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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
A wasting asset is one with a limited life, at the end of which it has no value or utility. For most assets, their depreciable lives--i.e., the interval over which the tax authorities allow expensing the acquisition cost--bear only a tenuous relationship to the actual service lives. So a car can be depreciated over 3 to 5 years, an aircraft over 5 to 7 years, and residential property over 5, 7, 15 or 27.5 years, or whatever the current regs say. Does anyone really think any of those assets are worthless and unserviceable at the end of their depreciable lives? Properly maintained, they can be used for many more years. But not a parachute with a 20 year life.
Hey,Jonathan, how about paying me $1,000 not to respond to your posts? That's less than $50 a year over my projected lifespan. What a deal! It's your quality of life, after all. Seriously, I hate to pick on you but you lose me with arguments that default to safety as an absolute, rather than relative measure, or that cheerfully argue I should spend five thousand bucks because amortized over 50 years, it's less than my electric bill or a couple of tanks of gasoline or whatever. Chip Bearden |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
Hey, if you are a bit short contact me off line, always willing to help out a fellow glider pilot.
And I thought you were using term of frustration, not a term of art. I am familiar with accounting principles. Jon On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 2:09:23 PM UTC-7, wrote: A wasting asset is one with a limited life, at the end of which it has no value or utility. For most assets, their depreciable lives--i.e., the interval over which the tax authorities allow expensing the acquisition cost--bear only a tenuous relationship to the actual service lives. So a car can be depreciated over 3 to 5 years, an aircraft over 5 to 7 years, and residential property over 5, 7, 15 or 27.5 years, or whatever the current regs say.. Does anyone really think any of those assets are worthless and unserviceable at the end of their depreciable lives? Properly maintained, they can be used for many more years. But not a parachute with a 20 year life. Hey,Jonathan, how about paying me $1,000 not to respond to your posts? That's less than $50 a year over my projected lifespan. What a deal! It's your quality of life, after all. Chip Bearden |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
A parachute is a simple device and rather easily tested for material degradation. A good rigger will do this on anything less than nearly new. On an older chute he will test canopy material to spec and shrouds to destruction. A car or glider, not so easily tested.
On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 8:35:19 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote: I think the acid wash took 5 years to show up on my softie. Not sure what might have reared it's head later, as at 20 years, I though I had sweated enough on the chute and purchased a new one. With all due respect, your logic jump, that a glider made of petroleum products isn't limited to a 20 year usable lifespan then a petroleum base chute should be either. This jump is not based in fact, logic, nor science. Hell, even petroleum has a very limited life. How would you like to drive your new car on petro that is 5 years old let alone 20? I have a feeling it would not drive. The "we" in "we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers, is singular, as I don't fly 50 plus year old Schweizers, this has been covered on other threads about the state of soaring in America. Having said that, I do have a fair amount of time in 75 + year old WWII aircraft, that had been lovingly rebuilt. I flew those aircraft wearing a chute that was less than 20 years old. Twenty years is a lot of wear an tear. You should have seen me twenty years ago. On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 3:42:33 AM UTC-7, wrote: Acid mesh problem was a manufacturing error that took a lot less than 20 years to show up. Replacing parachutes every 20 years wouldn't have avoided anything. Do you throw out your glass gliders when they are 21 years old? Parachutes and glass gliders are both made out of petroleum if one can't be determined to be safe after 20 years neither can the other. It's funny we fly 50+ plus year old Schweizers that have spent their lives tied down outside yet some try to convince us that a parachute that spends most of its life in a bag stored in a closet is unairworthy at 21 years old. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 1:20:44 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I hated trading in my 42-year-old Pioneer Thin Pack, but following the unfortunate experience of a local pilot (injuries on landing in high winds), I decided I needed something better.Â* So I bought an Aviator P-124 ram air emergency parachute.Â* I had the Air Force training in round parachutes, but I took training in ram air at the local jump club.Â* I couldn't be happier with my choice. Yes, it was expensive at $2,700 for the rig and $1,000 for 7 solo jumps, but I now have no concerns about leaving the aircraft or safely maneuvering to the landing point of my choosing. Smartest guy in the room right there. I had one of those and unfortunately sold it after selling my first glider. Now I sit on a round. No problem with jumping, I've done that thousands of times, but I really don't want to jump a round. If parachute safety is a goal follow Dan's lead. That will do way more for you than having a brand new parachute based on 300 year old parachute technology. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
On 6/2/2018 9:47 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day. Personally, my life is worth the cost... On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote: More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful age of stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) as the approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have differing views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned), but it's also a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any importance- and (also arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure quotient.' Nice attempt at diversion from the original point under discussion - a point memory says was originally mooted by you (I didn't back-check the thread). In any event, my main points - which I'll reiterate in a second - had zero to do with my mechanic-ing talents (or not). You might as well argue that because I am NOT a professional mechanic, I indulged in greater risks in my attempts to continue operating vehicles whose mission hadn't changed from the date I purchased them...and was therefore a fool taking foolish reliability risks...than to imply only my wonderful mechanic-ing skills have allowed my vehicles to prosper over time. (For the record: a) *I* don't consider myself anything close to really good mechanics (some of whom I've had the pleasure to know); and b) neither vehicle has ever left me stranded on a trip. That's more than many glider pilots I know can honestly report, while driving far newer vehicles.) As for 'chute manufacturer recommendations' I'll simply point out you neglected to mention the potential of conflict of (business) interest they inevitably have. I'm not suggesting in any way their motivations aren't pure, simply that it's in their business interests to suggest/mandate regular replacement...reGARDless of risk - perceived or real. Back to my main points: - age alone is a poor/crude measure of risk (for parachutes/gliders/lotsa-other-manmade things); - acceptance of personal risk is, well, personal; - to 'sensibly' (whatever that means) argue *for* safety is a good thing - I regularly attempt to do it myself (and still have all my fingers, toes and eyeballs); - private citizens seeking to mandate/force their conception of 'acceptable safety' on the rest of affected society is all-too-often nothing more than a form of totaliarianism/elitism/a-proxy-for-other-historically-proven-less-than-wonderful-isms/etc.; - the actual material-related risks to older parachutes (insofar as they relate to the potential for disastrous failures of the 'chutes) are - in the engineering sense of things - relatively straightforward and pretty much 'piecewise mitigatable.' Clearly your and my ideas related to acceptance of personal risks (as measured by those related to 'chutes), differ. I'm OK with that. I'm (far) less OK with anyone seeking to mandate their acceptable personal risk level upon my (continuing) existence...as I suspect you would be with me attempting to reciprocate that approach in my turn. Discussing pros and cons? A great thing. Choosing to be king? Not so great. Respectfully, Bob W. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:39:15 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
On 6/2/2018 9:47 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote: Bob, great, you are a good mechanic and you don't have to drive to see clients. An old car and an old parachute might have a few notable difference, don't ya thunk? Just off the top of my head, if a car breaks it rolls to a stop. If a parachute breaks, your ****ed. I know glider pilots are notoriously cheap. If you can't find the logic in adhering to manufacturer and parachute association recommendations, or can't seem to find $100 per year to put toward a new chute then, I wish you a good day. Personally, my life is worth the cost... On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 6:36:40 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote: More power to those folks who have more 'time limited' views on 'useful age of stuff.' But please don't indulge in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) as the approved method for playing Life-Safety Police for those who have differing views. Not only is it misguided (if arguably well-intentioned), but it's also a dollar-expensive manner of living - if that's of any importance- and (also arguably) likely diminishes one's 'life adventure quotient.' Nice attempt at diversion from the original point under discussion - a point memory says was originally mooted by you (I didn't back-check the thread).. In any event, my main points - which I'll reiterate in a second - had zero to do with my mechanic-ing talents (or not). You might as well argue that because I am NOT a professional mechanic, I indulged in greater risks in my attempts to continue operating vehicles whose mission hadn't changed from the date I purchased them...and was therefore a fool taking foolish reliability risks...than to imply only my wonderful mechanic-ing skills have allowed my vehicles to prosper over time. (For the record: a) *I* don't consider myself anything close to really good mechanics (some of whom I've had the pleasure to know); and b) neither vehicle has ever left me stranded on a trip. That's more than many glider pilots I know can honestly report, while driving far newer vehicles.) As for 'chute manufacturer recommendations' I'll simply point out you neglected to mention the potential of conflict of (business) interest they inevitably have. I'm not suggesting in any way their motivations aren't pure, simply that it's in their business interests to suggest/mandate regular replacement...reGARDless of risk - perceived or real. Back to my main points: - age alone is a poor/crude measure of risk (for parachutes/gliders/lotsa-other-manmade things); - acceptance of personal risk is, well, personal; - to 'sensibly' (whatever that means) argue *for* safety is a good thing - I regularly attempt to do it myself (and still have all my fingers, toes and eyeballs); - private citizens seeking to mandate/force their conception of 'acceptable safety' on the rest of affected society is all-too-often nothing more than a form of totaliarianism/elitism/a-proxy-for-other-historically-proven-less-than-wonderful-isms/etc.; - the actual material-related risks to older parachutes (insofar as they relate to the potential for disastrous failures of the 'chutes) are - in the engineering sense of things - relatively straightforward and pretty much 'piecewise mitigatable.' Clearly your and my ideas related to acceptance of personal risks (as measured by those related to 'chutes), differ. I'm OK with that. I'm (far) less OK with anyone seeking to mandate their acceptable personal risk level upon my (continuing) existence...as I suspect you would be with me attempting to reciprocate that approach in my turn. Discussing pros and cons? A great thing. Choosing to be king? Not so great. Respectfully, Bob W. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either “Totalitarian”, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. I write for the several young eaglets I mentor, and all the other eaglets that read our posts. The safety culture on this thread is not something I want someone new to soaring thinking to pervasive or correct! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you? While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free. More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product. One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials.. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either “Totalitarian”, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. I write for the several young eaglets I mentor, and all the other eaglets that read our posts. The safety culture on this thread is not something I want someone new to soaring thinking to pervasive or correct! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you? While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free. More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product. One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits. Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
I've never been accused of economy of phrasing myself, so I feel I must leap to Bob's defense, Jonathan.
You apparently have a law degree so I assume you're familiar with the concept of conflict of interest. If Allen Silver were not thought to be a good guy and an entertaining presenter (I met him when I attended his session at the SSA convention years ago), many would have already accused him of conflict of interest. As the author of the 20-year rule, he stood to benefit from his sale of parachutes. Indeed, I bought my last one from him precisely because his rule made it almost impossible for me to get my 22-year-old chute repacked. Several riggers told me my chute could be perfectly serviceable (as several others tested it and confirmed) but they simply couldn't afford the exposure of going against the PIA's 20-year-life rule put in place by Allen, given this country's litigious society. I've already recounted my less-than-smooth experience in that purchase from him so I won't repeat it here, except to say that how he presents himself and my own experience were two very different things in terms of attention to detail, responding to requests, and following the manufacturer's packing instructions. I finally sent my chute to ParaPhernalia to get it done right. His cutting the shroud lines of another poster's chute because of its age and shipping it back destroyed is yet another example of behavior I find objectionable. As for Para-Phernalia, I can't blame them for writing in a 20-year life. Their lawyers probably told them it was prudent (they know the potential for other lawyers to sue the company better than any of us do). And, to be perfectly frank, it's in their economic best interests to have happy customers purchasing a new chute every 20 years rather than whenever the old one fails the pull test by a rigger. Plus there are all those sales to pilots whose other-brand chutes are passing 20 years old. No one can say they're doing anything unethical. But that doesn't alter the apparent conflict of interest. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 4:28:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Okay, Bob I get it, you are not a good mechanic, and might I add, economy of phrasing doesn’t appear to be a strong suit either “Totalitarian”, really, we are talking about a safety culture. I am sure you, Chip and anyone else out there with an aged chute, or planning on having an aged chute are all great guys, and I know you guys are experienced enough to make your own decisions! Not being flippant, but I just don’t care what you choose. I write for the several young eaglets I mentor, and all the other eaglets that read our posts. The safety culture on this thread is not something I want someone new to soaring thinking to pervasive or correct! If the manufacturer puts a time limit or Parachute Riggers Association advises against using chute older than 20 years, then that is the safety culture we should promote to the public and new pilots, instead of squawking "Totalitarianism". You want to go outside the lines, fine with me, how about dragging less students and low timers with you? While I know who you are, you do not know me. I am a commercial instrument rated pilot with 1661 hours in gliders, 2200 hours in helicopters, 3500 hours airplanes with half of that war bird time (parachutes). I also have earned three University degrees, life science, engineering and law. Virtually all my flying has been in the Western Mountains. I have owned and operated ten different aircraft. All accident free. More than once when a helicopter part was timing out the mechanic wrote the manufacturer and receive a hundred hour extension, all within the lines, as the manufacturer knows the limits. For the guy sending an aged Security chute back factory for repack, sounds good, that manufacturer knows their product. One last point, age is actually a Great measure of risk on many man made materials, which is why the manufacturers place time limits on many materials. I didn’t climb vertical rock and ice on old ropes or ropes that had taken more than 4 falls either as that was the manufactures limits. Nice credentialism, but you are still an ignorant consumer of parachutes. Good Sir, I submit your insult is out of place. I am not a materials expert nor a parachute expert nor have I professed to be, though I do have much experience with both. The point is the safety culture, nothing else! It is not economics, conflicts of interests, nor it is not materials sciences (although that is ancillary). We are talking in a public forum of extending the service life of emergency equipment against manufactures and PIA, recommendations, and without engineering studies. I personally, do not think young pilots and hopefuls need to hear this type of talk and think it is acceptable. As I said before, I have written manufacturers and gotten service life extensions, I played within the lines, not by my leave. Experienced pilots need to put forth an example for the younger pilots, that is a personal commitment of mine to aviation. I am a bit surprised that I stand alone on this matter while being insulted. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Rigger who will pack a 20 year old chute?
Anybody else notice that the supposed 20 year life limit starts at the date of "component manufacture" in the quote below - which is not likely near the actual date of the parachute manufacture. So if Para-Phenalia purchased a 2 year inventory of nylon cordage from a supplier who had a 3 year old back inventory - your chute life span is 15 years - not 20. This is all hog wash, I think.
1.4 SERVICE LIFE Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time, therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve line of emergency parachutes ROY (who thinks there is nothing wrong in helping "young eaglets" also become sophisticated aviation consumers). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jet pack pics 2 [2/6] - Personal-Jet-Pack-2.jpg (1/1) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 13th 17 03:40 PM |
Jet pack pics 2 [1/6] - o-JET-PACK-HISTORY-facebook.jpg (1/1) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 13th 17 03:40 PM |
Jet pack pics 1 [9/9] - kiddie Jet pack.jpg (1/1) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 13th 17 03:39 PM |
Jet pack pics 1 [3/9] - Jet pack 2007-15054h.jpg (2/2) | Miloch | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 13th 17 03:38 PM |
Local Rigger doesn't want to repack my chute | Doug Snyder | Soaring | 11 | February 23rd 05 06:34 AM |