench turning, 'Murican who can read repair manuals), can
likely be counted without taking off my socks...and that includes exhaust
system repairs, which is where I draw my personal line. And, yes, I find the
balance between doing it myself and paying others to do it an easy trade to
make - I've never failed to obtain immediate, non-time/aggravation-wasting,
easy satisfaction if Joe Mechanic screws up! :)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I think the acid wash took 5 years to show up on my softie. Not sure what might have reared it's head later, as at 20 years, I though I had sweated enough on the chute and purchased a new one. With all due respect, your logic jump, that a glider made of petroleum products isn't limited to a 20 year usable lifespan then a petroleum base chute should be either. This jump is not based in fact, logic, nor science. Hell, even petroleum has a very limited life. How would you like to drive your new car on petro that is 5 years old let alone 20? I have a feeling it would not drive. The "we" in "we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers, is singular, as I don't fly 50 plus year old Schweizers, this has been covered on other threads about the state of soaring in America. Having said that, I do have a fair amount of time in 75 + year old WWII aircraft, that had been lovingly rebuilt. I flew those aircraft wearing a chute that was less than 20 years old.
Twenty years is a lot of wear an tear. You should have seen me twenty years ago.


>On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:42:33 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Acid mesh problem was a manufacturing error that took a lot less than 20 years to show up. Replacing parachutes every 20 years wouldn't have avoided anything. Do you throw out your glass gliders when they are 21 years old? Parachutes and glass gliders are both made out of petroleum if one can't be determined to be safe after 20 years neither can the other. It's funny we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers that have spent their lives tied down outside yet some try to convince us that a parachute that spends most of its life in a bag stored in a closet is unairworthy at 21 years old.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day. Personally, my life is worth the cost...


On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
> More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful age of
> stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) as the
> approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have differing
> views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned), but it's also
> a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any importance- and (also
> arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure quotient.'
>
> Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

I hated trading in my 42-year-old Pioneer Thin Pack, but following the
unfortunate experience of a local pilot (injuries on landing in high
winds), I decided I needed something better.Â* So I bought an Aviator
P-124 ram air emergency parachute.Â* I had the Air Force training in
round parachutes, but I took training in ram air at the local jump
club.Â* I couldn't be happier with my choice.

Yes, it was expensive at $2,700 for the rig and $1,000 for 7 solo jumps,
but I now have no concerns about leaving the aircraft or safely
maneuvering to the landing point of my choosing.

On 6/2/2018 9:35 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I think the acid wash took 5 years to show up on my softie. Not sure what might have reared it's head later, as at 20 years, I though I had sweated enough on the chute and purchased a new one. With all due respect, your logic jump, that a glider made of petroleum products isn't limited to a 20 year usable lifespan then a petroleum base chute should be either. This jump is not based in fact, logic, nor science. Hell, even petroleum has a very limited life. How would you like to drive your new car on petro that is 5 years old let alone 20? I have a feeling it would not drive. The "we" in "we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers, is singular, as I don't fly 50 plus year old Schweizers, this has been covered on other threads about the state of soaring in America. Having said that, I do have a fair amount of time in 75 + year old WWII aircraft, that had been lovingly rebuilt. I flew those aircraft wearing a chute that was less than 20 years old.
> Twenty years is a lot of wear an tear. You should have seen me twenty years ago.
>
>
>> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:42:33 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Acid mesh problem was a manufacturing error that took a lot less than 20 years to show up. Replacing parachutes every 20 years wouldn't have avoided anything. Do you throw out your glass gliders when they are 21 years old? Parachutes and glass gliders are both made out of petroleum if one can't be determined to be safe after 20 years neither can the other. It's funny we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers that have spent their lives tied down outside yet some try to convince us that a parachute that spends most of its life in a bag stored in a closet is unairworthy at 21 years old.

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Agreed on training. Learning on you way out the first time likely leads to broken body bits.
At a minimum, call a local jump school, maybe a bunch of local glider pilots can go through basic training without an actual jump (I have issues with height and leaving a perfectly good aircraft.....;-)).
This can be done for pretty cheap and at least you have a marginal clue.

Who knows, maybe you will do an actual jump?!?!
Better may be do an actual jump in your own chute YMMV.....

Reminds me of a known glider pilot at a contest. There was a midair within site of the home field. He was a sport jumper, bailed and sorta thought, "if I'm jumping, may as well as make it fun.....".
Did a delayed opening.
Last anyone on the field saw, he was freefalling.........argghhhhhh.
He was fine, call to glider insurance......

[Dan Marotta]

I was scared absolutely ****less on every flight, watching the
altimeter, knowing I'd have to jump.Â* Then, once outside and hanging off
the wing strut, all fear was gone.Â* The cool breeze in my face at
10,000' MSL made me impatient for the instructor's command, "Arch and
go!".Â* After that it was pure heaven maneuvering the canopy, entering
downwind, base, and final to the touchdown circle.

The injured pilot I mentioned earlier was an experienced
paratrooper/jump master with many jumps to his credit.Â* The winds were
high and terrain was rough.

On 6/2/2018 12:28 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Agreed on training. Learning on you way out the first time likely leads to broken body bits.
> At a minimum, call a local jump school, maybe a bunch of local glider pilots can go through basic training without an actual jump (I have issues with height and leaving a perfectly good aircraft.....;-)).
> This can be done for pretty cheap and at least you have a marginal clue.
>
> Who knows, maybe you will do an actual jump?!?!
> Better may be do an actual jump in your own chute YMMV.....
>
> Reminds me of a known glider pilot at a contest. There was a midair within site of the home field. He was a sport jumper, bailed and sorta thought, "if I'm jumping, may as well as make it fun.....".
> Did a delayed opening.
> Last anyone on the field saw, he was freefalling.........argghhhhhh.
> He was fine, call to glider insurance......

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

A wasting asset is one with a limited life, at the end of which it has no value or utility. For most assets, their depreciable lives--i.e., the interval over which the tax authorities allow expensing the acquisition cost--bear only a tenuous relationship to the actual service lives. So a car can be depreciated over 3 to 5 years, an aircraft over 5 to 7 years, and residential property over 5, 7, 15 or 27.5 years, or whatever the current regs say. Does anyone really think any of those assets are worthless and unserviceable at the end of their depreciable lives? Properly maintained, they can be used for many more years. But not a parachute with a 20 year life.

Hey,Jonathan, how about paying me $1,000 not to respond to your posts? That's less than $50 a year over my projected lifespan. What a deal! It's your quality of life, after all. :)

Seriously, I hate to pick on you but you lose me with arguments that default to safety as an absolute, rather than relative measure, or that cheerfully argue I should spend five thousand bucks because amortized over 50 years, it's less than my electric bill or a couple of tanks of gasoline or whatever.

Chip Bearden

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Hey, if you are a bit short contact me off line, always willing to help out a fellow glider pilot.
And I thought you were using term of frustration, not a term of art. I am familiar with accounting principles.

Jon


On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:09:23 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> A wasting asset is one with a limited life, at the end of which it has no value or utility. For most assets, their depreciable lives--i.e., the interval over which the tax authorities allow expensing the acquisition cost--bear only a tenuous relationship to the actual service lives. So a car can be depreciated over 3 to 5 years, an aircraft over 5 to 7 years, and residential property over 5, 7, 15 or 27.5 years, or whatever the current regs say.. Does anyone really think any of those assets are worthless and unserviceable at the end of their depreciable lives? Properly maintained, they can be used for many more years. But not a parachute with a 20 year life.
>
> Hey,Jonathan, how about paying me $1,000 not to respond to your posts? That's less than $50 a year over my projected lifespan. What a deal! It's your quality of life, after all. :)
>
> Chip Bearden

[jfitch]

A parachute is a simple device and rather easily tested for material degradation. A good rigger will do this on anything less than nearly new. On an older chute he will test canopy material to spec and shrouds to destruction. A car or glider, not so easily tested.

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I think the acid wash took 5 years to show up on my softie. Not sure what might have reared it's head later, as at 20 years, I though I had sweated enough on the chute and purchased a new one. With all due respect, your logic jump, that a glider made of petroleum products isn't limited to a 20 year usable lifespan then a petroleum base chute should be either. This jump is not based in fact, logic, nor science. Hell, even petroleum has a very limited life. How would you like to drive your new car on petro that is 5 years old let alone 20? I have a feeling it would not drive. The "we" in "we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers, is singular, as I don't fly 50 plus year old Schweizers, this has been covered on other threads about the state of soaring in America. Having said that, I do have a fair amount of time in 75 + year old WWII aircraft, that had been lovingly rebuilt. I flew those aircraft wearing a chute that was less than 20 years old.
> Twenty years is a lot of wear an tear. You should have seen me twenty years ago.
>
>
> >On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:42:33 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Acid mesh problem was a manufacturing error that took a lot less than 20 years to show up. Replacing parachutes every 20 years wouldn't have avoided anything. Do you throw out your glass gliders when they are 21 years old? Parachutes and glass gliders are both made out of petroleum if one can't be determined to be safe after 20 years neither can the other. It's funny we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers that have spent their lives tied down outside yet some try to convince us that a parachute that spends most of its life in a bag stored in a closet is unairworthy at 21 years old.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:20:44 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I hated trading in my 42-year-old Pioneer Thin Pack, but following the
> unfortunate experience of a local pilot (injuries on landing in high
> winds), I decided I needed something better.Â* So I bought an Aviator
> P-124 ram air emergency parachute.Â* I had the Air Force training in
> round parachutes, but I took training in ram air at the local jump
> club.Â* I couldn't be happier with my choice.
>
> Yes, it was expensive at $2,700 for the rig and $1,000 for 7 solo jumps,
> but I now have no concerns about leaving the aircraft or safely
> maneuvering to the landing point of my choosing.
>
Smartest guy in the room right there. I had one of those and unfortunately sold it after selling my first glider. Now I sit on a round. No problem with jumping, I've done that thousands of times, but I really don't want to jump a round. If parachute safety is a goal follow Dan's lead. That will do way more for you than having a brand new parachute based on 300 year old parachute technology.

[BobW]

On 6/2/2018 9:47 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see
> clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable
> difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it
> rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots
> are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to
> manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to
> find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day.
> Personally, my life is worth the cost...
>
>
> On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful
>> age of stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
>> as the approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have
>> differing views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned),
>> but it's also a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any
>> importance- and (also arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure
>> quotient.'

Nice attempt at diversion from the original point under discussion - a point
memory says was originally mooted by you (I didn't back-check the thread). In
any event, my main points - which I'll reiterate in a second - had zero to do
with my mechanic-ing talents (or not). You might as well argue that because I
am NOT a professional mechanic, I indulged in greater risks in my attempts to
continue operating vehicles whose mission hadn't changed from the date I
purchased them...and was therefore a fool taking foolish reliability
risks...than to imply only my wonderful mechanic-ing skills have allowed my
vehicles to prosper over time. (For the record: a) *I* don't consider myself
anything close to really good mechanics (some of whom I've had the pleasure to
know); and b) neither vehicle has ever left me stranded on a trip. That's more
than many glider pilots I know can honestly report, while driving far newer
vehicles.)

As for 'chute manufacturer recommendations' I'll simply point out you
neglected to mention the potential of conflict of (business) interest they
inevitably have. I'm not suggesting in any way their motivations aren't pure,
simply that it's in their business interests to suggest/mandate regular
replacement...reGARDless of risk - perceived or real.

Back to my main points:
- age alone is a poor/crude measure of risk (for
parachutes/gliders/lotsa-other-manmade things);

- acceptance of personal risk is, well, personal;

- to 'sensibly' (whatever that means) argue *for* safety is a good thing - I
regularly attempt to do it myself (and still have all my fingers, toes and
eyeballs);

- private citizens seeking to mandate/force their conception of 'acceptable
safety' on the rest of affected society is all-too-often nothing more than a
form of
totaliarianism/elitism/a-proxy-for-other-historically-proven-less-than-wonderful-isms/etc.;

- the actual material-related risks to older parachutes (insofar as they
relate to the potential for disastrous failures of the 'chutes) are - in the
engineering sense of things - relatively straightforward and pretty much
'piecewise mitigatable.'

Clearly your and my ideas related to acceptance of personal risks (as measured
by those related to 'chutes), differ. I'm OK with that. I'm (far) less OK with
anyone seeking to mandate their acceptable personal risk level upon my
(continuing) existence...as I suspect you would be with me attempting to
reciprocate that approach in my turn. Discussing pros and cons? A great thing.
Choosing to be king? Not so great.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:39:15 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 9:47 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see
> > clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable
> > difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it
> > rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots
> > are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to
> > manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to
> > find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day.
> > Personally, my life is worth the cost...
> >
> >
> > On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
> >> More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful
> >> age of stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt)
> >> as the approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have
> >> differing views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned),
> >> but it's also a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any
> >> importance- and (also arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure
> >> quotient.'
>
> Nice attempt at diversion from the original point under discussion - a point
> memory says was originally mooted by you (I didn't back-check the thread).. In
> any event, my main points - which I'll reiterate in a second - had zero to do
> with my mechanic-ing talents (or not). You might as well argue that because I
> am NOT a professional mechanic, I indulged in greater risks in my attempts to
> continue operating vehicles whose mission hadn't changed from the date I
> purchased them...and was therefore a fool taking foolish reliability
> risks...than to imply only my wonderful mechanic-ing skills have allowed my
> vehicles to prosper over time. (For the record: a) *I* don't consider myself
> anything close to really good mechanics (some of whom I've had the pleasure to
> know); and b) neither vehicle has ever left me stranded on a trip. That's more
> than many glider pilots I know can honestly report, while driving far newer
> vehicles.)
>
> As for 'chute manufacturer recommendations' I'll simply point out you
> neglected to mention the potential of conflict of (business) interest they
> inevitably have. I'm not suggesting in any way their motivations aren't pure,
> simply that it's in their business interests to suggest/mandate regular
> replacement...reGARDless of risk - perceived or real.
>
> Back to my main points:
> - age alone is a poor/crude measure of risk (for
> parachutes/gliders/lotsa-other-manmade things);
>
> - acceptance of personal risk is, well, personal;
>
> - to 'sensibly' (whatever that means) argue *for* safety is a good thing - I
> regularly attempt to do it myself (and still have all my fingers, toes and
> eyeballs);
>
> - private citizens seeking to mandate/force their conception of 'acceptable
> safety' on the rest of affected society is all-too-often nothing more than a
> form of
> totaliarianism/elitism/a-proxy-for-other-historically-proven-less-than-wonderful-isms/etc.;
>
> - the actual material-related risks to older parachutes (insofar as they
> relate to the potential for disastrous failures of the 'chutes) are - in the
> engineering sense of things - relatively straightforward and pretty much
> 'piecewise mitigatable.'
>
> Clearly your and my ideas related to acceptance of personal risks (as measured
> by those related to 'chutes), differ. I'm OK with that. I'm (far) less OK with
> anyone seeking to mandate their acceptable personal risk level upon my
> (continuing) existence...as I suspect you would be with me attempting to
> reciprocate that approach in my turn. Discussing pros and cons? A great thing.
> Choosing to be king? Not so great.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either :) “Totalitarian�, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. 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! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you?
While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free.
More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product.
One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials.. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits.

[[email protected]]

> Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either :) “Totalitarian�, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. 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! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you?
> While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free.
> More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product.
> One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits.
Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either :) “Totalitarian�, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. 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! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you?
> > While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free.
> > More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product.
> > One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits.
> Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes.

Good Sir, I submit your insult is out of place. I am not a materials expert nor a parachute expert nor have I professed to be, though I do have much experience with both. The point is the safety culture, nothing else! It is not economics, conflicts of interests, nor it is not materials sciences (although that is ancillary). We are talking in a public forum of extending the service life of emergency equipment against manufactures and PIA, recommendations, and without engineering studies. I personally, do not think young pilots and hopefuls need to hear this type of talk and think it is acceptable. As I said before, I have written manufacturers and gotten service life extensions, I played within the lines, not by my leave. Experienced pilots need to put forth an example for the younger pilots, that is a personal commitment of mine to aviation. I am a bit surprised that I stand alone on this matter while being insulted.

[Roy B.]

Anybody else notice that the supposed 20 year life limit starts at the date of "component manufacture" in the quote below - which is not likely near the actual date of the parachute manufacture. So if Para-Phenalia purchased a 2 year inventory of nylon cordage from a supplier who had a 3 year old back inventory - your chute life span is 15 years - not 20. This is all hog wash, I think.

1.4 SERVICE LIFE
Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time, therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve
line of emergency parachutes

ROY (who thinks there is nothing wrong in helping "young eaglets" also become sophisticated aviation consumers).

[[email protected]]

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.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

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

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

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

[[email protected]]

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'.