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