Parachutes again

when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to see
were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review current,
medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider), and
PARACHUTE I&R date....
Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad you're
OK" from the feds ....
You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it on a
ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit to do a
flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you have an
accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and find you are
not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did pass their written
and practical exams didn't you?) and these same regulations you in fact
agreed to comply with when you signed your application to play with their
bat and ball.you CAN expect some consequence....
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at:
www.wingsandwheels.com


wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes Bill, I agree. I jumped just 2 years ago a main canopy which was
seating in the deployment bag for 4 years. I new I packed it, remove
the risers from the harness/container and had it in my packing room.
Then one day in the evening I was to lazy to pack my main so I grabbed
that old Raven II I packed over 4 years ago. No problem. It opened just
fine. But in the case of skydiving we all have a second parachute on
our backs. We are not questioning if the equipment will work or not.
The point here is that the regulations and the manufacturers
recommending repack and inspections every 120 days. And for other
people...it is not 4 months, it is 120 days. Now, whether the parachute
is good after 120 days or 180 days it doesn't matter. Unless the FAA,
all of the manufacturers and PIA will change the repack cycle to 180 or
360 days, or whatever the interval might be, right now it is 120 days.
And if the manufacturer is putting on their equipment a life span, well
that is it. End of story.
Now, I have seen in Oakland, CA pilot going to fly acro in his Super
Decathlon ramp checked. His parachute was out of date and the FAA
suspended his license for 60 days. I don't remember if there were any
monetary penalty as well or just the suspension. Similar situation I
witnessed at the non existing anymore glider port in Fremont, CA. But
the violator was an instructor so the penalty was much more severe.
Besides having his license suspended his instructional privilege was in
jeopardy. Since this was in like 1986 I don't remember the particulars,
maybe that person is posting to this group and could give us some
better explanation.
And now, like a rigger to rigger...would you pack for someone a 39
years old canopy? or 27 years old canopy? I would not. We riggers,
are not just a bunch of stuck-ups, we are just like the A&P's and the
AI's with the main difference that instead using aluminum, wood or
composite we are using fabric, webbing and line. The data shows that
the fabric is degrading while packed in the container at the rate of
about 3% a year. So, 3% x 20 years = 60% loss in strength. You now as
well as I do that you can grab the F-111 fabric, which most of the
emergency canopies are made out of, and you can pull as hard as you can
and it is O'K but move your grip a foot in any direction and you will
tore the fabric with a minimal force. Performance Designs asks that
after 40 repack cycles the canopy being returned to the factory for
evaluation. Why? Because it degrades!!! And the same is true for every
single canopy especially those older then 20 years.
So guys and gals.. you can argue as much as you want but the regs and
the industry would have to change dramatically. In the mean time it is
120 days or fly without a parachute.

Tim Mara wrote:
when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to see
were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review current,
medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider), and
PARACHUTE I&R date....
Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad you're
OK" from the feds ....
You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it on a
ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit to do a
flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you have an
accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and find you are
not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did pass their written
and practical exams didn't you?) and these same regulations you in fact
agreed to comply with when you signed your application to play with their
bat and ball.you CAN expect some consequence....

Yes, Tim. All of that is true. But just parroting "they set the rules
and you agreed to play" isn't the democracy your (and our) people are
fighting for. This discussion is about whether the rules should be changed.

Up to now I get the distinct impression from the contributions that the
riggers' union is saying - "We like the rules and we'll fight any
attempt to change them". From the raised voices, it sounds like the
consumer is starting to be heard and nobody likes it. The weakness of
your position is that if there were some logic in the rule, you'd argue
it. Your and the riggers instant resort to FAA sanctions make me feel
there is no other argument.

Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to
make the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if
it's a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more
cost-conscious than the FAA?

GC

Graeme Cant wrote:



Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to
make the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if
it's a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more
cost-conscious than the FAA?

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
(2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6 year
(2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them, while
personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?

Because the canister is sealed and impervious to moistu
http://brsparachutes.com/TI_techtips.mgi

Tony V.

Tony Verhulst wrote:

Here's another fact: the BRS (ballistic parachute systems) has a 6
year (2170 days) repack cycle. What makes that possible for them,
while personal parachutes are limited to 120 days?


Because the canister is sealed and impervious to moistu
http://brsparachutes.com/TI_techtips.mgi

The soft pack isn't sealed, but has a 5 year repack if it is inside the
airplane. Why would that situation offer more protection to the
parachute than a personal parachute that is kept in a house? Or even in
a glider in a trailer, for that matter?

Does anyone know what criteria was used to set the 120 day cycle? I
suspect it's a "legacy" value, and simply hasn't been rationally
evaluated for decades. I think very few people are motivated enough to
work for changes, as riggers make money from it, it doesn't affect the
manufacturers, and pilots that don't like it just ignore it - their
butt, their bucks. Enforcing it is clearly not important to the FAA,
since any enforcement has been just an "add-on" to what they were really
after.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

When and if the rules change, I'll also, like everyone else should, comply
with them........until they do however, I am only making the point that
these are today the rules. If the rules should be changed I'll leave this
decision up to the manufacturers who know their products better than any of
us can, and the riggers and yes, also the FAA.I'm not so sure I or many of
us on RAS have the expertise or the ability to take on this liability.
tim


"Graeme Cant" wrote in message
...
Tim Mara wrote:
when I bailed out (LS1f) back in 1990 the first thing the Feds wanted to
see were compliance items....Annual inspection current, Biennial review
current, medical certificate (even though I didn't need it in a glider),
and PARACHUTE I&R date....
Once they saw all this was in order the rest was routine with a "Glad
you're OK" from the feds ....
You don't need to bail out to get their interrogation....they CAN do it
on a ramp check, they CAN do it as a routine inspection when they visit
to do a flight test with someone else, they can and WILL do it if you
have an accident of any kind or any violation....and when they do, and
find you are not in compliance with the regulations you know (you did
pass their written and practical exams didn't you?) and these same
regulations you in fact agreed to comply with when you signed your
application to play with their bat and ball.you CAN expect some
consequence....

Yes, Tim. All of that is true. But just parroting "they set the rules
and you agreed to play" isn't the democracy your (and our) people are
fighting for. This discussion is about whether the rules should be
changed.

Up to now I get the distinct impression from the contributions that the
riggers' union is saying - "We like the rules and we'll fight any attempt
to change them". From the raised voices, it sounds like the consumer is
starting to be heard and nobody likes it. The weakness of your position
is that if there were some logic in the rule, you'd argue it. Your and
the riggers instant resort to FAA sanctions make me feel there is no other
argument.

Here's a question to the riggers - in what ways would it be unsafe to make
the repack cycle 1 year for canopies and cases less than 10 years old?

I noticed the 5 year repack cycle parachute on the Autoflug website some
time ago but it seems to have changed. Do any German readers know if it's
a civilian or military product? The current website refers to the
"Durachute" which it describes as vacuum-packed but it seems to have a
military style harness. Perhaps the armed forces are more cost-conscious
than the FAA?

GC