Parachutes again

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