Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
hot trunk

 


bluesilver30

Aug 6, 2007, 10:10 PM
Post #1 of 75 (2695 views)
Shortcut
hot trunk Can't Post

hey. i just wanted to get a feel for what you all thought of this situation. my rig was in the trunk of my car for a few days while moving, and i assume temperatures got pretty warm in the trunk (outside was 80's). the main was pulled from the container, but the reserve was packed. any of you think a repack on the reserve might be warranted in this case? could the high temps cause a malfunction somehow? thanks!


diverdriver  (D 19012)

Aug 6, 2007, 11:10 PM
Post #2 of 75 (2669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluesilver30] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

They absolutely can cause a malfunction. I know of a guy that had a mal on his main and when he went to cutaway he couldn't. The cables had melted in place in the metal housing.


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Aug 7, 2007, 4:52 AM
Post #3 of 75 (2606 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

This is exactly one of the reasons why I sent a letter of dissention to the FAA regarding the consideration of a 180 day pack cycle.


ChrisL  (C 35323)

Aug 7, 2007, 6:07 AM
Post #4 of 75 (2568 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is exactly one of the reasons why I sent a letter of dissention to the FAA regarding the consideration of a 180 day pack cycle.

I don't see how extending it 2 months would prevent this type of thing.
Its not going to make people think any harder before doing something like that.

We currently have a 120 day cycle and the OP put his rig in the trunk.

Is it just that you think a longer cycle might cause things like that to go unnoticed for a longer period of time before being caught by a rigger?

I believe that unfairly penalizes everyone.

I think people should be more careful with their gear and not depend 100% on riggers to catch potential problems.

If the guy with the melted cables regularly inspected his own gear and made sure that all the cables could move freely (as we are supposed to do) then the length of the repack cycle wouldnt make any difference


(This post was edited by ChrisL on Aug 7, 2007, 6:14 AM)


hackish  (No License)

Aug 7, 2007, 7:08 AM
Post #5 of 75 (2536 views)
Shortcut
Re: hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't imagine 80F causing a problem with the materials a rig is made from but 80C could possibly. Is your life worth the $65 repack fee? You decide.

-Michael


ChrisL  (C 35323)

Aug 7, 2007, 7:51 AM
Post #6 of 75 (2512 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hackish] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

I dont have to decide. This issue has nothing to do with whatever monetary value I would place on my life.

Repack fee's are not the issue either.

I dont ever leave my rig unattended in a potentially damaging environment and I routinely check my gear as the manufacturer suggests
including manipulating the 3 rings to prevent them taking a set, and checking the cables to make sure they move freely.

The cable check I do every time I go to the DZ.

Extending the repack cycle would not pose any appreciable additional risk to my life.


(This post was edited by ChrisL on Aug 7, 2007, 7:51 AM)


darkwing  (D 4164)

Aug 7, 2007, 8:19 AM
Post #7 of 75 (2495 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluesilver30] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Get it repacked. Peace of mind is worth it. You don't want to be worrying about this a 1500 feet under a "I might be able to land it" canopy.

Regarding the 120--> 180 day repack cycle, I don't see where this has any bearing on it. Anyone is free to make their personal repack cycle anything they want, as long as it doesn't exceed the FAA mandate.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Aug 7, 2007, 8:52 AM
Post #8 of 75 (2475 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluesilver30] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

The first thing that will rot out are the rubber bands. Typically that takes two years in the Southern California climate.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 7, 2007, 10:14 AM
Post #9 of 75 (2431 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

> This is exactly one of the reasons why I sent a letter of dissention to the
>FAA regarding the consideration of a 180 day pack cycle.

How would staying with a 120 day repack cycle have prevented this rig from being left in a trunk for a few days?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 7, 2007, 10:20 AM
Post #10 of 75 (2424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hackish] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

> I can't imagine 80F causing a problem with the materials a rig is made from . . .

That's the outdoor temps. From our testing, insides of trunks can easily reach 180F when the vehicle is parked in the sun on a hot day - even if it's much cooler outside. I'd actually be more worried about cypres batteries than anything else.


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Aug 8, 2007, 6:42 AM
Post #11 of 75 (2265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

To the other poster: I said it was _one_ of the reasons.

Bill:
Depends on where he is on the timeline.
If he got it repacked last week and it went unnoticed and there were a cutaway - perhaps nothing
If it was due this weekend on a 120 day cycle and went unnoticed - it would.
If it was due this weekend on a 120 day cycle and that cycle were extended to 180 days, then it would go unnoticed for another 60 days...


illusioneer  (A 13037)

Aug 8, 2007, 7:46 AM
Post #12 of 75 (2246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluesilver30] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

An inspection and repack can not hurt...might help


councilman24  (D 8631)

Aug 8, 2007, 6:33 PM
Post #13 of 75 (2166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

I local jumper who worked construction and jumped almost every weeknight left his rig in the trunk. When I got it back for I&R it took 35 lb's to pull the free bag off the stacked reserve AFTER the locking stows were out. The coated interior of the bag was stuck to the canopy stack. IF this had been used at terminal probably would have been fine. IF it was a cutaway and low speed deployment it certainly would have delayed deployment.

BUT this was essentially an entire summer in the trunk, but not more than 180 days.Wink

A few days I wouldn't worry. But that's me. Certainly repack for piece of mind if you feel it's necessary.


UDSkyJunkie  (D 25746)

Aug 8, 2007, 8:11 PM
Post #14 of 75 (2149 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diverdriver] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
They absolutely can cause a malfunction. I know of a guy that had a mal on his main and when he went to cutaway he couldn't. The cables had melted in place in the metal housing.

Holy shit! I've heard of reserves coming out stuck to themselves like a brick, and I've heard rumors of spectra coating material melting together, but that's a new one on me. Any more detail on cirumstances? Was this Arizona-type heat? left for a couple days, or a couple months, or all the time between weekends? Trunk, or direct sunlight (like back seat)?

I would NEVER leave a rig in the trunk, and I've given the speech about why other shouldn't to more than one person... this would add to the ammo.


bch7773  (C License)

Aug 10, 2007, 10:28 AM
Post #15 of 75 (2005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is exactly one of the reasons why I sent a letter of dissention to the FAA regarding the consideration of a 180 day pack cycle.

feel free to get yours repacked every 120 days, or even less if you want...

but don't spoil our fun CrazyWink


for the original poster, if you are seriously worried about it, get it repacked. The repack price is worth being scared of an unreliable reserve on every jump.


(This post was edited by bch7773 on Aug 10, 2007, 10:30 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 10, 2007, 2:24 PM
Post #16 of 75 (1977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>Depends on where he is on the timeline.

Correct. If he did it on the first day after the repack, it would spend 99%+ of its time in its post-overheated state - no matter how long the repack cycle was. To catch those we'd have to repack every day.

If he did it on the last day before the repack, it would spend less than 1% of its time in that state - no matter how long the repack cycle is. So in that case it doesn't matter how long the repack cycle is; it could be 360 days and you wouldn't have any more risk.

If he did it halfway through the cycle, you'd spend 33% more time with the rig in that state. And again, that's true whether the new cycle is 180 days, 360 days or 10 years.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that you shouldn't leave your rig in the trunk, and that more frequent inspections won't catch problems if you do (unless you do them every day.)


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Aug 10, 2007, 8:12 PM
Post #17 of 75 (1941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bch7773] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
feel free to get yours repacked every 120 days, or even less if you want...
but don't spoil our fun

You're welcome to contradict my essay to the FAA. But I hope you do better than, "cost," "I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why, or just address it as a reserve repack without mention of the harness inspection. I have been known to reverse my position when adequately educated or by a stronger argument. So far, that hasn't happened.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 10, 2007, 9:09 PM
Post #18 of 75 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>"I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why . . .

I support it because:

It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time

Countries that have a 180 day repack cycle have seen no significant problems with it

Manufacturers have left reserves packed for several years and drop-tested them with no problems

No inspection cycle can catch gross neglect of gear; a reserve will mildew in a month if left wet

Manufacturers generally know more about their gear than you or I, and most are in favor of the 180 day cycle (PD actually recommends a 360 day cycle in the absence of other rules)


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Aug 11, 2007, 6:20 AM
Post #19 of 75 (1903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

You'll understand if I address each of these individually. I read of each of these arguments prior to forming my _opinion_ and the letter.
Quote:
It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time

We still have rigs & reserves from the 70's that were under a shorter inspection cycle. In fact, we have rigs & reserves that have been around so long that some riggers refuse to inspect & repack anything over 20 years old.

Quote:
Countries that have a 180 day repack cycle have seen no significant problems with it

I read the list. I hate to go all Kallend on you, but there's more countries on the list that I think are great examples not to emulate. For me, "Because they do it..." is a reference; not a reason. And, if we're going to do it _like_ they do... some of the countries on the list don't require the same standard of certification to pack the reserves, nor even a seal.

Quote:
Manufacturers have left reserves packed for several years and drop-tested them with no problems

Again, it's not about _just_ the reserve repack, but the system as a whole - and on that note: see below.

Quote:
No inspection cycle can catch gross neglect of gear;
Quote:
a reserve will mildew in a month if left wet

Quote:
Manufacturers generally know more about their gear than you or I, and most are in favor of the 180 day cycle (PD actually recommends a 360 day cycle in the absence of other rules).

In my dissention, I also refer to the number of field riggers that have found issues in the field, which have resulted in manufacturer testing and Service Bulletins.

Bill, you know that I respect your opinion in many areas and as of my letter to the FAA did not see one from you. I ask you as an engineer and probably fellow in the science of Quality Management; What does it really hurt to leave the 120 day inspection cycle? Are we to consider it the as just an inspection cycle or view it as preventative maintenance? I also ask, if it saves one life; is it worth it to leave it at 120 days? Conversely, which is more likely to save one life; 120 or 180 days? IMO this is about the extra $50.00 per annum, which every DZ with numerous rigs would find advantageous as would the average _on the bandwagon_ skydiver. I look forward to reviewing your letter to the FAA.

EDIT: I encourage any/everyone to write their papers with compelling enough arguments, evidence, information... I can still add an addendum to the list reversing my position. I've been thinking about this for awhile - and it's going to take more than cheerleading "I support the 180 day cycle."


(This post was edited by BIGUN on Aug 11, 2007, 6:33 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 11, 2007, 8:46 AM
Post #20 of 75 (1893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>We still have rigs & reserves from the 70's that were under a shorter
>inspection cycle.

Right - these are the ones that haven't been jumped (and repacked) very often. As you know, most of the wear on a reserve comes from repacking it.

> but there's more countries on the list that I think are great examples not to emulate.

That's fine; I'm not suggesting emulating them. They are, however, good data points, and their experience shows that repacking reserves every 180 days does not add significant risk to the repack cycle. That's essentially a way of testing the idea without risking any of "our" jumpers.

>I ask you as an engineer and probably fellow in the science of Quality
>Management; What does it really hurt to leave the 120 day inspection
>cycle?

What does it harm? Literally, the canopy. The less repacking, the better when it comes to canopy life

I will, however, agree that that is a minor concern, and overall it doesn't do too much harm. Heck, if we had stuck with the old 90 day repack cycle, that wouldn't have harmed anything either - and would arguably "save more lives" if people were landing their rigs in the water and not dealing with that problem.

But I am of the opinion that we should not require maintenance other than the minimum required of a reasonably maintained rig, and that the gear manufacturers should decide what that minimum maintenance is. People should still (and do) have the right to have their gear maintained more often if they choose.

>Are we to consider it the as just an inspection cycle or view it as
>preventative maintenance? I also ask, if it saves one life; is it worth it
>to leave it at 120 days?

Well, you could argue that keeping it at 120 days risks lives as well. If a jumper is jumping a very old Swift, and has to repack it 33% more often, the odds of it not landing him safely (or survivably) go up the more often it is repacked. So a jumper who jumps this rig under a 180 day repack cycle will arguably safer years later than a jumper who jumps the same rig under a 120 day cycle (assuming it's well cared for otherwise.)

But I don't think that's a serious issue, any more than catching stuff in that extra 60 days is a serious issue.

>Conversely, which is more likely to save one life; 120 or 180 days? IMO
>this is about the extra $50.00 per annum . . . .

Perhaps. It's not an issue for me, but it may be for other people, although the savings may end up being wiped out if repack costs go up. I would also suggest that it's wear on their canopy; that carries a monetary cost as well. (on the order of $20-$30 a pack job.)


Krip  (Student)

Aug 11, 2007, 10:06 AM
Post #21 of 75 (1887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bluesilver30] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Lesson Learned treat your gear like you'd treat your childrenUnimpressed

Why the hell would you leave you gear in a hot car any longer than necessary. Beside the danger of of damage to your gear there's also car prowlers/thieves.

Take care of your baby.


diablopilot  (D License)

Aug 11, 2007, 5:13 PM
Post #22 of 75 (1867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why the hell would you leave you gear in a hot car any longer than necessary. Beside the danger of of damage to your gear there's also car prowlers/thieves.

Because some people have more dollars than sense.Tongue


Squeak  (E 1313)

Aug 12, 2007, 2:08 AM
Post #23 of 75 (1844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Why the hell would you leave you gear in a hot car any longer than necessary. Beside the danger of of damage to your gear there's also car prowlers/thieves.

Because some people have more dollars than sense.Tongue
and some people DO leave their kids in carsUnimpressed


divekennene  (C 38390)

Aug 12, 2007, 7:11 AM
Post #24 of 75 (1829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bch7773] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve. Regardless of training and care taken in repacking, riggers will forever make mistakes. If you only jump 2 times a week, by using a 180 day repack cycle, you have just given yourself 8 more opportunities to find out that your rigger is human and has made a mistake, possibly at the price of your life. If I am renting a rig, it is a little scary to know that the dropzone is knowingly adding more risk to an already risky sport.


mark  (D 6108)

Aug 12, 2007, 11:37 AM
Post #25 of 75 (1810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve. Regardless of training and care taken in repacking, riggers will forever make mistakes. If you only jump 2 times a week, by using a 180 day repack cycle, you have just given yourself 8 more opportunities to find out that your rigger is human and has made a mistake, possibly at the price of your life. If I am renting a rig, it is a little scary to know that the dropzone is knowingly adding more risk to an already risky sport.

There are some good reasons to oppose a 180-day repack cycle, but this isn't one of them. The likelihood that any particular pack job has an error does not change regardless of cycle length. The good pack jobs will last 50% longer, too.

Google Zeno's paradox.

Mark


bch7773  (C License)

Aug 12, 2007, 1:07 PM
Post #26 of 75 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve. Regardless of training and care taken in repacking, riggers will forever make mistakes. If you only jump 2 times a week, by using a 180 day repack cycle, you have just given yourself 8 more opportunities to find out that your rigger is human and has made a mistake, possibly at the price of your life. If I am renting a rig, it is a little scary to know that the dropzone is knowingly adding more risk to an already risky sport.


CrazyCrazyCrazy
it doesn't matter what the repack cycle is... if your rigger made a mistake he made a mistake.

lets pretend your scenerio...

I get my rig repacked, with a packing error in the reserve. I get lucky and never have to use it... well guess what happends when I get it repacked... IT HAS THE SAME CHANCE A RIGGER WILL REPACK IT WRONGLY!!!

in fact, repacking it more often would probably lead to more chances of error... because the rigger now has 3 times a year to mess it up, instead of 2 times a year under the 180 reserve cycle.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 12, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #27 of 75 (1287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk
>(by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in
>repacking their reserve.

Right. They also decrease their risk (by 50%) that a poor rigger will take a their perfectly good reserve pack job, repack it after only 120 days, and turn it into a reserve total. It all washes out in the end.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Aug 12, 2007, 7:47 PM
Post #28 of 75 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't see how extending it 2 months would prevent this type of thing.
Its not going to make people think any harder before doing something like that.
Amen, brother. I've seen reserves packed for well over a year work just fine. There's nothing magical about 120 days, people. Just don't be stupid with your gear.Mad

Word from the PIA is that too much repacking is bad for your reserve. I'd like to put an end to that.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Aug 12, 2007, 7:49 PM
Post #29 of 75 (1274 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk
>(by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in
>repacking their reserve.

Right. They also decrease their risk (by 50%) that a poor rigger will take a their perfectly good reserve pack job, repack it after only 120 days, and turn it into a reserve total. It all washes out in the end.
Have Schrodinger's cat pack your reserve. Then it will be perfectly good and fatally flawed all at the same time. Cool


reinhart36  (B 30295)

Aug 22, 2007, 6:08 AM
Post #30 of 75 (1198 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hackish] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I can't imagine 80F causing a problem with the materials a rig is made from but 80C could possibly. Is your life worth the $65 repack fee? You decide.

-Michael

If it was 80 and sunny, 80 degrees is the minimum temperature that his trunk could be. However, in direct sunlight it is likely that much more heat was transferred into the trunk.

The trunk could easily be in the 100s on an 80 degree day.

As to whether or not this would affect his gear, I have no clue...

I agree about the $65. Crazy


reinhart36  (B 30295)

Aug 22, 2007, 6:32 AM
Post #31 of 75 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Think about this...by adding 60 more days to the repack cycle, jumpers increase the risk (by 50%) that their rigger is in fact human and has made an error in repacking their reserve.

No offense, but your logic is flawed here.

If the probablity is (arbitrarily) .01 (one in a hundred) that any given pack job is "bad", then it doesn't matter how often you get repacked.

Your odds will always be .01, even if you're repacked an infinite number of times in a year.

As was pointed out earlier, if your next pack job is going to be a "bad" one, and your current one is a "good" one, then the longer you wait for the repack the better..


divekennene  (C 38390)

Aug 22, 2007, 7:05 AM
Post #32 of 75 (1186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [reinhart36] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

You are absolutely correct. I misspoke the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to say is this: Let's say Joe Rigger is handed Sally Jumper's rig. As he unpacks it and prepares to repack it, he notices a fatal flaw in the pack job. Because it was still packed up, it is "fairly" safe to assume she had good openings on her main for the past 120 days, whether it be from good pack jobs or fairly uneventful (meaning nothing went majorly wrong) jumps. Now, had she had the opportunity to jump for 60 more days (let's just say 15 or 20 jumps), she would have had 15 or 20 more "chances" that she either made a mistake with her pack jobs, or had an "eventful" jump where she may have had to use her reserve, which would have given her the unfortunate opportunity of realizing her riggers error. So yes, I agree that the odds of a "bad" pack job always remain the same. With 60 days added to the pack cycle, you are just a little more likely to find it because you are getting 15 to 20 more shots at making your own main packing mistake, freefalling mistake, or someone else who is in the sky with you making a mistake (forcing you to go to your reserve).


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 22, 2007, 9:39 AM
Post #33 of 75 (1161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>With 60 days added to the pack cycle, you are just a little more
>likely to find it because you are getting 15 to 20 more shots at making
> your own main packing mistake, freefalling mistake, or someone else
>who is in the sky with you making a mistake (forcing you to go to your
>reserve).

Right. But if you SHORTEN the reserve pack cycle, you make it more likely that a poor rigger has taken that good pack job and prematurely replaced it with his bad pack job - thus increasing your risk. What might have been a jump on your old (good) reserve pack job is now made on the new (bad) reserve pack job. You now are at risk for an additional 15 to 20 jumps.

The two cancel each other out.


divekennene  (C 38390)

Aug 22, 2007, 10:09 AM
Post #34 of 75 (1150 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Well put billvon. Debate was never a strong suit for me. Anyone know where I can get into a good knitting class?Smile


mdrejhon  (C 3268)

Aug 22, 2007, 6:13 PM
Post #35 of 75 (1113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BIGUN] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Regarding the 120 vs 180 day repack cycle, one factor to account for is that in some places (like Ottawa), I have difficulty finding someone available to repack. One rigger is 1 hour drive away (and I don't have a car), while another is too busy with several rigs and long days at a main full time job. Shipping away the rig solves the problem, but this adds additional inconvenience, expense and risk (of loss). So this forces me to rent gear with more unfamiliar characteristics, which increases my risk in the sport. In this perspective, if I am eventually allowed to do so I'd rather take my chances with a 121-day old reserve if I am travelling, than jumping unfamiliar gear. It is U.S. made gear, so I can't claim the Canadian 180-day while travelling to the U.S.

Mind you, one could own terrible gear and rent excellent gear, but the vice-versa often happens. However, no matter what, the 'unfamiliarity' principle still applies.


(This post was edited by mdrejhon on Aug 22, 2007, 6:21 PM)


BIGUN  (D 23385)

Aug 22, 2007, 7:31 PM
Post #36 of 75 (1119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mdrejhon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

So let me see if I got this right... You can travel to the US to skydive, but can't drive an hour to a rigger? Mine's 45 minutes away. If you're having problems with finding a rigger every 120 days, then you'll have those same problems with a 180 day pack cycle. Is your argument about safety and inspection of the H/C and a reserve AIR or being inconvenienced?


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 23, 2007, 12:46 AM
Post #37 of 75 (1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>"I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why . . .

I support it because:

It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time

Countries that have a 180 day repack cycle have seen no significant problems with it

Manufacturers have left reserves packed for several years and drop-tested them with no problems

No inspection cycle can catch gross neglect of gear; a reserve will mildew in a month if left wet

Manufacturers generally know more about their gear than you or I, and most are in favor of the 180 day cycle (PD actually recommends a 360 day cycle in the absence of other rules)
No doubt the repack cycle could be moved to 180 days. Why be wussies here, push it to 2 years, why not? from what i've read in all posts on this thread one could use the same arguments to push the pack cycle way longer than 180 days. A manufacturer may recommend 360 days if there were'nt any other rules, what happens in 360 days? My guess is the same thing that happens in 120 days or 2 years or 20 years, the parachute is still a parachute, the risk of it working properly or improperly are the same. I had the honor of deploying a vector 2 that had been packed over 13 years, it would've worked without fail, pilotchute launched about 10ft, the rest of the system deployed uneventful. The only reason that I could not complete the repack right 'o way is that the reserve pilotchute had to be updated to a new design, why? The manufacturer says so, how come they chose to change pilotchutes? The old one worked just fine. On another note, cutters & loops: with the newer devices being installed into rigs the past few years or shall I say the past 40 years, who's catching the issues with these damn things anyway and how often are they being caught. I went through the arduous task of becoming comfy with installing a newly designed aad into a strangers rig. It never happened. The thing jacked up before I could install it. Cutter issues were found as well. As the fella that certifies rigs as airworthy for friends and sometimes strangers should I install new device into homies rig because ' countries that have installed such devices have seen no significant issues'. Sorry I chose an alternative. Sorry i'm doing wierd math here:Since the other countries have installed such device then their pack cycle is 180 days, i'll wait to get data for atleast 180 days, add in 1 pencil pack, that makes it atleast a year before any symptoms of such device may appear if any are reported. Maybe the device will cause no 'stir' in the community within and shortly after their 1st year on the market, did'nt happen, damn devices. Things have been found by riggers in the field that have as another poster said that has caused recalls and service bulletins, i'm one of those riggers. Some rigs should be on a lesser pack cycle than 120 days. The longer the pack cycle the more jumps and trunks gear is involved in. Repairs are imminent. We could leave it up to the individual jumper 100% of the time to get repairs done and repacks when their scared enough. Go big or go home, stretch the repack cycle to 2 years, i don't have a problem with that, hell, i'm well practiced enough, having less rigging work means less practice, those who already suck at rigging will be even more scary to get rigging done by. It won't matter if I charge $5 or $500 for an I&R, hahaha. I still have yet to place a skull and crossbones in my riggers log and don't intend too. Bill Von I have much respect for you and enjoy your view, fire away.


2shay  (D 1)

Aug 23, 2007, 3:50 PM
Post #38 of 75 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [divekennene] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

you are aware that the US military is on a 180 day cycle. I jumped in the military for a few years. They are about as meticulous as you could get, and if they trust it I don't see why I couldn't. I support the 180 cycle there are just not enough reasons to keep the 120, it is pretty well useless. Everyone has just got to many what if questions and superstitions. DO you think you will be more safe becasue it is inspected more? I don't. It just takes once and you may not know when that once will be 120 or 180 days. It is useless and I think the FAA may finally be catching on to that.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 23, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #39 of 75 (1018 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2shay] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
DO you think you will be more safe becasue it is inspected more? I don't. It just takes once and you may not know when that once will be 120 or 180 days. It is useless and I think the FAA may finally be catching on to that.
The 180 day pack cycle is just as useless as the 120 day pack cycle. Why would a jumper 'need' to get their rig inspected at 180 days? Is that when they get scared? What reasons are there to even have a pack cycle? Without a pack cycle a jumper would be at their own discretion as to when to get their rig repaired and/or inspected and packed.


2shay  (D 1)

Aug 23, 2007, 5:40 PM
Post #40 of 75 (1014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

if you sweat while wearing you rig that much the reserve material can start to stick together. We had a kid who had not had his packed in a year and when it was repacked my friend had to let it sit overnight for the material to become unstuck. It may be an idea to have it serviced every so many jumps but some make more than others and is not as easily monitored as would be month to month.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 23, 2007, 5:47 PM
Post #41 of 75 (1010 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2shay] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Let me know what you think of this idea: When it comes to the FAA and the inspections on aircraft they do such things as a 100 hr inspection. Could it be possible to have a 100 jump inspection? Like every 100 jumps and/or each year? As in other posts jumpers do things to gear that would warrant a inspection and packing of their rig much sooner than even 120 days. And about repairs: some riggers can do and some should'nt and don't. How many times can the velcro that needs replaced keep going on without being replaced? stiffeners? boc? etc...


2shay  (D 1)

Aug 23, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #42 of 75 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

as posted earlier cycles no matter how often cannot catch abuse and neglect, or ignorrance. I think jump number inspections would probably be better but would be a lot harder to keep up with everyone and their logbooks and such. Once again something could happen in this time so I guess it is somewhat of a catch 22 for idiots who don't take care of their stuff. I really think six month cycle would be a good deal. You are right with some points you have made and I think it will get better in time. Since we are working with the faa, you know.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 23, 2007, 7:27 PM
Post #43 of 75 (992 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2shay] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

thanks, your right about keeping track of jumps on gear. lots of dz's have computer generated manifest these days, could the computer manifest act as a Hobbs meter of sort?


2shay  (D 1)

Aug 24, 2007, 12:53 AM
Post #44 of 75 (972 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

yes thats fine but that won't work for smaller operations I would guess thats probably at least 50%. So I don't know. I think if it were able to happen it would be better I really don't see the faa or few dz's doing that though


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 24, 2007, 5:51 AM
Post #45 of 75 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think a repack cycle based on jumps makes sense, but Alti-2 does make a version of the Neptune that works like a hobbs meter for skydiving equipment. Meant for tandem/student gear, to track usage. If it was imperative to track the number of jumps on a piece of gear, the tracking system would have to stay with the gear, not with manifest. Gear travels, manifest doesn't.

Dave


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 24, 2007, 9:45 AM
Post #46 of 75 (934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't think a repack cycle based on jumps makes sense, but Alti-2 does make a version of the Neptune that works like a hobbs meter for skydiving equipment. Meant for tandem/student gear, to track usage. If it was imperative to track the number of jumps on a piece of gear, the tracking system would have to stay with the gear, not with manifest. Gear travels, manifest doesn't.

Dave
This is true. What makes sense to you for pack cycle? days/yrs/usage/owner discretion/none at all?


2shay  (D 1)

Aug 24, 2007, 12:50 PM
Post #47 of 75 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the only way that a per jump cycle would work is if we did have ultimate authority on when our gear is serviced. That would also tell me that everyone would be on the honor system. That also reminds me that there are idiots that would brush off there gear maintenance just because of ignorrance or they may just not care. I could maybe see someone getting hurt because of negligence. Maybe someone doesn't take care of their loop lets say and there reserve fires in a formation. That might really suck for more than just that person, far fetched but could happen. Whole other subect now but what I can see happening is that maybe we go to six months, which would be good and I want that to happen. I can see someone having a problem with their reserve and it totally being UNRELATED, but would blame it on the longer cycle and maybe starting a shit storm. I can see some dumbasses buying into that. I would guess that most people would think that a six month cycle is more risky wether they are educated or not, the majority usually wins those debates. That would suck, once again far fetched but maybe.


(This post was edited by 2shay on Aug 24, 2007, 3:53 PM)


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 26, 2007, 4:21 PM
Post #48 of 75 (867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Personally I'd like to see it measured in months instead of days, so we can stop having to calculate when 120/180 days will be. In the FAA world, they usually give till the end of the month, but that'd cause all kinds of problems for riggers so I wouldn't like that. But I think basing a repack cycle on time is the only way to go. Very simple, easy to keep track and plan ahead, and seems to be working just fine.

How many months is another question. I have no idea. That takes research and thinking. We know all about ~4 months in the US. Other countries know about ~6 months. We pretty much know that we don't degrade safety by going to 6 months... or at least that's what the research seems to show. I'm sure there's an optimal number, but I don't think anyone's trying to figure out what it is. The question is just if 180 days, like they do in a lot of other countries, will make us any more or less safe.

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Aug 26, 2007, 4:23 PM)


Broke  (A License)

Aug 26, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #49 of 75 (845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

If you are concerned about calculating the 120 days why don't you check this out http://www.rigminder.net


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 27, 2007, 12:04 PM
Post #50 of 75 (804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle? Like we do for cypres batteries and service? I do think that a 180 day cycle would be good for some areas that have 6 months of season. Q: if 180 days will make us any more or less safe? Some rigs don't get wear for years. Some have wear and parts that should be repaired and have'nt within 6 months,some parachute owners don't realize and some don't care what happens when the reserve gets wet or left in a hot trunk till...


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 27, 2007, 12:29 PM
Post #51 of 75 (648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements? You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc. What if my reserve canopy needs to be packed every 180 days and my freebag needs to be inspected every 200 jumps?

I'm not a rigger or any kind of expert at how often these things need to be inspected or repacked. I'm just saying that any system that is based on something other than time would be really hard to implement. Also these rules kind of have to apply to pilot emergency rigs as well.

A reserve that is going to malfunction because it got wet or was left in a hot trunk or whatever is going to have the same problem regardless of the repack cycle. If riggers in some areas are opening rigs that were last packed 6 months ago and finding major wear-related problems, maybe those jumpers need to get their rigs packed more often than the FAAs maximum allowable time between repacks. Maybe jumpers need to get their reserves repacked every time they get wet in a swoop pond. And maybe some rigs could easily go years without a repack and still be perfectly safe. One rule isn't going to possibly cover every imaginable scenario. But we need a rule (well, according to the FAA). So I'd like to see a simple rule that makes sense for most rigs. Dunno what that rule should be, but 120 days has worked (I think?) for years. 180 days seems to be doable and might reduce unnecessary wear and tear on gear.

Dave


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 27, 2007, 12:39 PM
Post #52 of 75 (643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>>Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

>So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements?

No, manifest just needs to be able to read a date. Rigger repacks it and signs it off, and puts the date it was packed _and_ the date it has to be repacked. This solves a lot of other problems.

Cypres battery going to expire in 3 months? Right now you have to replace it before the repack. Under the new system, rigger just signs it off for 3 months.

>You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy
>manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

Correct. Riggers already have this info.


pilotdave  (D License)

Aug 27, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #53 of 75 (641 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

That's assuming the manufacturer recommendation is to repack the reserve after a certain amount of time. I was assuming the manufacturer could use any metric they want.

It sure would make things easier if it worked like you said it. At least for jumpers. Probably a bit of a pain for riggers, who would have to keep track of all the requirements, figure out which one is closest, and calculate the next repack date. Bet it'd help sales for manufacturers that set nice long repack cycles though!

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Aug 27, 2007, 12:48 PM)


mark  (D 6108)

Aug 27, 2007, 12:52 PM
Post #54 of 75 (636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

That's more or less the current system in Germany, so it's not so far fetched.

Mark


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 27, 2007, 1:03 PM
Post #55 of 75 (630 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

That's more or less the current system in Germany, so it's not so far fetched.

Mark
AFAIK Germany has strict standards. I have a German friend who was not allowed to even have a certain main canopy in germany, was odd I thought. So manufacturer requirements more or less are used in the U.S. as well (cypres). I'd guess the majority of jumpers do not maintain manufacturer requirements for the 3 ring assembly (monthly) here in the U.S. How about germany?


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 27, 2007, 1:11 PM
Post #56 of 75 (629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements? You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc. What if my reserve canopy needs to be packed every 180 days and my freebag needs to be inspected every 200 jumps?

I'm not a rigger or any kind of expert at how often these things need to be inspected or repacked. I'm just saying that any system that is based on something other than time would be really hard to implement. Also these rules kind of have to apply to pilot emergency rigs as well.

A reserve that is going to malfunction because it got wet or was left in a hot trunk or whatever is going to have the same problem regardless of the repack cycle. If riggers in some areas are opening rigs that were last packed 6 months ago and finding major wear-related problems, maybe those jumpers need to get their rigs packed more often than the FAAs maximum allowable time between repacks. Maybe jumpers need to get their reserves repacked every time they get wet in a swoop pond. And maybe some rigs could easily go years without a repack and still be perfectly safe. One rule isn't going to possibly cover every imaginable scenario. But we need a rule (well, according to the FAA). So I'd like to see a simple rule that makes sense for most rigs. Dunno what that rule should be, but 120 days has worked (I think?) for years. 180 days seems to be doable and might reduce unnecessary wear and tear on gear.

Dave
120 days has worked for many years, 60 days in the past also worked, 180 days could work fine, 2 years could also work. On another thread in 'gear and rigging' you may read about a riggers bit of experience with pilot rigs and issues he has found. The most common problem i've found on a basic inspection of a pilot rig is stow bands being tacky and/or fragile. I suspect due to heat and/or time. Q: If it wqas up to you, how long a time would you go without having your pilot rig inspected? How long would it take till you would be scared to use it?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 27, 2007, 1:29 PM
Post #57 of 75 (627 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>Probably a bit of a pain for riggers, who would have to keep track of all
>the requirements, figure out which one is closest, and calculate the next
>repack date.

They have to do that now with cypres inspection/battery change requirements and grace periods. And they have to deal with things like canopy/container compatibility; ask Derek if a PD reserve is legal to pack in a Mirage.

>Bet it'd help sales for manufacturers that set nice long repack cycles though!

Conversely, if a manufacturer allowed a 5 year repack cycle and there was reserve damage during that time, their gear would get a reputation as unreliable, and fewer people would buy it. Plus which they wouldn't sell as much; gear would last a lot longer. So it would behoove them to set a realistic time that's not absurdly long.


(This post was edited by billvon on Aug 27, 2007, 1:30 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 27, 2007, 2:35 PM
Post #58 of 75 (618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why be wussies here, push it to 2 years, why not?

I wouldn't be in favor of making the repack cycle 2 years for everyone, but I _would_ be in favor of giving the responsibility to the gear manufacturers. If you get an Icon, and the manual says "must be repacked at least once a year" and your Smart reserve says the same thing, then it gets repacked at least once a year. If you have a Smart reserve and a Racer, and the Racer manual says once every 120 days, then you have to go with the 120 days.

>My guess is the same thing that happens in 120 days or 2 years or
>20 years, the parachute is still a parachute, the risk of it working properly
>or improperly are the same.

I agree - assuming it is stored well and not jumped a lot. Problem there is that some jumpers jump so much they can wear out gear rapidly. I've seen a few harnesses that looked mighty iffy after 3-4 years of hard usage. (Check out Fury's gear for example.)

Again, I'm not competent to say "therefore 1 year is a sufficient time to always catch wear like that" - but I think the manufacturers are. If you want to make all your harnesses out of quad-thickness type 7, maybe it can last 5 years without a problem even if Uli is making 15 jumps a day on it every day. If it's doubled type 8, maybe every 180 days would be a better cycle.

> Some rigs should be on a lesser pack cycle than 120 days.

That's fine, and that's why I think riggers should post the repack date on the packing data card. Want to repack a rig with a cypres about to need batteries? Make it good for 90 days (or however long the batteries will be good for.) If you're repacking for a school, and see consistent problems with dirt/gravel in reserve containers? Make it 90 days, or 60 days. That gives them a lot more control over what happens with that rig.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 27, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #59 of 75 (613 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Why be wussies here, push it to 2 years, why not?

I wouldn't be in favor of making the repack cycle 2 years for everyone, but I _would_ be in favor of giving the responsibility to the gear manufacturers. If you get an Icon, and the manual says "must be repacked at least once a year" and your Smart reserve says the same thing, then it gets repacked at least once a year. If you have a Smart reserve and a Racer, and the Racer manual says once every 120 days, then you have to go with the 120 days.

>My guess is the same thing that happens in 120 days or 2 years or
>20 years, the parachute is still a parachute, the risk of it working properly
>or improperly are the same.

I agree - assuming it is stored well and not jumped a lot. Problem there is that some jumpers jump so much they can wear out gear rapidly. I've seen a few harnesses that looked mighty iffy after 3-4 years of hard usage. (Check out Fury's gear for example.)

Again, I'm not competent to say "therefore 1 year is a sufficient time to always catch wear like that" - but I think the manufacturers are. If you want to make all your harnesses out of quad-thickness type 7, maybe it can last 5 years without a problem even if Uli is making 15 jumps a day on it every day. If it's doubled type 8, maybe every 180 days would be a better cycle.

> Some rigs should be on a lesser pack cycle than 120 days.

That's fine, and that's why I think riggers should post the repack date on the packing data card. Want to repack a rig with a cypres about to need batteries? Make it good for 90 days (or however long the batteries will be good for.) If you're repacking for a school, and see consistent problems with dirt/gravel in reserve containers? Make it 90 days, or 60 days. That gives them a lot more control over what happens with that rig.
I like your opinion of the riggers discretion of when the rig should be inspected again if the rigger thinks it should be done in less time than the FAA cycle. Fury is a good example, so is Koji. Now my next 'can'o worms' has to do with maintenance and repairs. Why is this gear not being repaired? better Q: How come gear that is in need of repair being allowed to be jumped? I do like the idea of manufacturers calling the shots on the time frame that the gear be inspected. I'd also like a listing of issues with gear that can be 'gotten away with' without repairing prior to jumping.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 27, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #60 of 75 (609 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

> Now my next 'can'o worms' has to do with maintenance and repairs.
>Why is this gear not being repaired?

Because most people don't inspect their gear on a regular basis, and most people don't think that gear can fail catastrophically. Witness how lax everyone was about slinks/risers until Koji had his accident; suddenly everyone was into inspecting their slinks. Now it's died down again.

>better Q: How come gear that is in need of repair being allowed to be jumped?

Well, most of the serious problems I've seen have been on on mains (really the riser/link/main/slider/dbag/PC assembly.) Heck, I let things go too. I've been watching the lines on my Nitro lately because they are getting very close to needing replacement. Suddenly they started wearing faster and one of my front risers started getting damaged. Lo and behold, one of the slider grommets had worn through, so I got them replaced, and am in the process of relining the canopy and replacing the risers (which had around 1000 jumps on them.) In the meantime I'm using Amy's Pilot as a backup main.

Now, although I was letting things go for a bit, I knew what signs I was looking for - and I knew how to fix them once the problem came up. I think a lot of jumpers let things go as much as I do, but don't know what to look for ("Front riser getting damaged? Must be the packer") and don't know how to fix it once they do identify the problem - which means they are tempted to just jump it until their next repack, or the next time they see their rigger. They can't fix it and they can't just get another canopy to jump, so they put off fixing the 'minor' problem which may or may not really be a minor problem.

In my experience harness/reserve assemblies have less of a problem since they're inspected during repacks.

>I'd also like a listing of issues with gear that can be 'gotten away with'
>without repairing prior to jumping.

Well, that's always an issue. Often manufacturers are pretty good about that, and with digital cameras you can take a picture and get a response pretty fast. A few of them can be stubborn (i.e. "you're the rigger, you have to make the call") but most are pretty accommodating.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 27, 2007, 4:01 PM
Post #61 of 75 (602 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

thanks for your response Bill. Gotta get to some rigging and repairs now, Later, Larry


mark  (D 6108)

Aug 27, 2007, 5:32 PM
Post #62 of 75 (592 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Because most people don't inspect their gear on a regular basis
and because some "riggers" don't inspect all they should.

I packed a Smart reserve recently. Its warning label says it's approved for single harness systems having a main parachute that can be released.

If the 3-rings don't work, the reserve won't work as intended. To me that means release systems including main risers need to be inspected as part of every repack. And we should inspect both ends of each riser (including links) while there's an opportunity.

Mark


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 27, 2007, 6:16 PM
Post #63 of 75 (589 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mark] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>To me that means release systems including main risers need to be
>inspected as part of every repack.

There's some validity to that. But what do you do if the rig is dropped off without the main, as is often the case? And if you do have the main, and the slider is going on one seam, do you refuse to repack the reserve? After all, the harness was not designed to be compatible with an unreefed main. Suppose they say they are getting a new main in in a week or so; do you not repack the reserve until you see the main?

The issue of where the rigger's responsibility ends is a murky one. I'm generally in favor of requiring compliance on everything up to the base rings, and recommending service above the base rings. (i.e. refuse to repack if the legstrap webbing is going, but recommend replacement of the risers if they are showing signs of wear.) But everyone's different, and there is definitely something to be said for taking more responsibility than that.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 28, 2007, 10:48 PM
Post #64 of 75 (551 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>"I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why . . .

I support it because:

It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time
--------------Less wear on gear = less jumping and more time in gear bag. Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 29, 2007, 7:31 AM
Post #65 of 75 (537 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.

The #1 thing that wears out reserves are repacks. That's why PD has a 40 repack limit on their reserves before it has to go back for factory inspection. That's not because most riggers are careless, it's because _any_ repack causes that sort of wear.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 11:20 AM
Post #66 of 75 (518 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.

The #1 thing that wears out reserves are repacks. That's why PD has a 40 repack limit on their reserves before it has to go back for factory inspection. That's not because most riggers are careless, it's because _any_ repack causes that sort of wear.
I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system. Not all riggers are going to damage gear. Some will.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 29, 2007, 1:19 PM
Post #67 of 75 (508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system.

Actually I think it causes _most_ of the wear on a reserve canopy.


dgw  (C License)

Aug 29, 2007, 2:21 PM
Post #68 of 75 (500 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

CrazyL,

Here is a post I made a while back. Some info on reserve repack wear...

http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/Riggers%20Minutes%20-%201%20June%202006.doc

"John Harding had also included information and statistics on tests carried out by a number of organizations regarding the handling of parachute material vs porosity. The results from these organizations show that there was a marked increase in the porosity of the fabric due to handling, and this is mainly during the packing process.

They also concluded that parachutes that undergo such a porosity increase might not pass TSO tests. John had also included information of countries that have adopted a one-year re-pack cycle and a list of manufactures who have endorsed 1 year repack cycles on their equipment where regulations allow."


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 2:35 PM
Post #69 of 75 (497 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dgw] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

thanks


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 2:49 PM
Post #70 of 75 (494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system.

Actually I think it causes _most_ of the wear on a reserve canopy.
I opened a racer about 2 weeks ago that had 2 holes in the reserve P/C and the reserve P/C had not been used during a reserve ride. 1 hole a little bigger than a quarter, the other about the size of a nickel. I ordered a new one. Do you think the past rigger either let it go or caused the holes? Canopy fabric wear: I've seen some riggers stress the fabric a bit much while packing. During inspection I do a stress test on fabric (thumb test, or PD pull test) which may increase porosity. Otherwise i'm pretty gentle with the reserve canopy. I understand that riggers may have an occasional incident when packing a reserve, humans. Hence the most wear on a canopy. I realize that the canopy should receive very little wear while packed in normal circumstances. What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Aug 29, 2007, 4:03 PM
Post #71 of 75 (490 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.

Folding the fabric. Wear is more severe than on a main canopy because you spend a lot of time re-dressing folds.

The synopsis from the Belgian Army study is interesting since it suggests less wear occurs on the center cell which can have the least manipulation of its topskin during a pro-pack.

http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=158

The Belgians found porosity increases from 0-5 CFM to as much as 18 CFM in areas, with 32% of canopies exceeding 9 CFM.

Precision found that manipulating fabric samples 16 times "using methods typical of the packing of a parachute" resulted in 4-12X porosity increases.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #72 of 75 (471 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.

Folding the fabric. Wear is more severe than on a main canopy because you spend a lot of time re-dressing folds.

The synopsis from the Belgian Army study is interesting since it suggests less wear occurs on the center cell which can have the least manipulation of its topskin during a pro-pack.

http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=158

The Belgians found porosity increases from 0-5 CFM to as much as 18 CFM in areas, with 32% of canopies exceeding 9 CFM.

Precision found that manipulating fabric samples 16 times "using methods typical of the packing of a parachute" resulted in 4-12X porosity increases.
From what i've visually seen on mains as far as porosity goes is that the most fading and porosity of the fabric occurs on the center and end cells. 'redressing folds' I do very little 'redressing folds'. Because of knowing of the research done on canopy wear due to packing especially on the reserve, I make an effort to be a 'clean person' and handle the reserve canopy with very little pressure ,tightening of the fabric, and don't lay on a reserve canopy. I've refined my main canopy techniques similarly. I stress the reserve canopy during inspection. Stress ribs a bit and stress stains. Ever seen a sweaty packer lay on a canopy? That's not me. The Belgians may not have as much porosity on the center cell as Americans would because of their technique and fabrics. I would like similar porosity test results for fabrics and packing techniques used today instead of several years ago. Textiles have advanced a bit as well.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 6:51 PM
Post #73 of 75 (469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the porosity loss becomes less? If there could be such a training program ?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Aug 29, 2007, 10:51 PM
Post #74 of 75 (456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [CrazyL] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

>What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve
>canopy due to packing.

Just handling/folding it. George Galloway once took a new piece of F111, tested its porosity, and then handed it to the crowd to examine. They all took a look at it (handled it) and he re-tested it - the porosity had increased significantly. And these weren't people sitting on it or dragging it across the floor, they were just handling it/folding it a bit.

> Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the
>porosity loss becomes less?

Maybe. But so far the only factor I've seen that can help with increased porosity is the packing surface. Painted concrete is best, outdoor-rated carpeting is worst.


CrazyL  (D 17699)

Aug 29, 2007, 11:06 PM
Post #75 of 75 (455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] hot trunk [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve
>canopy due to packing.

Just handling/folding it. George Galloway once took a new piece of F111, tested its porosity, and then handed it to the crowd to examine. They all took a look at it (handled it) and he re-tested it - the porosity had increased significantly. And these weren't people sitting on it or dragging it across the floor, they were just handling it/folding it a bit.

> Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the
>porosity loss becomes less?

Maybe. But so far the only factor I've seen that can help with increased porosity is the packing surface. Painted concrete is best, outdoor-rated carpeting is worst.
In reply to:
thats a great test that George did. Packing on painted concrete sounds like it would suck for the rigger. The other thing that's worse than outdoor carpet is sand and grass with dog crap. What do you think about packing on a like surfacxe like zp or f111?


(This post was edited by CrazyL on Aug 29, 2007, 11:07 PM)



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)