Parachute question

[Duster]

I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
or trash it?

Duster

[Eric Greenwell]

Duster wrote:
> I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
> does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
> accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
> about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
> my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
> John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
> Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
> is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
> What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
> or trash it?

I suggest you contact Security for their recommendation, since that is
what a likely buyer will do and go by. At one time, there were some AD's
on Security chutes, also a factor in your choice.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[BTIZ]

what does your rigger say.. is it still serviceable? you do get it checked
and repacked on a regular basis.. right?

If he checks it and it's still good, and its an Emergency chute.. and you
don't like how it fits..
offer it up eBay..

BT

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Duster wrote:
>> I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
>> does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
>> accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
>> about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
>> my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
>> John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
>> Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
>> is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
>> What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
>> or trash it?
>
> I suggest you contact Security for their recommendation, since that is
> what a likely buyer will do and go by. At one time, there were some AD's
> on Security chutes, also a factor in your choice.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Mark James Boyd]

I'll tell ya, I've considered just taking a
riggers course to avoid $150/year. Theres places in AZ and
here in CA where the courses are under $1000, I think.
It'd pay for itself in 7 years, just packing your own chute!

In article . com>,
Duster > wrote:
>I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
>does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
>accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
>about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
>my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
>John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
>Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
>is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
>What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
>or trash it?
>
>Duster
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I'll tell ya, I've considered just taking a
> riggers course to avoid $150/year. Theres places in AZ and
> here in CA where the courses are under $1000, I think.
> It'd pay for itself in 7 years, just packing your own chute!

Doesn't seem like very good pay to me, and I don't want to fly with a
parachute packed by a guy that does it 2 or 3 times year! And the same
guy that can forget to take the tail dolly off, too.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I'll tell ya, I've considered just taking a
> riggers course to avoid $150/year. Theres places in AZ and
> here in CA where the courses are under $1000, I think.
> It'd pay for itself in 7 years, just packing your own chute!

You are getting ripped off at $150. The going rate here is $50. At that
rate it would take 20 years to break even - forever if you factor any
reasonable interest rate.

Tom

[JC]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:19:55 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Duster wrote:
>> I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
>> does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
>> accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
>> about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
>> my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
>> John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
>> Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
>> is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
>> What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
>> or trash it?
>
>I suggest you contact Security for their recommendation, since that is
>what a likely buyer will do and go by. At one time, there were some AD's
>on Security chutes, also a factor in your choice.


You would have a hard time contacting Security. They no longer do
business in the United States.

I went through this same situation this past summer when I sold a
Security 350. What my master rigger said, was long as it passes
inspection it is OK to use. He said the 20 year service life was
promoted by the manufactures, mostly to sell new chutes. If it has
been well maintained there is no reason it is not still good. I know
of one rigger who will still pack the old silk army chutes.

Some of the Security chutes had bad "vent" material. The material was
treated with a fire retardant for use as a mosquito netting, then used
in parachutes by mistake. When your chute is repacked the fabric is
to be tested with an "acid" that will change color if the netting has
been treated with the fire retardant and it has leeched into the
adjacent fabric. At this point most all the chutes that have the bad
material have been removed from service. Most likely, I am told, if
it passes the acid test it will always pass the acid test. But not
always. I know of a chute purchased by a friend that passed the acid
test in the summer, but the following spring it failed.

[BTIZ]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> I'll tell ya, I've considered just taking a
>> riggers course to avoid $150/year. Theres places in AZ and
>> here in CA where the courses are under $1000, I think.
>> It'd pay for itself in 7 years, just packing your own chute!
>
> You are getting ripped off at $150. The going rate here is $50. At that
> rate it would take 20 years to break even - forever if you factor any
> reasonable interest rate.
>
> Tom

Tom, do the math, if you are packing it every 120 days.. at $50 a pop..
(that's what I pay too), then let's see.. 365 days per year divided by 120
days is 3 repacks a year
3 times $50 a repack is... aaahhh... ahhh... $150 per year.. plus drive time
and cost of fuel..

which is what he said.. re read the post.. I do hope you are doing more
than one repack a year.. unless you only repack in spring, because your
soaring season is only 3 months and you don't need it again until next
year..

we fly all year.. 3 repacks a year..

BT

[Mark James Boyd]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> I'll tell ya, I've considered just taking a
>> riggers course to avoid $150/year. Theres places in AZ and
>> here in CA where the courses are under $1000, I think.
>> It'd pay for itself in 7 years, just packing your own chute!
>
>You are getting ripped off at $150. The going rate here is $50. At that
>rate it would take 20 years to break even - forever if you factor any
>reasonable interest rate.

You get repacks every 4 months for $16.66 each? That's incredible!
Sign me up! We pay $50 per repack, and of course do it every
four months (as the US regs require). Just like you, right?

;)

Mark


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[John Sinclair]

I'm told the 20 year rule comes from the military.
my packer tels me there is no life limit as long as
it passes inspection, which he does for $50 bucks.
JJ

At 01:00 21 December 2004, Duster wrote:
>I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute
>to replace mine that
>does not fit the contours of my ship. My question
>pertains to the
>accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've
>often heard is
>about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was
>just about to toss
>my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread
>an article by
>John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March
>2003) which quotes
>Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as
>saying, '...there
>is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency
>parachute.'
>What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should
>I try to sell it
>or trash it?
>
>Duster
>
>

[Go]

Packing your own:
There is a lot more to being a rigger than just packing a 'chute. I
vote for trusting someone who does this more that four times a year.
$200 a year is nothing when you are in free-fall, pulling the handle,
and remembering this is your ONLY parachute, your only chance to live.
Been there, very intense moments until the reserve goes 'whump'.

Send that old 'chute to the manufacturer for the repack. I would think
nothing would assure the buyer more than a current packing data card
from the manufacturer. They will be sure to check it every which way
and expecially for wear and fabric strength. They do get wear just
being in the pack. Fabric does lose strength with time. I have seen
them open (not mine!) and well...... what good is it open if it has
these big holes in it?

Does anyone leave their rig in the hot sun, in a car in the hot sun, in
the cockpit...... Heat can very well have an adverse affect on the
condition of the parachute in the pack.

How well do you know your rigger's competancy?

I recently took mine to a different rigger who took the time to test
the pilotchute spring. Guess what? It was way below standard. What good
is it to have a perfectly good parachute if it won't get off your back
cleanly? Do you pop your rig before you take it for repack? Ask your
rigger next time how the pilotchute test went? HUH? Get a new rigger.

Last but not least: When was the last time any of us did a pin check on
our parachute rig? Do you know what a pin check is? We all should and
should do it EVERY TIME before we put it on. One small piece of gravel
lodged inside your housing can cause a total malfunction. Yes, a pin
check includes ensuring the ripcord cable moves freely within the
housing. Not likely that problem and the need to use the parachute
could happen at the same time is it? Want to bet your life on it?
Old Skydiver,
New glider pilot.

[Tim Mara]

Mostly correct......

Security Chutes (GQ) are still being manufactured and sold in the UK, but no
longer in the USA...I am not certain, maybe our UK friends can better
answer, but I was told new parachute by GQ have a strict 12 year(?) life
limit now, afterwards they can no longer be used....I know there are similar
limits in some European countries.
There was a big issue with some earlier Security parachutes having an acid
reaction to the material causing the canopy materials to deteriorate. This
was however not only a Security problem but also affected most other
manufacturers as well. All manufacturers are still required to test canopy
material for acid (PH) and I know for fact that the major manufacturers have
even in very recent times had to reject material for this same problem.
In the USA there is not a specific requirement in the FARs to "condemn"
parachute at any specified time, but the manufacturers have typically set
life limits on their own products at 20 years, and will not "normally" I&R a
parachute after passing the 20th birthday. Most reputable riggers also will
recommend retiring parachutes after 20 years if not reject or refuse to I&R
and typically riggers are not going to be the retail dealers for new
parachutes so doing so is not a sales gimmick to sell new parachutes.
I have had some (very rare) chutes that were at, near or even over 20 years
that were sill so "unused" that I just couldn't justify destroying them, but
could also not offer them for sale knowing the buyer may have problems
getting the I&R done later when necessary, these chutes I've kept on hand
for locals to borrow or buy (for not much more than the cost of the I&R)
since I could keep an eye on them. I would not recommend selling any used
parachute that was not in very good condition, even if still much younger
than the 20 year birthday and rather than put a few hundred $ in my pocket
would highly recommend others do the same. A few $ is not worth the
potential risk you may be placing on the unknowing buyer.
Just MHO
tim


<JC> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:19:55 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>>Duster wrote:
>>> I'm planning on purchasing a new or used parachute to replace mine that
>>> does not fit the contours of my ship. My question pertains to the
>>> accepted longevity of emergency parachutes which I've often heard is
>>> about 20 years. Because mine is 27 years old, I was just about to toss
>>> my Security 250 in the dump. However, I recently reread an article by
>>> John Good on parachutes published in Soaring (March 2003) which quotes
>>> Ted Strong (of Strong Parachutes) and a colleague as saying, "...there
>>> is no need to impose a limited service life on an emergency parachute."
>>> What's the consensus by others in the sport? Should I try to sell it
>>> or trash it?
>>
>>I suggest you contact Security for their recommendation, since that is
>>what a likely buyer will do and go by. At one time, there were some AD's
>>on Security chutes, also a factor in your choice.
>
>
> You would have a hard time contacting Security. They no longer do
> business in the United States.
>
> I went through this same situation this past summer when I sold a
> Security 350. What my master rigger said, was long as it passes
> inspection it is OK to use. He said the 20 year service life was
> promoted by the manufactures, mostly to sell new chutes. If it has
> been well maintained there is no reason it is not still good. I know
> of one rigger who will still pack the old silk army chutes.
>
> Some of the Security chutes had bad "vent" material. The material was
> treated with a fire retardant for use as a mosquito netting, then used
> in parachutes by mistake. When your chute is repacked the fabric is
> to be tested with an "acid" that will change color if the netting has
> been treated with the fire retardant and it has leeched into the
> adjacent fabric. At this point most all the chutes that have the bad
> material have been removed from service. Most likely, I am told, if
> it passes the acid test it will always pass the acid test. But not
> always. I know of a chute purchased by a friend that passed the acid
> test in the summer, but the following spring it failed.

[[email protected]]

O'K...good topic. There is more to a parachute then most of pilots do
realize. They come in different flavors and colors but....I am a
rigger. I will not pack for anyone parachute older than 15 years. Some
riggers will. Why I want? Parachutes and container/harness systems are
designed under several different categories, like TSO c23d....let me
explain: The TSO certification was established in 1976, with the
TSO-c23a rating, as an international standard for parachutes. No
parachute can be sold as a reserve or rescue parachute without a TSO
rating. In the years since the TSO-C23a rating was established, the
level of standards to meet the rating has become significantly higher.
In 1992 the TSO-C23d rating was introduced and today less than 15% of
the manufacturers who hold a TSO rating have the TSO-c23d rating. As of
July of 2002, all parachute manufacturers who hold a TSO rating lower
than the TSO-C23d are unable to make improvements to their parachutes
or to reach the higher standard, and are therefore selling parachutes
based on technology that is over 10 years old or even older in some
cases.
O'K...I will make it simple...imagine that you are flying high, like
for example on the wave. You flew into something that mangled your bird
and you need to get out. You think to yourself " aaaa, not a big deal,
I've got my parachute". You got out of the cockpit and started rushing
down to earth. Do you have any idea about the acceleration? Do you know
how fast you are going down? Do you know how to control your body in
freefall so don't spin like a piece of meat? Well, most of you don't.
So, I would suggest go to any DZ and make a tandem jump in order to
open your eyes. Now, when all that fast stuff is happening, you have no
idea what is going on. Now you pull the rip cord. And you are looking
up and you see a canopy that is damaged from the opening shock. Well.
you are still heading down the earth and you have a few moment left to
ponder about you being cheep, very cheep, because you should buy
yourself a new emergency parachute. But after a few, very long seconds
it want matter anymore......
Parachutes are more then just cushions to seat on and make yourself
comfortable in the cockpit.
Do yourself a big favor and buy new rig. If your canopy is older then
15 years don't even think about trying to substitute. If any one needs
more help on this topic contact me directly. If your container is good
spend $500.00 and change just the canopy. If the rig is old...well, buy
it brand new. Oh, by the way...there is more to rigging then just
packing.

[[email protected]]

Repack cycle is not every 4 months. It is every 120 days. Beware of
some FAA inspectors who know about rigging. They will nail you.

[Michael]

Just a few thoughts for you:

I've noticed some people telling you that 20 years (or even 15) is too
much, and quoting a bunch of stuff and scary examples. Speaking as
someone who has 600+ parachute jumps, including 8 emergency activations
(three of them on emergency parachutes greater than 20 years old and
two more on emergency parachutes more than 15 years old) and multiple
intentional single-parachute jumps (several on a parachute greater than
20 years old) and put put well over 100 first jump students (most of
them on reserves over 20 years old) I can only say that this is the
worst load of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that I've seen on this
newsgroup in a while.

There is no life limit on parachutes on the US. Period, end of story,
not a gray area, not debatable. As long as the parachute passes
inspection, it is legal and safe to use. Life limits are used in
aviation when there is no effective non-destructive way to inspect a
component to assure it still meets standards. There are NO parts of a
parachute that can't be effectively inspected when it is being
repacked, thus there is no reason whatsoever for life limits. It's
really that simple.

People who understand and routinely use and pack parachutes (skydivers)
also understand this, and have no qualms about the age of a reserve (or
main) parachute that has been inspected. They also understand that the
number of times the parachute is packed and/or jumped does cause wear.
This wear is visible and inspectable.

The factory has an interest in limiting liability and making older
product go away. A dealer has an interest in selling new product.
Therefore, impartial opinions are not to be had from either.

The acid mesh problem is an ancient bugaboo. Once upon a time it was a
real issue. An AD was issued (AD's are issued on parachutes just like
they are on aircraft), some parachutes were tested, and the problem
went away. Manufacturers now have improved QC procedures so it is no
longer an issue.

Round personnel parachutes are old technology. There has been no
substantial improvement in that technology in decades. What's
manufactured today is barely distinguishable from what was manufactured
in 1980, changes to TSO notwithstanding.

Here is my advice to you:

Stay away from riggers who don't routinely jump - they are bad news.
Ideally, find a rigger who BASE jumps - they understand what's really
important when making a single canopy jump.

Go to your local drop zone. Not some fancy commercial operation with
turbine aircraft and tandems, but something more local and down home.
Talk to the jumpers who jump old gear, and find out who their rigger
is. Have him inspect and repack the parachute. If he considers it
sound, sell it - and give his name to the buyer.

Michael

[Michael]

Just a few thoughts for you:

I've noticed some people telling you that 20 years (or even 15) is too
much, and quoting a bunch of stuff and scary examples. Speaking as
someone who has 600+ parachute jumps, including 8 emergency activations
(three of them on emergency parachutes greater than 20 years old and
two more on emergency parachutes more than 15 years old) and multiple
intentional single-parachute jumps (several on a parachute greater than
20 years old) and put put well over 100 first jump students (most of
them on reserves over 20 years old) I can only say that this is the
worst load of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that I've seen on this
newsgroup in a while.

There is no life limit on parachutes on the US. Period, end of story,
not a gray area, not debatable. As long as the parachute passes
inspection, it is legal and safe to use. Life limits are used in
aviation when there is no effective non-destructive way to inspect a
component to assure it still meets standards. There are NO parts of a
parachute that can't be effectively inspected when it is being
repacked, thus there is no reason whatsoever for life limits. It's
really that simple.

People who understand and routinely use and pack parachutes (skydivers)
also understand this, and have no qualms about the age of a reserve (or
main) parachute that has been inspected. They also understand that the
number of times the parachute is packed and/or jumped does cause wear.
This wear is visible and inspectable.

The factory has an interest in limiting liability and making older
product go away. A dealer has an interest in selling new product.
Therefore, impartial opinions are not to be had from either.

The acid mesh problem is an ancient bugaboo. Once upon a time it was a
real issue. An AD was issued (AD's are issued on parachutes just like
they are on aircraft), some parachutes were tested, and the problem
went away. Manufacturers now have improved QC procedures so it is no
longer an issue.

Round personnel parachutes are old technology. There has been no
substantial improvement in that technology in decades. What's
manufactured today is barely distinguishable from what was manufactured
in 1980, changes to TSO notwithstanding.

Here is my advice to you:

Stay away from riggers who don't routinely jump - they are bad news.
Ideally, find a rigger who BASE jumps - they understand what's really
important when making a single canopy jump.

Go to your local drop zone. Not some fancy commercial operation with
turbine aircraft and tandems, but something more local and down home.
Talk to the jumpers who jump old gear, and find out who their rigger
is. Have him inspect and repack the parachute. If he considers it
sound, sell it - and give his name to the buyer.

Michael

[John Sinclair]

Good post, Michael
I was thinking about posting something along the same
lines. I get my chute repacked at the local jump school
and the rigger tells me my 25 year old Strong is in
fine shape and has fewer problems than some of the
new stuff. A parachute is just a tool, treat it right,
keep it dry and away from oil, get it inspected, hung
and repacked as required and don't worry about it.
PS, I wear 2 little silk worms on my lapel.


At 21:30 22 December 2004, Michael wrote:
>Just a few thoughts for you:
>
>I've noticed some people telling you that 20 years
>(or even 15) is too
>much, and quoting a bunch of stuff and scary examples.
> Speaking as
>someone who has 600+ parachute jumps, including 8 emergency
>activations
>(three of them on emergency parachutes greater than
>20 years old and
>two more on emergency parachutes more than 15 years
>old) and multiple
>intentional single-parachute jumps (several on a parachute
>greater than
>20 years old) and put put well over 100 first jump
>students (most of
>them on reserves over 20 years old) I can only say
>that this is the
>worst load of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that I've
>seen on this
>newsgroup in a while.
>
>There is no life limit on parachutes on the US. Period,
>end of story,
>not a gray area, not debatable. As long as the parachute
>passes
>inspection, it is legal and safe to use. Life limits
>are used in
>aviation when there is no effective non-destructive
>way to inspect a
>component to assure it still meets standards. There
>are NO parts of a
>parachute that can't be effectively inspected when
>it is being
>repacked, thus there is no reason whatsoever for life
>limits. It's
>really that simple.
>
>People who understand and routinely use and pack parachutes
>(skydivers)
>also understand this, and have no qualms about the
>age of a reserve (or
>main) parachute that has been inspected. They also
>understand that the
>number of times the parachute is packed and/or jumped
>does cause wear.
>This wear is visible and inspectable.
>
>The factory has an interest in limiting liability and
>making older
>product go away. A dealer has an interest in selling
>new product.
>Therefore, impartial opinions are not to be had from
>either.
>
>The acid mesh problem is an ancient bugaboo. Once
>upon a time it was a
>real issue. An AD was issued (AD's are issued on parachutes
>just like
>they are on aircraft), some parachutes were tested,
>and the problem
>went away. Manufacturers now have improved QC procedures
>so it is no
>longer an issue.
>
>Round personnel parachutes are old technology. There
>has been no
>substantial improvement in that technology in decades.
> What's
>manufactured today is barely distinguishable from what
>was manufactured
>in 1980, changes to TSO notwithstanding.
>
>Here is my advice to you:
>
>Stay away from riggers who don't routinely jump - they
>are bad news.
>Ideally, find a rigger who BASE jumps - they understand
>what's really
>important when making a single canopy jump.
>
>Go to your local drop zone. Not some fancy commercial
>operation with
>turbine aircraft and tandems, but something more local
>and down home.
>Talk to the jumpers who jump old gear, and find out
>who their rigger
>is. Have him inspect and repack the parachute. If
>he considers it
>sound, sell it - and give his name to the buyer.
>
>Michael
>
>

[[email protected]]

Just to clarify...besides being a rigger I am also a skydiver. And an
instructor. And S&TA. And I have a bit more jumps then your 600. I
have a bit more repacks then you. I also don't jump on a big commercial
DZ. For your info, National has a life span on their canopies of 15
years. And the same apply to Free Flight Enterprises canopies which are
found in Softies. I am not familiar with Strong emergency rigs, they
might certify them for more then 15 years. PD has a life span of 40
repack cycles, after which you must send it to the factory for
inspection. And if the porosity of the fabric doesn't pass, well, they
will call you to let you know. Bottom line.
In June of 2002 a canopy on my DZ during landing, a PD 176 Lightning
disintegrated in the air after being kicked by another skydiver. The
guy who caused the accident was jumping on newer canopy and he walked
away....the Lightning came back from PD in Florida from being relined
and repaired (small patches around the bridle retraction system) and
virtually exploded at about 150 feet...the guy survived. Similar
accident took place in 1999 in Star, near Boise, ID. Main canopy
exploded on opening...it was 7 years old Turbo ZX. The skydiver
survived as well. Are those unique incidents? No. And before you give
any body really bad advise, think about it. You are not doing anybody a
favor.
And I am also not a dealer, I am not manufacturer. I am just a guy who
started skydiving and flying in 1980 and I have witnessed a lots of
things that could have been avoided.
And also don't accuse any riggers of trying to help you ....if you eat
dirt the FAA looks at the repack card and seal and they will come after
the rigger. And probably your family will come after the rigger, the
factory which built your rig and they will sue them....now you don't
care about affecting more then your own life? Think about it very hard.

[Eric Greenwell]

How many glider pilots have been badly injured or killed when the
parachute failed because it was old or because the pilot was
inexperienced in jumping? I haven't heard of any - it seems if the pilot
gets out of the glider, the chute opens, and he lands OK.

The biggest problem is getting out of the cockpit in time. I suggest you
spend your money on that problem first: get a "Roeger hook" (or
equivalent) fitted if it doesn't have one (so you can get rid of the
canopy cleanly), and consider installing a NOAH system to boost you out
of the glider.

A further suggestion is to consider some other ways that $1300+ can be
spent to improve your safety (even flight training!), rather than on a
minor improvement in a parachute that you will probably never have to
use. As a group, we don't kill ourselves with bad parachutes, but by
many other means. If you've done all those other things to decrease your
risk, and you still have some money, heck, buy a new parachute.


wrote:
> O'K...good topic. There is more to a parachute then most of pilots do
> realize. They come in different flavors and colors but....I am a
> rigger. I will not pack for anyone parachute older than 15 years. Some
> riggers will. Why I want? Parachutes and container/harness systems are
> designed under several different categories, like TSO c23d....let me
> explain: The TSO certification was established in 1976, with the
> TSO-c23a rating, as an international standard for parachutes. No
> parachute can be sold as a reserve or rescue parachute without a TSO
> rating. In the years since the TSO-C23a rating was established, the
> level of standards to meet the rating has become significantly higher.
> In 1992 the TSO-C23d rating was introduced and today less than 15% of
> the manufacturers who hold a TSO rating have the TSO-c23d rating. As of
> July of 2002, all parachute manufacturers who hold a TSO rating lower
> than the TSO-C23d are unable to make improvements to their parachutes
> or to reach the higher standard, and are therefore selling parachutes
> based on technology that is over 10 years old or even older in some
> cases.
> O'K...I will make it simple...imagine that you are flying high, like
> for example on the wave. You flew into something that mangled your bird
> and you need to get out. You think to yourself " aaaa, not a big deal,
> I've got my parachute". You got out of the cockpit and started rushing
> down to earth. Do you have any idea about the acceleration? Do you know
> how fast you are going down? Do you know how to control your body in
> freefall so don't spin like a piece of meat? Well, most of you don't.
> So, I would suggest go to any DZ and make a tandem jump in order to
> open your eyes. Now, when all that fast stuff is happening, you have no
> idea what is going on. Now you pull the rip cord. And you are looking
> up and you see a canopy that is damaged from the opening shock. Well.
> you are still heading down the earth and you have a few moment left to
> ponder about you being cheep, very cheep, because you should buy
> yourself a new emergency parachute. But after a few, very long seconds
> it want matter anymore......
> Parachutes are more then just cushions to seat on and make yourself
> comfortable in the cockpit.
> Do yourself a big favor and buy new rig. If your canopy is older then
> 15 years don't even think about trying to substitute. If any one needs
> more help on this topic contact me directly. If your container is good
> spend $500.00 and change just the canopy. If the rig is old...well, buy
> it brand new. Oh, by the way...there is more to rigging then just
> packing.
>


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Good point. Of course when we get ours repacked, the rigger puts a
tag "expires on 29 JUL 04" or whatever. So we just look at that
instead of doing all that math. Leap years and all, ya know...scrambles
the noodle...

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>Repack cycle is not every 4 months. It is every 120 days. Beware of
>some FAA inspectors who know about rigging. They will nail you.
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article om>,
Michael > wrote:
>Just a few thoughts for you:

In summary:

Have a rigger tell you if your rig sucks. If it's been in the
sun every day for it's whole life and the dog regularly pees on it,
then the "20 year rule" isn't the problem.

If it gets kept in its own humidor, at 59 degrees year round and
gets out only 4 times a year, then the rigger will probably
want to buy it from you for the parachute museum...

Somewhere in between the rigger is using some judgement, and if you
don't like it, take it to another rigger. If NONE of them like it,
then put a big EXPERIMENTAL placard on the rig, have the boys
draw a big round target on the ground below where you usually
thermal, and buy lottery tickets with the money you save by not getting
another rig...

I noticed in Michael's post he mentions two accidents where the
canopies failed and the jumpers lived. Well, this was his example of
a failure. For us, that is an example of a success.

"He lived? After a mid-air? Wow! What's that? His canopy
failed on opening? But wait a minute, you said he lived?
Oh, it still slowed his descent so he lived. Well, that's
good news..."

;PPPPP

I must wonder, however, if I paid somebody $1300 to design
a cushion that would protect me better in a crash (or during
some of my...ahem...landings) if that wouldn't be a better
investment.

Perhaps not if I was thermalling with a HUNDRED other gliders,
like some of you loveable but slightly off the rocker kookoo
birds.

Asking a rigger about the value of a parachute is kind of
like going into a donut shop and asking the clerk what you
should have for dinner...

:(o)

^
|
|
Eating Donut
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

John Sinclair > wrote:
>PS, I wear 2 little silk worms on my lapel.

If I had two of those, I think my parachute would be the MOST
important part of my glider. I'd probably pay more for the
chute than the glider. Heck, I dunno if I'd even have a glider,
I'd just sit on the toilet every day (with my
expensive chute on) and shake and cry like a little baby...

Dude, once I can understand. But twice? I'd take a hint
from Mike Melvill: "if things go that far to s**t twice,
count your blessings and join the lecture circuit..."

Of course I'm paraphrasing...

:PPP

As the Sat. Nite Live guy sez: I'm jus keeeding!!
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd