A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Parachute 20 year limit



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 4th 08, 05:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tim Mara[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Parachute 20 year limit

I hope your rigger checked for any AD notes on your parachute!
Many of these old Pioneer Parachutes had some serious directives and notices
issued on them and simply pull testing and repacking would not uncover these
defects!

There were several parachutes only a few years back that came under fire
with the acid mesh problem.....not only Security parachutes though they were
the most widely publicized. Manufactures today still test each lot of
material for this same problem and have been known to reject material that
might be questionable.
There is a possibility, though hopefully unlikely, that even parachutes
still in use out in the field may possibly still have this problem.
Know your rigger, know that he is doing all that is required to insure your
safety...it may seem like an expensive unnecessary piece or equipment and a
foolish regulation.....until of course you need to depend on it!
tim

Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com



My rigger finally said - "last time I will repack that" on my pioneer
tri-conical. Pioneer stated that their product has no life limit. It dates
from 1974 and has passed it's tests to date. He is concerned that after
all these (34) years the porosity and hence descent rate will be
increasing.

This is a long way past the 20 year life. Tested annually for condition.

If you trust the guy with your life when he packs it - best you listen
when he says - it looks perfect, fabric is strong and clean, but is it
safe - Apparently the answer is NO!

I am in the market for a new one.

Bruce



  #22  
Old December 4th 08, 07:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default Parachute 20 year limit

I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
you will get.

Thanks,

Jacek "some rigger"
Pasco, WA
  #23  
Old December 4th 08, 08:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default Parachute 20 year limit

On Dec 4, 11:55*am, wrote:
I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
you will get.


The reply you would probably get is probably "**it no! I'd never jump
a round canopy", but that's what 99% of glider pilots are wearing.

Andy
  #24  
Old December 4th 08, 10:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Surfer!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Parachute 20 year limit

In message
,
Andy writes
On Dec 4, 11:55*am, wrote:
I would like that you, on your next repack, ask your rigger a simple
question: "would you put this rig on your back, go up to 3000' and
make a jump with this?" You might be supprised what kind of answers
you will get.


The reply you would probably get is probably "**it no! I'd never jump
a round canopy", but that's what 99% of glider pilots are wearing.


IMHO no-one in their right mind deliberately jumps out of a perfectly
sound plane. But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
reserve? Are they round?

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
  #25  
Old December 4th 08, 10:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default Parachute 20 year limit

On Dec 4, 2:03*pm, Surfer! wrote:
*But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
reserve? *Are they round?


Almost certainly not. People jumping ram air main chutes usually have
a ram air (square) reserve.

Andy
  #26  
Old December 5th 08, 01:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Gregg Ballou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Parachute 20 year limit

And people that used to jump ram air parachutes are likely flying gliders
with a square if they can afford it. I've seen enough round reserves
used to never want to give it a go.

At 21:53 04 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:03=A0pm, Surfer! wrote:
=A0But what kind of canopy does the rigger have for his/her
reserve? =A0Are they round?


Almost certainly not. People jumping ram air main chutes usually have
a ram air (square) reserve.

Andy

  #27  
Old December 5th 08, 03:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
sisu1a
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Parachute 20 year limit

sisu1a wrote:
studies have
shown that 20 yrs of normal use/exposure is approaching the safe
working life limits of the materials.


That's not what Strong parachute says, or my rigger, so I'd like to see
these studies for myself. Do you have a link to them?

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA



I do not, I was passing along hearsay from a trusted source, and after
searching the best I could find was this article on the subject form
1958, http://tinyurl.com/6b5bca (.pdf file...) which admittedly does
not really support my point much being as old as it is. After talking
with a prominent rigger today while I was picking up my National, I
asked him about it to find the answer so I could provide such data. He
could not point me to any sources either, although he of course agrees
with the 20 yr thing. His suggestion was to ask some higher ups at
Parachute Industry Association, which I have done, and I will share
anything I turn up from that avenue. Also, here is a link to the PIA
rigger's newsgroup, where I'm sure you could get more useful info
there if you are motivated enough on the subject to post/search the
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/rig...ool/mb/riggers

Mostly, I'm puzzled by the idea that an emergency parachute has a
"working life limit" because it doesn't work: it just sits there. I
would think it's only a matter of how long the materials last, and nylon
and metal will last indefinitely in a cool, dry place.


Poor choice of wording on my part I suppose. I didn't mean time spent
'working' when I posted that, but rather the length of time it is
still fit to work if it needs to. According to the same rigger, the
older nylons (like what would have been used in the 1958 study linked
above...) actually held up longer than the newer materials, but was
lower performing in actual use. Much like today's high performance
optics, today's high performance parachute materials have special
coatings that affect the physical properties and such, but on chutes
they supposedly degrade and rub off over time, even under the best of
conditions. 20 yrs is even thought to be optimistic to some for this
reason...

-Paul
  #28  
Old December 5th 08, 01:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Parachute 20 year limit

What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.

Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.

True, false, or what?

Chris N.
  #29  
Old December 5th 08, 02:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Gregg Ballou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Parachute 20 year limit

False. I believe squares are (slightly)more reliable. Only problem with
squares is that an untrained jumper can hurt/kill themselves landing one.
Square parachutes accelerate when turning(think glider without pitch
control) hence turning low to the ground and impacting while the parachute
is descending is the issue. I believe there are two companies selling
square pilot rigs: Paraphenalia and Rigging Innovations. Rigging
Innovations has two versions one is a standard square reserve for
experienced jumpers or folks willing to get training and the other has a
detuned square that still gets better descent rates than rounds. I don't
work for either company but being an exskydiver I use(well wear) a square
parachute. They are more expensive by probably $700-$1,200. take good
care of them and they should last more than 20 years...
At 12:20 05 December 2008, wrote:
What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates,
but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work
reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.

Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control
and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken
ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more
quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency
when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude.

True, false, or what?

Chris N.

  #30  
Old December 5th 08, 04:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default Parachute 20 year limit

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:20:16 -0800, cnich15000 wrote:

What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally
accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates, but
are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work reliably
only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them.

My chute, which was put together by John Rix (Southern Parachutes) is now
old enough that he's repacking it on a year-by-year basis. He's willing
to replace the canopy when the time comes if he can find one, but says
round canopies are becoming very hard to find. So, I asked him about
replacements. He suggested the Rigging Innovations Aviator model. It has
a square, 7 bay canopy that can't be stalled, and so needs no more
training than a round parachute. They're not cheap ($US 2300 on the web
site, compared with £1250 for a Strong from AFE).



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
limit of trim = limit of travel? Mxsmanic Piloting 251 May 11th 08 07:58 PM
The Sky is Their Limit [email protected] Soaring 7 November 13th 06 03:44 AM
Pegasus life limit Mark628CA Soaring 2 March 30th 06 10:37 PM
Aft CG limit(s) Andy Durbin Soaring 13 November 26th 03 06:10 AM
Pushing the limit Dan Shackelford Military Aviation 20 September 14th 03 10:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.