Parachutes again

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...



My decision is based solely on economics, liability, and workload. I
have plenty of business and just don't need to have my signature on
thie older stuff. Just like a car that can be perfectly roadworthy
after 20 years of use, the likelhood of an impending failure increases
with age. My opinion, and nothing else. Keep on driving!


Holy bananas, thanks for pointing this out. My Aeronca 7AC Champ, at almost
60 years old (just like me), must be one of the most unsafe planes at the
airport!

all the best,

bumper

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