Longer parachute repack cycle petition (USA)

We should wait for the NPRM to come out before making comments, as the
petition comment period is closed, and further comments probably won't
be accepted.

M B wrote:

Whether you are for or against this petition, I encourage
you to respond. I'd like to see as many responses
to this as possible which emphasize emergency chutes
for pilots/passengers instead of sport parachutists.

I'd like FAA to recognise clearly that choices for
emergency chutes for pilots/passengers is very different
from the choices sport parachutists make.

Sport parachutists are required to wear emergency reserves.
Pilots and passengers in aircraft are not (generally).
So cost reductions for solo glider pilots (for example)
mean more pilots will choose to wear 'optional' chutes.

Undoubtedly there will still be the Art Scholls of
the world who will still refuse to wear a chute. But
if even a few more are encouraged by lowered cost to
wear them, this may be significant. Of the 23,000+
aviation fatalities in the NTSB database, how many
would have worn lifesaving chutes if the repack cost
was reduced over 30%?

At 19:48 28 October 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I just read in the October Soaring that the FAA will
issue a NPRM in
response to a petition from many organizations, including
the SSA. The
petition asks the repack cycle be changed from 120
days to 180 days, a
worthwhile improvement, I think. To view the petition
and the FAA's
response, go to

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

and enter docket number 21829.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA