USA-Parachute Repack Change?

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.