Forums: Skydiving: Gear and Rigging:
FAA ruling on life limits

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

pchapman  (D 1014)

Oct 5, 2012, 4:54 PM
Post #51 of 70 (2642 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

 
The corners of the rectangle where a tensile test is done are marked in indelible ink. (And some other info is written in, if doing the round canopy tests exactly according to the National or PIA bulletins.)

The tests aren't done on top of each other. Well, that's the assumption and what seems normal to do, but I don't recall offhand whether it is technically prohibited.

Still, there are certain sections of panels on the rounds, next to the mesh, which are to be tested. If one actually has an old round in service that got packed a couple times a year and you did all the prescribed tests all the time ... by now you'd have a whole pile* of test points all over a 2 ft by 2 ft section. And those round canopy tests are 40lbs, not 30 like for PD's, so it is really starting to stress the fabric.

* eg, not being quite exact with dates: (2012-1989)*2 = 46 pull tests per panel by now

I don't pull test my Phantom 24's quite that much....


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 6, 2012, 11:02 AM
Post #52 of 70 (2599 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
25 years of tensile testing has weakened the fabric.

The tensile testing is not repeated on the same area, correct? Does the area tested get marked, and how?

Your statement would imply that the PD requirement to repeatedly tensile test reserves (it is every year?) is not wise.

........................................................................

In theory yes!
However, the practice is often lazier.

For example, I have only one patch on one PD reserve. The newly-minted FAA Senior Rigger was embarrassed that he had tensile-tested a hole in a PD reserve, so he asked me to sew a patch on it.
As far as I could tell, he had tensile-tested exactly in accordance with PD guidelines.
HOWEVER I suspected that he had pull-tested on top of an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test. My old eyes could not spot the characteristic weave separation - and none of the earlier riggers had marked thier test patches ....
GRRRRR!!!!!

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger


sundevil777  (D License)

Oct 6, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #53 of 70 (2593 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #54 of 70 (2546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

.........................................................................

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes.
Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.


riggermick  (D 17071)

Oct 7, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #55 of 70 (2514 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
an area that had been weakened by an earlier pull-test

Tests should be designed to do no harm at all. I realize that the test is not a "destructive" test in that it doesn't test until failure, but you admitting that repeated tests must be done in different areas means that the test is doing harm. That seems like a poorly designed test.

well said Mr Warner. How have you been? PM me with contact details and well catch up.

Mick.

.........................................................................

That testing method works if everyone plays by the rules ... unfortunately, not every rigger plays by the rules.

The test only causes minor weave separation if done perfectly. Unfortunately, "perfect" requires expensive tools, younger eyes than mine (to align tools with the weave) and patience. As long as you test BESIDE the last test, the risk of tearing is minimal. If the last rigger forgot to mark where he tested, then the risk of tearing fabric rapidly increases.

Apparently some customers whined about "marking all over their shiny reserves."

OTOH some (prissy) riggers refuse to repack PD reserves if the number of pack jobs does not exactly match the number of marks on the data panel.

Reality is somewhere between those two extremes.
Life ... business ... politics ... religion ... sports ... etc. would be a lot simpler if everyone agreed to play by the same rules.


tikipaul1

Oct 9, 2012, 5:13 PM
Post #56 of 70 (2435 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ActionAir] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.


stratostar  (Student)

Oct 9, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #57 of 70 (2423 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm pretty sure from the get go cypres has had a 12 yr life span,
Quote:
due to the charge that fires the cutter can break down over time, there for due to the use of those "agents" they had that time life based on studies of those "agents" and their useful lifespan.

Got that "quote" from right out of Cliff Schmucker's mouth, president of PIA and owner of SSK.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:21 PM
Post #58 of 70 (2412 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

Quote:
I'm pretty sure from the get go cypres has had a 12 yr life span,

And you would be wrong.

I do not remember when they announced the 12-year life-span but it was not initially.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Cliff could probably tell you exactly when the life-span went into effect.


stratostar  (Student)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #59 of 70 (2406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA.Wink


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 9, 2012, 8:16 PM
Post #60 of 70 (2391 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.

FWIW, AADs are not TSOd


diablopilot  (D License)

Oct 10, 2012, 5:44 AM
Post #61 of 70 (2368 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

"AAD's must be maintained in accordance to manufacturer's instructions"


tikipaul1

Oct 10, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #62 of 70 (2347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

"Regardless, this letter will not change that, it is too easy to prove the safety side of this because of the "agents" break down over time. They don't like to use the words "explosive charge"..... think TSA. "


So change the cutter not the whole unit.


Also, I agree since they are not TSOD the letter isn't applicable.

I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.


(This post was edited by tikipaul1 on Oct 10, 2012, 7:36 AM)


piisfish

Oct 10, 2012, 7:34 AM
Post #63 of 70 (2342 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So change the cutter not the whole unit.
if you don't like the life limit of the AAD, either change to another AAD with a more extended projected lifespan, or jump without one.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 10, 2012, 8:18 AM
Post #64 of 70 (2330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just wanted to point out the some riggers are ready to repack old parachutes that the manufacturer says have a life limit but not old AAD that the manufacture decided to give a life limit so he could sell more AADs.

AADs are not TSOd so they are outside the purview of the FAA. It is up to the manufacturer to indicate which AAD is compatible with their system.

What is binding is that the FAA say AADs are compatible only if maintained in accordance with the AAD manufacturer's instructions and guidelines.

So Airtec, for example, can put a 12 year life on their AAD and once it has lifed out it cannot legally be used in a skydiving rig.


(This post was edited by NovaTTT on Oct 10, 2012, 9:48 AM)


GLIDEANGLE  (D 30292)

Oct 10, 2012, 8:52 AM
Post #65 of 70 (2316 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NovaTTT] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.



NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Oct 10, 2012, 9:45 AM
Post #66 of 70 (2296 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

Right you are - I intended to say FAA. Thanks for catching and clarifying!


theonlyski  (D License)

Oct 10, 2012, 11:16 AM
Post #67 of 70 (2271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Interesting word 'maintained'. If you've done the required 4 and 8 year services, you have 'maintained in accordance to the manufacturer's instructions'

No where in the manual does it state a 12 year maintenance that requires several blows with a 5lb sledge, then an operational check that it must pass.

ETA: I know I'm going to catch shit for that. Tongue


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Oct 10, 2012, 11:18 AM)


Southern_Man  (C License)

Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM
Post #68 of 70 (2251 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GLIDEANGLE] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
While AADs are not TSOed, the FAA stipulates that users maintain them according to the manufacturer's directions.

FAR 105.43
(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Right you are. Just to play devil's advocate, though, the current ruling indicates that the ruling manufacturer's instructions, including life limits, are those in place at the time the unit is sold. So if you bought a unit and have a manual that does not have a life limit stated, you should be good to go as far as the FAA is concerned.

Good luck finding a rigger to pack that.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Oct 10, 2012, 5:28 PM
Post #69 of 70 (2217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tikipaul1] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So what about cypress 12yr limit?

There wasn't a life limit when I bought it but now they say 12 yr.

........................................................................

At the last PIA Symposium, Airtec gave a seminar about Cypres 1 component "life.:
After decades of experience, they concluded that cutters tend to deteriorate after 12 years, while soldered joints tend to "fatigue" after 15 years.

Keep in mind that those numbers where related to worst-case scenarios: with lots of vibration, dozens of jumps per day, large temperature variations every day and occasionally getting dropped on concrete.


koppel  (F License)

Oct 12, 2012, 4:49 AM
Post #70 of 70 (2120 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] FAA ruling on life limits [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
After decades of experience, they concluded that cutters tend to deteriorate after 12 years, while soldered joints tend to "fatigue" after 15 years.

and for a bonus of three points who knows the designated life set by Airtec of a Cypres Cutter? ;)


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Gear and Rigging

 


Search for (options)