![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ballistic parachutes - RVs | Ric | Home Built | 3 | September 19th 04 04:09 AM |
Of parachutes and things | ShawnD2112 | Piloting | 40 | July 21st 04 06:13 PM |
Automatic Parachutes & Retrofitting | John DeRosa Sky Soaring Chicago IL | Soaring | 2 | May 8th 04 05:33 AM |
Automatic Parachutes | John DeRosa Sky Soaring Chicago IL | Soaring | 14 | May 8th 04 02:55 AM |
airliner parachutes and guns in the cockpit | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 8 | August 17th 03 03:14 AM |