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