USA-Parachute Repack Change?

On the SSA webpage, http://www.ssa.org/society/ListNewsArticleDtl.
asp?id=432
there is an article about extending the repack requirement
from 120 days to 180 days.

(If the url is split onto two lines, make sure you
paste it all in your brower.)

This was posted on Friday, 14 JAN 05

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

Yes. This push for 180 days repack cycle is in place for past 4 or 5
years. The Parachute Industry Association, the USPA are all pushing for
that. In Europe the repack cycle right now is 180 days and there are no
problems. If we can get more organizations like the SSA and AOPA to
support that, maybe the FAA will change its bureaucratic approach and
make the changes to the FARs. The fact of the matter is that I have not
seen a modern parachute with a mold or fungus issue even though I
repacked quite a few rigs. It just doesn't happen. But on the other
hand tandem jumps were made in the U.S. for over 20 years before the
FAA accepted the findings and change the rules. Go figure.

I think the 180 day requirement would actually
result in the sale of MORE parachutes, and an increase in their use.
USPA among others seems to have figured this out too.
The vast improvements in materials and techniques for
manufacture have really made the 120 day requirement silly.

In article .com,
wrote:
Yes. This push for 180 days repack cycle is in place for past 4 or 5
years. The Parachute Industry Association, the USPA are all pushing for
that. In Europe the repack cycle right now is 180 days and there are no
problems. If we can get more organizations like the SSA and AOPA to
support that, maybe the FAA will change its bureaucratic approach and
make the changes to the FARs. The fact of the matter is that I have not
seen a modern parachute with a mold or fungus issue even though I
repacked quite a few rigs. It just doesn't happen. But on the other
hand tandem jumps were made in the U.S. for over 20 years before the
FAA accepted the findings and change the rules. Go figure.



--

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

On 19 Jan 2005 13:08:21 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

"The vast improvements in materials and techniques for
manufacture have really made the 120 day requirement silly."

I am a FAA Master Parachute Rigger. I am not aware of any "vast
improvments" since the change of repack cycle from 60 to 120 days many
years ago. If you know of any specifics, please advise. You are
misinformed.

Yes, Bill, I still believe that parachutes made from
man made fibers are a vast improvement
in materials and techniques for parachute manufacture.

I believe they are superior to the natural fibers like silk and
cotton which I believe are more susceptible to mildew, mold, and rot.

We went over this last year when I recommended to folks on
this group that they avoid parachutes made of natural fibers.
And I remember your objections to this.

But I agree with USPA and PIA that the parachute repack
cycle should be extended.

Perhaps you don't believe that the use of man made fibers
is a vast improvement. Or perhaps you think extending
the minimum repack cycle for these parachutes is not warranted.
If so, please provide coutering references and specifics
to the information contained in:

www.pia.com/piapubs/pia180_2.pdf

In article ,
Bill Zaleski wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 13:08:21 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

"The vast improvements in materials and techniques for
manufacture have really made the 120 day requirement silly."

I am a FAA Master Parachute Rigger. I am not aware of any "vast
improvments" since the change of repack cycle from 60 to 120 days many
years ago. If you know of any specifics, please advise. You are
misinformed.



--

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

There have been no "vast improvements" since the repack cycle was
increased from the previous 60 day requirement to the present 120
days. If you think the move from man made materials to synthetics is
relevant, consider that natural fibers have not been used for
parachutes in over 50 years. Apples and oranges. "Hit the silk" is
only a joke now.



On 19 Jan 2005 17:13:48 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

Yes, Bill, I still believe that parachutes made from
man made fibers are a vast improvement
in materials and techniques for parachute manufacture.

I believe they are superior to the natural fibers like silk and
cotton which I believe are more susceptible to mildew, mold, and rot.

We went over this last year when I recommended to folks on
this group that they avoid parachutes made of natural fibers.
And I remember your objections to this.

But I agree with USPA and PIA that the parachute repack
cycle should be extended.

Perhaps you don't believe that the use of man made fibers
is a vast improvement. Or perhaps you think extending
the minimum repack cycle for these parachutes is not warranted.
If so, please provide coutering references and specifics
to the information contained in:

www.pia.com/piapubs/pia180_2.pdf

In article ,
Bill Zaleski wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 13:08:21 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

"The vast improvements in materials and techniques for
manufacture have really made the 120 day requirement silly."

I am a FAA Master Parachute Rigger. I am not aware of any "vast
improvments" since the change of repack cycle from 60 to 120 days many
years ago. If you know of any specifics, please advise. You are
misinformed.

180 days would still be at least 185 days too long. The only argument
for sticking with 120 or 180 days is the work that the riggers would
lose.

I just had my skydiving reserve repacked two months ago. That cost me
$75, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get to use it before it's
due again. It's a scam and I'm sick of it.

ted/2NO

obviously that should read "185 days too short". Lack of air time ...

Well, some of the sealed BRS systems have a 6 year
repack cycle, IIRC. At 20-30 pounds, maybe the
extra weight isn't such a good idea (Brian Carpenter
recommends against them for ultralights for just this reason).
But it IS an option for some aircraft...

In article .com,
wrote:
obviously that should read "185 days too short". Lack of air time ...



--

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

wrote:
180 days would still be at least 185 days too long. The only argument
for sticking with 120 or 180 days is the work that the riggers would
lose.

That is what my rigger says, too, and blames it on the associations.

I just had my skydiving reserve repacked two months ago. That cost me
$75, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get to use it before it's
due again. It's a scam and I'm sick of it.

180 days will let many (most?) fly the season with a legal parachute.
Others will pleased that the number of days they fly with an illegal
parachute is now reduced by 90.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA