Parachutes again

[[email protected]]

I received about a week ago 2 parachutes for repack. Nothing special
about it. But in this particular case they require special attention.
The first was made by Security Parachute Co. from San Leandro in
California. The second is a Original Softie fitted with 1965 Pioneer 4
line canopy. Now...the Security 150 was manufactured in May of 1978.
When I opened it I discovered pilot chute in very poor shape. According
to the manual the pilot chute spring should have 30 pounds of force.
Measured 15 lbs. Stitching coming apart. Then I concentrated on the
canopy...it looked O'K visually but it did not passed the acid test.
Since the system was repacked only 7 times since new, the rubber stows
holding your lines in the container fused themselves to the canopy main
suspension lines. They can be cleaned though. But still....
Now, the second rig, Original Softie equipped with the 1965 Pioneer
canopy...I don't want to even talk about it. This canopy is only 1 year
younger then I am. And when I started inspecting it, I found little
holes around the seams. It is called stress. And it caused by constant
rubbing of your rig seams against the fabric.
If any one has a question about a Security parachute please contact
Allen Silver at Phone: 1-510-785-7070 =B7 Fax: 1-510-785-9213. This guy
closed the Security after the British bought it and he will tell you
that every single Security parachute needs to be retired or used as a
car cover. In addition Mr. Silver is operating rigging loft and he is a
former president of Parachute Industry Association.
The second case with the 1965 manufactured canopy is also very familiar
to us. The canopy is simply old, tired and needs to be discarded.
For a purpose of understanding, the PIA is divided on the life span of
parachutes. The National limits the life span of their systems to 15
years. Paraphernalia Softie limits theirs I believe to 20 years. I will
call Dan Tarasievitch later on to confirm that. PIA and Paragear
Equipment will not pack and service rigs older then 20 years. Why all
that? Well, there were some documented failures of parachutes older
then 20 years. I am not trying to convince any one of you but if you
have an interest in the subject matter you can contact PIA or Paragear
and talk to Paul Thompson. Paragear phone number is (847) 679-5905
Fax: (847) 679-8644. If you need to talk to Dan Tarasievitch with
Softie his phone number is 360-435-7220.
When anyone of you goes to maintenance shop for your annual inspection
your A&P tells you that you need this and that... you comply with it.
You don't go and fly your glider with a damaged spar because you think
your mechanic is screwing with you.
Now, the same is with parachute riggers. When we are repacking your
parachute we actually doing more then just the repack job. We are going
through every stitch, every line, every piece of webbing, we are
checking your parachute inside and out. And when we do pack it and put
our individual seal on it and then signed it with our name and license
number, we are assuring you that your parachute is airworthy for next
120 days and if needed during that time frame it will work properly.
Also, I was told by a few pilots that they are using parachutes as a
cushions in a glider. This is illegal and if any FAA inspector catches
you, they will suspend your license for whatever time frame. Besides
not being legal it is also stupid. You are lying to yourself.
Any way, I don't sell parachutes for a purpose of clarification, I can
get some parts to keep them airworthy just like your A&P would to keep
your glider flying. But go and get yourselves a new(wer) rig made by
Softie, Strong or National.

[chipsoars]

I've seen some of the old chutes you mentioned that my rigger wouldn't
touch. Yet the individuals that owned them, got mad at the rigger and
found someone else to do it. IMO, stupid, stupid and even more stupid.
I don't understand why people are so cheap, particularly when it comes
to safety. I'd like to be confident if I ever have to exit the glider,
that the chute will work as advertised. You only get one chance with
these and one ought to keep the odds as favorable as possible.

And the day my rigger tells me the rig is shot I'll spend the bucks
even if my it is painfully expensive. I owe that much to my family.

Chip F.

[Mark Zivley]

> Also, I was told by a few pilots that they are using parachutes as a
> cushions in a glider.

While this is a quote that is occaisionally heard, it's not meant to be
taken literally. It usually means that although the chute is there to
be called upon in an emergency, the odds are that during the flight it
will only serve the purpose of being a cushion. It doesn't necessarily
mean that the chute is not being worn in the proper manner or that it is
out of re-pack.

Realize that in many gliders if you chose not to wear a parachute, you
would probably need to use some sort of a seat cushion in order to sit
in the glider comfortably. Which would you choose.... cushion, or a
parachute?

[Graeme Cant]

Tim Mara wrote:

> this is EXACTLY the reason the FAA put required pack intervals on pilot
> emergency parachutes....
> if it were 'recommended" you pay 50 bucks every 120 days to repack your
> parachute as opposed to being an FAA "requirement" (meaning you are in
> violation of a regulation) would you?......and if you didn't do what was
> "recommended" every 120 days..would you at 1 year? or two.....or??
> You might......not everyone would....... now let's look at this also from
> the parachute manufacturers point also..... would your widow call the local
> TV ad for a lawyer in the event you didn't do what was "recommended"
> it's not personal.....and it's not my regulation.but if we agree to the
> rules to get a pilots certificate, with all the baggage that comes along
> with it, we have in fact, said we understood and would comply with the
> regulations.....some of which actually do make sense..
> tim

I agree with your philosophy on regs Tim but in the case of the
parachute packing rules, I would be interested in seeing the statistical
backup for the rule.

Would once every 2 years be a problem? I'd guess a lot of riggers see
chutes whose last signature is more than 2 years ago. What percentage
of these are aired, refolded and encased again without any other defect
being found? In chutes less than 6 years from the factory, I'd say it
would be 100% If it isn't, the factory needs the FAA's inspectors, not
the parachute owner.

It's now well understood that many failures in aircraft equipment
actually originate from excessive checking and testing. I'd be
surprised to learn that parachute repacking was exempt from that
experience. What's the chance that a defect in a ten year old parachute
was caused by one of its 30 repacks rather than normal usage?

I know that regular drying is important but wouldn't it be simpler to
devise a moisture detection system with an indicator (colour change?) on
the outside rather than mandate the risks inherent in large numbers of
repacks?

All the data are available from the riggers.

I notice that Autoflug now offer a hermetically sealed emergency chute
with a repack interval of 5 years in use and a shelf life of 25 years.
It costs more but it saves what? ...$50 x 15. $750? Could other
manufacturers do the same? My suspicion is that they haven't taken the
market by storm because this is one reg that is so out of whack with
common experience that very few chute owners actually spend the $750.

A regulation so widely disregarded needs a repack...er...rethink. :)
GC

[Tim Mara]

this is EXACTLY the reason the FAA put required pack intervals on pilot
emergency parachutes....
if it were 'recommended" you pay 50 bucks every 120 days to repack your
parachute as opposed to being an FAA "requirement" (meaning you are in
violation of a regulation) would you?......and if you didn't do what was
"recommended" every 120 days..would you at 1 year? or two.....or??
You might......not everyone would....... now let's look at this also from
the parachute manufacturers point also..... would your widow call the local
TV ad for a lawyer in the event you didn't do what was "recommended"
it's not personal.....and it's not my regulation.but if we agree to the
rules to get a pilots certificate, with all the baggage that comes along
with it, we have in fact, said we understood and would comply with the
regulations.....some of which actually do make sense..
tim

Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Also, I was told by a few pilots that they are using parachutes as a
>> cushions in a glider.
>
> While this is a quote that is occaisionally heard, it's not meant to be
> taken literally. It usually means that although the chute is there to be
> called upon in an emergency, the odds are that during the flight it will
> only serve the purpose of being a cushion. It doesn't necessarily mean
> that the chute is not being worn in the proper manner or that it is out of
> re-pack.
>
> Realize that in many gliders if you chose not to wear a parachute, you
> would probably need to use some sort of a seat cushion in order to sit in
> the glider comfortably. Which would you choose.... cushion, or a
> parachute?
>

[Jack]

I don't have great experience with this, but I did make 3 military
jumps back when my young knees would take my then 151 pounds... I don't
want to think about that now, so don't ask... I recently got a 'chute
with a glider purchase. It hasn't been repacked in a couple of years.
It's less than 10 years old. Why, though, should I repack it 3 times in
a year? Will I use it in winter? Will it deteriorate more if it's not
repacked but left in it's container? I still favor the 180-day repack
if not just annually for these chutes that just get worn in the
cockpit. Yes, the age thing is proabbly a viable issue. But to me, it's
kind of like making all airline pilots retire at 60... probably a
waste, much of the time.

Just my nickel's worth...

Jack Womack

[chipsoars]

There is an initiative, reported at the SSA BoD meeting in ONT to
extend the repack cycle to 180 days. Whether or not the chute is safe
is not so much the point as the FAA and the FAR's. THEY make the rules
and if in the course of a check you are not in compliance, you pay the
penalty.

Chip F

[MC]

I was talking to the Strong Rep at the convention and his thought on
repacking was once a year would be fine-no problem at all.


"Jack" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I don't have great experience with this, but I did make 3 military
> jumps back when my young knees would take my then 151 pounds... I don't
> want to think about that now, so don't ask... I recently got a 'chute
> with a glider purchase. It hasn't been repacked in a couple of years.
> It's less than 10 years old. Why, though, should I repack it 3 times in
> a year? Will I use it in winter? Will it deteriorate more if it's not
> repacked but left in it's container? I still favor the 180-day repack
> if not just annually for these chutes that just get worn in the
> cockpit. Yes, the age thing is proabbly a viable issue. But to me, it's
> kind of like making all airline pilots retire at 60... probably a
> waste, much of the time.
>
> Just my nickel's worth...
>
> Jack Womack
>

[nowhere]

The funny thing is that when the chute passes it's 120 day repack
limit you can also just leave it in the trailer when you go flying if
you don't want to violate FAA regs......Sort of like requiring a $50
inspection every four months for motorcycle helmets, if you wear one,
but leaving the wearing of them up to the individual rider.

Does anyone out there know what the Canadian regulations are when it
comes to pilot emergency parachute repack schedules? I've looked
through the CARS until they started making me physically nauseous and
the only reference I could find seemed to be exclusively about
skydiving and said that the main and reserve chutes had to be repacked
by a rigger within 120 days of the parachute decsent. As far as I can
tell, there isn't any required repack interval for pilot emergency
chutes here.

That said, I myself would go by the 120 day repack cycle.

[Ramy Yanetz]

Allen Silver has nothing against Security Parachutes. He sold me one few
years ago.

Ramy

> wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
If any one has a question about a Security parachute please contact
Allen Silver at Phone: 1-510-785-7070 · Fax: 1-510-785-9213. This guy
closed the Security after the British bought it and he will tell you
that every single Security parachute needs to be retired or used as a
car cover. In addition Mr. Silver is operating rigging loft and he is a
former president of Parachute Industry Association.

[Ted Wagner]

>I was talking to the Strong Rep at the convention and his thought on
> repacking was once a year would be fine-no problem at all.

Yes!!! I'm not the only freefall junkie with this opinion!

-eltuno/2NO

[Ramy Yanetz]

You better violate the FAA regs and fly with an expired parachute than
expiring from not flying with it...

Ramy



"nowhere" > wrote in message
om...
> The funny thing is that when the chute passes it's 120 day repack
> limit you can also just leave it in the trailer when you go flying if
> you don't want to violate FAA regs......Sort of like requiring a $50
> inspection every four months for motorcycle helmets, if you wear one,
> but leaving the wearing of them up to the individual rider.
>

[Gary Emerson]

Has anyone been ramp checked, been found with a chute that was say 120
to 240 days since last repack (not 5 years out of date...). If so, did
the FAA guy "write you up" and if so, what was the impact or penalty?

Now don't flame me thinking I'm planning on doing this, I take good care
of my rigs and I get them repacked at the start and at the midpoint of
the season, no point in wasting $50 for the winter... I'm just cuious
what the liability is if you got checked. There is not one of us out
flying gliders who would rationally decide on the 121st day that he or
she would be better off leaving their rig in the trailer.

Gary

chipsoars wrote:
> There is an initiative, reported at the SSA BoD meeting in ONT to
> extend the repack cycle to 180 days. Whether or not the chute is safe
> is not so much the point as the FAA and the FAR's. THEY make the rules
> and if in the course of a check you are not in compliance, you pay the
> penalty.
>
> Chip F
>

[Bill Zaleski]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:27:56 GMT, Gary Emerson
> wrote:

>Has anyone been ramp checked, been found with a chute that was say 120
>to 240 days since last repack (not 5 years out of date...). If so, did
>the FAA guy "write you up" and if so, what was the impact or penalty?
>
>Now don't flame me thinking I'm planning on doing this, I take good care
>of my rigs and I get them repacked at the start and at the midpoint of
>the season, no point in wasting $50 for the winter... I'm just cuious
>what the liability is if you got checked. There is not one of us out
>flying gliders who would rationally decide on the 121st day that he or
>she would be better off leaving their rig in the trailer.
>
>Gary
>
>chipsoars wrote:
>> There is an initiative, reported at the SSA BoD meeting in ONT to
>> extend the repack cycle to 180 days. Whether or not the chute is safe
>> is not so much the point as the FAA and the FAR's. THEY make the rules
>> and if in the course of a check you are not in compliance, you pay the
>> penalty.
>>
>> Chip F
>>
I have personal knowledge of a $1000 fine and a certificate action
against a pilot who flew with an out of date parachute. I also have
personal knowledge of a parachute opening just fine after not being
packed for 16 years. I was under it. Safe and legal are two
different things. I advocate both.

Bill Zaleski
FAA Master Rigger

[Tim Mara]

that is exactly why they have the requirement.......what you're suggesting
is that it would be OK or better to violate the regulations and take a
chance on it being airworthy... than to comply and know it's
airworthy....that's why they don't simply "recommend" I&R......with this
thinking most parachutes would never be inspected.
tim

"Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
...
> You better violate the FAA regs and fly with an expired parachute than
> expiring from not flying with it...
>
> Ramy
>
>
>
> "nowhere" > wrote in message
> om...
>> The funny thing is that when the chute passes it's 120 day repack
>> limit you can also just leave it in the trailer when you go flying if
>> you don't want to violate FAA regs......Sort of like requiring a $50
>> inspection every four months for motorcycle helmets, if you wear one,
>> but leaving the wearing of them up to the individual rider.
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
that is it. End of story.
Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
better explanation.
And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
120 days or fly without a parachute.

[Bill Zaleski]

On 25 Feb 2005 11:25:39 -0800, wrote:

>Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
>seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
>the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
>Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
>that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
>fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
>our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
>The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
>recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
>people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
>is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
>all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
>360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
>And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
>that is it. End of story.
>Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
>Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
>suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
>monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
>witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
>the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
>Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
>jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
>maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
>better explanation.
>And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
>years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
>are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
>AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
>composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
>the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
>about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
>well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
>emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
>and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
>tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
>after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
>evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
>single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
>So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
>the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
>120 days or fly without a parachute.

Great Post! My sentiments exactly! Just to be clear about what I
did: Even a sport main is under a mandatory 120 repack interval. I
made the jump with the 16 year pack job of a 35' static line rig in my
demo cutaway rig with 2 reserves. Even though a packing card is not
required with a sport main, the 120 day repack reg still applies.

On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.

Bill
D-5523 yes, that number IS correct!

[jphoenix]

wrote:

<<... His parachute was out of date and the FAA
suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. >>>


The current US FAA sanction guidance table (FAA Order 2150.3A, appendix
4) states "Use of unapproved parachutes: 30 to 60 day suspension."

The FAA inspector will have some latitude in application of the
sanction, but would not normally deviate from this guidance without a
very good reason.

Same sanction as operating without approved seatbelts.

Jim

[Tim Mara]

when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to see
were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review current,
medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider), and
PARACHUTE I&R date....
Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad you're
OK" from the feds ....
You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it on a
ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit to do a
flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you have an
accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and find you are
not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did pass their written
and practical exams didn't you?) and these same regulations you in fact
agreed to comply with when you signed your application to play with their
bat and ball.you CAN expect some consequence....
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at:
www.wingsandwheels.com


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
> seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
> the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
> Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
> that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
> fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
> our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
> The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
> recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
> people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
> is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
> all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
> 360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
> And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
> that is it. End of story.
> Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
> Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
> suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
> monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
> witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
> the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
> Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
> jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
> maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
> better explanation.
> And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
> years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
> are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
> AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
> composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
> the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
> about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
> well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
> emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
> and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
> tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
> after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
> evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
> single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
> So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
> the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
> 120 days or fly without a parachute.
>

[Graeme Cant]

Tim Mara wrote:
> when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to see
> were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review current,
> medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider), and
> PARACHUTE I&R date....
> Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad you're
> OK" from the feds ....
> You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it on a
> ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit to do a
> flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you have an
> accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and find you are
> not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did pass their written
> and practical exams didn't you?) and these same regulations you in fact
> agreed to comply with when you signed your application to play with their
> bat and ball.you CAN expect some consequence....

Yes, Tim. All of that is true. But just parroting "they set the rules
and you agreed to play" isn't the democracy your (and our) people are
fighting for. This discussion is about whether the rules should be changed.

Up to now I get the distinct impression from the contributions that the
riggers' union is saying - "We like the rules and we'll fight any
attempt to change them". From the raised voices, it sounds like the
consumer is starting to be heard and nobody likes it. The weakness of
your position is that if there were some logic in the rule, you'd argue
it. Your and the riggers instant resort to FAA sanctions make me feel
there is no other argument.

Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to
make the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if
it's a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more
cost-conscious than the FAA?

GC

[COLIN LAMB]

Informative thread.

There seems to be an argument that the 120 day pack rule will not be
increased because the riggers will fight it. That may be true, but the math
may not support the theory that a longer packing interval would decrease
business. I would expect that a longer pack period would significantly
increase the number of pilots that purchase and fly with parachutes -
because they do not have to be bothered with repacking every 120 days.

The problem with the repacking is not the money, it is the inconvenience of
finding a rigger and transporting the chute to and from him (or her).

In my case, I would rather spend twice as much money for someting that I do
not have to repack every 120 days, and since I do not compete I am debating
about not purchasing a parachute at all. I have flown airplanes and more
recently helicopters, with no chute.

I have been considering the BRS at 4 to 5 times the price because it has a 5
year pack cycle, but the weight penalty is unacceptable. And, I have read
about the European sealed chute, but that apparently is not available in the
US.

I am confident that a longer pack cycle would increase use of parachutes and
that would mean more lives would be saved.

Colin N12HS

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Zaleski wrote:

>
> On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
> old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.

Is this because you can't tell the difference between a good parachute
and bad parachute, and just assume 20 years is long enough? Or this
there another reason? After all, isn't everything out in the open where
you can examine it?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Graeme Cant wrote:


>
> Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to
> make the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?
>
> I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
> time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if
> it's a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
> "Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
> military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more
> cost-conscious than the FAA?

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
(2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[MC]

I have been told something completely different.

I questioned the Strong Enterprises Rep, at the convention, concerning the
issue that some riggers would not repack a chute if it is over 20 years old.
He said that there is no manditory life limit on parachutes for a good
reason. A well cared for parachute may have a life cycle that is longer than
20 years. He told me Strong will repack a 20+ year old parachute if it
passes their tests. It is not an uncommon occurrence.

Why has the FAA not imposed any rule on the estimated life cycle of a well
cared for parachute? I guess they do not see it as an issue, and expect the
riggers to use their best judgement on each parachute inspected, on an
individual basis, and not an overall judgement based solely on the age of
the parachute.

Some people insist that the FAA is correct on repack cycles, but do not
trust the FAA ruling on the absence of an imposed useful life on a well
cared for parachute. Seems inconsistent.

Differing points of view.


"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Feb 2005 11:25:39 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
> >seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
> >the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
> >Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
> >that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
> >fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
> >our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
> >The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
> >recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
> >people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
> >is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
> >all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
> >360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
> >And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
> >that is it. End of story.
> >Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
> >Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
> >suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
> >monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
> >witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
> >the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
> >Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
> >jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
> >maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
> >better explanation.
> >And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
> >years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
> >are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
> >AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
> >composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
> >the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
> >about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
> >well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
> >emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
> >and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
> >tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
> >after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
> >evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
> >single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
> >So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
> >the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
> >120 days or fly without a parachute.
>
> Great Post! My sentiments exactly! Just to be clear about what I
> did: Even a sport main is under a mandatory 120 repack interval. I
> made the jump with the 16 year pack job of a 35' static line rig in my
> demo cutaway rig with 2 reserves. Even though a packing card is not
> required with a sport main, the 120 day repack reg still applies.
>
> On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
> old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.
>
> Bill
> D-5523 yes, that number IS correct!
>

[Ramy Yanetz]

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of the FAA rules. It is illegal to fly
with an expired chute while it is legal to fly without one. Same as with
transponders: illegal to turn them off but legal to fly without them. As
long as absurd rules like these exist, we better use our own judgment
instead. Having said that, I am always flying with a transponder and repack
my chute regularly.

Ramy

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> that is exactly why they have the requirement.......what you're suggesting
> is that it would be OK or better to violate the regulations and take a
> chance on it being airworthy... than to comply and know it's
> airworthy....that's why they don't simply "recommend" I&R......with this
> thinking most parachutes would never be inspected.
> tim
>
> "Ramy Yanetz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You better violate the FAA regs and fly with an expired parachute than
>> expiring from not flying with it...
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>>
>>
>> "nowhere" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>> The funny thing is that when the chute passes it's 120 day repack
>>> limit you can also just leave it in the trailer when you go flying if
>>> you don't want to violate FAA regs......Sort of like requiring a $50
>>> inspection every four months for motorcycle helmets, if you wear one,
>>> but leaving the wearing of them up to the individual rider.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Bill Zaleski]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:33:29 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>
>>
>> On another note, I will not repack any emergency rig over 20 years
>> old, be it a pilot rig or sport reserve.
>
>Is this because you can't tell the difference between a good parachute
>and bad parachute, and just assume 20 years is long enough? Or this
>there another reason? After all, isn't everything out in the open where
>you can examine it?



My decision is based solely on economics, liability, and workload. I
have plenty of business and just don't need to have my signature on
thie older stuff. Just like a car that can be perfectly roadworthy
after 20 years of use, the likelhood of an impending failure increases
with age. My opinion, and nothing else. Keep on driving!

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

The Strong Parachute site states they do not have a 20 year limit ...
it depends on condition at pack and inspection.

http://www.strongparachutes.com/MessageBoard/response.lasso?1=175&2=32817&sid=222

[Tony Verhulst]

> Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
> (2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
> personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

Because the canister is sealed and impervious to moisture:
http://brsparachutes.com/TI_techtips.mgi

Tony V.

[Tim Mara]

correct.......none of the parachutes (major US brands) specifically have a
"life limit" but all these major US manufacturers have a policy, and
recommend these not be used after 20 years and will not normally do the I&R
on their own chutes after the 20th birthday.
tim

"Ken Kochanski (KK)" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The Strong Parachute site states they do not have a 20 year limit ...
> it depends on condition at pack and inspection.
>
> http://www.strongparachutes.com/MessageBoard/response.lasso?1=175&2=32817&sid=222
>

[Tim Mara]

When and if the rules change, I'll also, like everyone else should, comply
with them........until they do however, I am only making the point that
these are today the rules. If the rules should be changed I'll leave this
decision up to the manufacturers who know their products better than any of
us can, and the riggers and yes, also the FAA.I'm not so sure I or many of
us on RAS have the expertise or the ability to take on this liability.
tim


"Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Mara wrote:
>> when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to
>> see were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review
>> current, medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider),
>> and PARACHUTE I&R date....
>> Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad
>> you're OK" from the feds ....
>> You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it
>> on a ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit
>> to do a flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you
>> have an accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and
>> find you are not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did
>> pass their written and practical exams didn't you?) and these same
>> regulations you in fact agreed to comply with when you signed your
>> application to play with their bat and ball.you CAN expect some
>> consequence....
>
> Yes, Tim. All of that is true. But just parroting "they set the rules
> and you agreed to play" isn't the democracy your (and our) people are
> fighting for. This discussion is about whether the rules should be
> changed.
>
> Up to now I get the distinct impression from the contributions that the
> riggers' union is saying - "We like the rules and we'll fight any attempt
> to change them". From the raised voices, it sounds like the consumer is
> starting to be heard and nobody likes it. The weakness of your position
> is that if there were some logic in the rule, you'd argue it. Your and
> the riggers instant resort to FAA sanctions make me feel there is no other
> argument.
>
> Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to make
> the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?
>
> I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
> time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if it's
> a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
> "Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
> military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more cost-conscious
> than the FAA?
>
> GC

[bumper]

"Bill Zaleski" > wrote in message
...

>
>
> My decision is based solely on economics, liability, and workload. I
> have plenty of business and just don't need to have my signature on
> thie older stuff. Just like a car that can be perfectly roadworthy
> after 20 years of use, the likelhood of an impending failure increases
> with age. My opinion, and nothing else. Keep on driving!


Holy bananas, thanks for pointing this out. My Aeronca 7AC Champ, at almost
60 years old (just like me), must be one of the most unsafe planes at the
airport!

all the best,

bumper

[Eric Greenwell]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6
>> year (2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them,
>> while personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?
>
>
> Because the canister is sealed and impervious to moisture:
> http://brsparachutes.com/TI_techtips.mgi

The soft pack isn't sealed, but has a 5 year repack if it is inside the
airplane. Why would that situation offer more protection to the
parachute than a personal parachute that is kept in a house? Or even in
a glider in a trailer, for that matter?

Does anyone know what criteria was used to set the 120 day cycle? I
suspect it's a "legacy" value, and simply hasn't been rationally
evaluated for decades. I think very few people are motivated enough to
work for changes, as riggers make money from it, it doesn't affect the
manufacturers, and pilots that don't like it just ignore it - their
butt, their bucks. Enforcing it is clearly not important to the FAA,
since any enforcement has been just an "add-on" to what they were really
after.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA