Longer parachute repack cycle petition (USA)

Right on! I think anyone in his right mind will rather fly with an out of
pack chute than leave it on the ground, so personally I don't understand
what's the big deal about the FAA requirements. Everyone can decide on the
repack cycle that suites them, as long as wearing a chute is optional. I
think the "risk" to fail a ramp check is much smaller than the risk of
leaving the chute on the ground. And as far as I know, flying with out of
pack chute should have no impact on insurance claims.

Ramy

wrote in message
ups.com...
Quite right. We should be required to pack chutes weekly, just to be
on the safe side.

Of course, it's actually illegal to fly with an out-of-pack-date chute.
If we were legally required to pack weekly, then the practical reality
is that many more pilots might choose to fly without their chutes. The
result of a one-week requirement would not be that everyone would carry
better safety equipment (parachutes repacked recently), but that many
of us would carry no safety equipment at all. One pilot dead because
of a law like this would be one pilot too many.

We already have a law like this. The regulation currently reads, "No
pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for
emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it has been
packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger
within the preceding 120 days"

That's right: it is illegal to carry something that might be used in an
emergency. Before I lose the rule's supporters, I can suggest an
alternative that may satisfy their objections (below). However, I
really strongly object to a rule that restricts a pilot's right to be
prepared for an emergency. I don't much care about the fact that
there's an exception (the 120 days). The basic rule ("no parachute for
emergency use") simply philosophically and logically shouldn't exist in
the first place.

I used to be with a glider community where everyone repacked once a
year, or once every two years (taking grief from their buddies for
that) - but to fly without a parachute was considered nuts. Here, we
repack every 120 days, but if a parachute is out of pack date we don't
just say "you should get that repacked," we also say "and leave it in
the car until you do - you don't want to get ramp-checked!" My former
flying community would have considered that kind of thinking the height
of irresponsibility. So do I.

I want to clarify something here. I object to making it illegal - for
any reason - to carry a parachute under circumstances where it would be
legal to fly without any parachute. On the other hand, I think a
180-day rule (or 120-day, if we must find a collective way to keep
riggers busy) makes sense for flights where a parachute is required
equipment. Parachutes are required for aerobatics, and I believe that
reserves are required for skydiving.

I believe that for best safety the regulation should read something
more like "No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is
REQUIRED TO BE available for emergency use to be carried in that
aircraft unless..."

Meanwhile, those of us who carry parachutes, not because we are
required to but simply out of an abundance of caution can do so without
someone making the ideal the enemy of the good, telling us to go
without because we have done merely a good, rather than an ideal job of
repacking. We're being responsible when we carry a parachute, and more
responsible if it was recently repacked, not the other way around.

Cheers!


wrote:
For me this comes down to what is your life worth? Use that chute just
once and the cost seems to be no longer be a factor.

Ramy Yanetz wrote:

snip And as far as I know, flying with out of
pack chute should have no impact on insurance claims.

Some years ago I asked this question of the Costello agency (US - SSA).
Their reply was that flying with an out-of-re-pack-date 'chute would
NOT invalidate one's insurance. Expanding on the reply, they went on to
say violation of an FAR would (in general) NOT invalidate one's glider
insurance, UNLESS the violation had a causatory influence on the
accident. (How wearing an out-of-repack-date 'chute would do that -
well, in the absence of 'chute-induced-aerobatics - is difficult for me
to imagine.)

Not that I've had reason to test the valididty of what I was told, but I
thought the stance refreshing in its common sense.

Bob Whelan

At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:

chopped out for brevity

We already have a law like this. The regulation currently
reads, 'No
pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that
is available for
emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it
has been
packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute
rigger
within the preceding 120 days'

What does the phrase 'available for use' actually mean?
If it is in the baggage compartment of a Cessna 172.
it isn't available for use.

I'm a lightweight (in most senses of the word); I need
the 16lbs for ballast. In my early days I flew a TG-3
with a military backpack chute turned around backwards
and with the straps tucked behind it. This was nothing
more than ballast/backrest, and it was not available
for use. Was this illegal? I don't think so.

As a former practicing bureaucrat, I think the regulation
has problems, but I do understand why it was written
that way. I'd guess it was a misguided effort to keep
people from procrastinating about re-packing.

As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
current.

I could go on, but why confess more than I already
have?

Nyal Williams wrote:
At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:

chopped out for brevity


We already have a law like this. The regulation currently
reads, 'No
pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that
is available for
emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless...it
has been
packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute
rigger
within the preceding 120 days'


What does the phrase 'available for use' actually mean?
If it is in the baggage compartment of a Cessna 172.
it isn't available for use.

I'm a lightweight (in most senses of the word); I need
the 16lbs for ballast. In my early days I flew a TG-3
with a military backpack chute turned around backwards
and with the straps tucked behind it. This was nothing
more than ballast/backrest, and it was not available
for use. Was this illegal? I don't think so.

As a former practicing bureaucrat, I think the regulation
has problems, but I do understand why it was written
that way. I'd guess it was a misguided effort to keep
people from procrastinating about re-packing.

As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
current.

I could go on, but why confess more than I already
have?




So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120
days, just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
...
Nyal Williams wrote:
At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120 days,
just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

And if someone approaches the glider on foot, while you are in the cockpit,
quickly disconnect the straps and tuck 'em behind you? (g)

bumper

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

snip

As a currently practicing procrastinator, I know that
such a regulation will not prevent procrastination.
It probably does help a little in keeping repacks
current.

I could go on, but why confess more than I already have?


So if your parachute has not been repacked within the preceding 120
days, just put a sticker on it saying "backrest cushion, not available
for emergency" and wear it while being legal.

An interesting, but untested, suggestion. I would like to be standing
near that glider on the day an FAA person had nothing better to do than
look at glider parachutes! I think a sticker like that would be worse
than none at all, as it implies "I know this is illegal, but I think you
are dumb enough not to realize that". I can see a grinning FAA person
"accidentally" pulling the rip cord as he lifts the "cushion" from the
glider, then listening patiently to an explanation of why the "cushion"
has such unusual features...

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Not I! I don't think my argument was contentious;
I had the 'chute turned backwards in order to make
it truly unavailable.
I think this argument would stick, but I wouldn't want
to test it now. Things were a lot looser back in the
'60s.

At 16:18 03 November 2005, Bumper wrote:

'Robert Ehrlich' wrote in message
...
Nyal Williams wrote:
At 15:54 30 October 2005, wrote:
So if your parachute has not been repacked within
the preceding 120 days,
just put a sticker on it saying 'backrest cushion,
not available
for emergency' and wear it while being legal.

And if someone approaches the glider on foot, while
you are in the cockpit,
quickly disconnect the straps and tuck 'em behind you?
(g)

bumper