What's the deal with 20 year life span on chutes?

Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

On 7/6/2011 8:04 AM, wrote:
Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

I don't think they need to do to avoid liability, at least in the US.
Isn't the limitation on manufacturer's liability only 18 years?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

In article Eric Greenwell writes:
On 7/6/2011 8:04 AM, wrote:
Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

I don't think they need to do to avoid liability, at least in the US.
Isn't the limitation on manufacturer's liability only 18 years?

It may be now, but note what was happening to general aviation manufacturing
before that was changed. Back in the early '80s, most of the GA manufacturers
were shutting down production. Cessna shut down single engine production in 1986.

As noted on AVweb, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)
immunized makers of GA aircraft against lawsuits for defects in products
older than 18 years. However, the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled
that the flight manual is part of the aircraft, so any revisions to the
manual may restart the clock each time. Clearly, the manufacturer would
have trouble defending not revising the manual if changes needed to be
made. This may break the 18 year limit of liability.

Perhaps the manufacturer will decide that, rather than wait for 18 years to
go by with no revisions, that at the 20 years they will cut their liability
by issuing a manual revision that says the aircraft is not airworthy after
that point.

I thnk that Greg raises a potentially frightening possibility.

Alan

On 7/7/2011 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
In Eric writes:
On 7/6/2011 8:04 AM, wrote:
Pilot rigs haven't evolved much in the last 50 years without forced
obsolescence a tiny market would be even smaller. I wonder how the
defenders of the 20 year policy would feel if someone bought the type
certificate for their glider then grounded all of them over 20 years
old for safety?

I don't think they need to do to avoid liability, at least in the US.
Isn't the limitation on manufacturer's liability only 18 years?

It may be now, but note what was happening to general aviation manufacturing
before that was changed. Back in the early '80s, most of the GA manufacturers
were shutting down production. Cessna shut down single engine production in 1986.

As noted on AVweb, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)
immunized makers of GA aircraft against lawsuits for defects in products
older than 18 years. However, the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled
that the flight manual is part of the aircraft, so any revisions to the
manual may restart the clock each time. Clearly, the manufacturer would
have trouble defending not revising the manual if changes needed to be
made. This may break the 18 year limit of liability.

Perhaps the manufacturer will decide that, rather than wait for 18 years to
go by with no revisions, that at the 20 years they will cut their liability
by issuing a manual revision that says the aircraft is not airworthy after
that point.

That sounds very unlikely to me, as it would mean they are leaving the
aircraft business - who would buy a plane from them after that? If they
want out, all they have to do is sell the assets and go home. There is
no reason to destroy the value of the aircraft, nor is it obvious to me
the manufacturer can simply declare an aircraft "not airworthy" without
showing there is a defect in it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz