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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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-$1,200. take good care of them and they should last more than 20 years... At 12:20 05 December 2008, wrote: What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates, but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them. Whereas it used to be said that round ones may give no or less control and a higher descent rate (for a given area), and you may get broken ankles, but they are better life savers because they deploy more quickly and reliably when used by untrained glider pilots in emergency when you may deploy them in far from the best attitude. True, false, or what? Chris N. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Parachute 20 year limit
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:20:16 -0800, cnich15000 wrote:
What is this about round vs ram/square? I thought it was generally accepted that ram/square give more control and lower descent rates, but are less suitable for glider emergency chutes because they work reliably only if you are the right way up etc. when you pull them. My chute, which was put together by John Rix (Southern Parachutes) is now old enough that he's repacking it on a year-by-year basis. He's willing to replace the canopy when the time comes if he can find one, but says round canopies are becoming very hard to find. So, I asked him about replacements. He suggested the Rigging Innovations Aviator model. It has a square, 7 bay canopy that can't be stalled, and so needs no more training than a round parachute. They're not cheap ($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 | |
|
|
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 02:44 AM |
Pegasus life limit | Mark628CA | Soaring | 2 | March 30th 06 10:37 PM |
Aft CG limit(s) | Andy Durbin | Soaring | 13 | November 26th 03 05:10 AM |
Pushing the limit | Dan Shackelford | Military Aviation | 20 | September 14th 03 10:27 PM |