HL Falbaum wrote:
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
HL Falbaum wrote:

Consider this--amortized over 20 years, a new chute is cheap insurance.
You will spend more on repacks if you do it as the law requires. Ask
this--if you have to jump, and your old chute fails, how good will you
feel about how much you saved? If you could get a brand new one right
then, would you write the check on the way down?

Recently, Strong refused to repack my 30 year old Strong parachute because
the *container* was suspect (some sun bleaching on the upper straps). They
suggested I buy a new container, and then they'd be happy to repack the
parachute, because the canopy was in excellent condition.

I suggest a parachute amortized over 30 years is even cheaper insurance,
and you still don't have to write check on the way down.



If Strong will certify it, I would be happy to use it. My only point was
that if "some" rigger would repack it when another would not, I would get a
new chute. In other words, a second opinion is not necessarily better just
because it is more favorable. But I would trust the factory that made it.

I don't know what deteriorates on a chute, but the cloth of the canopy is
only one component. The stitching and the risers could be every bit as
important.

Sending the parachute to the factory for a repack at least every 5
years, starting at 20 years, seems like a good idea. It wasn't much more
to have Strong repack it, even with shipping, than the local rigger. It
was just gone longer. This time period seems reasonable for a personal
parachute, where you know how it's been treated it's entire life.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org