Nov 6, 2006, 11:53 AM
Post #1 of 11
6 Month Reserve Repack cycle
The six month repack cycle makes a lot of sense as reported by riggers, industry representatives, as well as users. Other than actual use, the second most wear a reserve experiences is during the 120-day repack. Some countries have a one year repack cycle. Army tests have shown that even a two year repack cycle insignificantly slows down the reserve opening.
The best way to make progress in getting a longer repack cycle is to work smoothly with the bureauracracy.
I have 42 years experience working for the government, including dealing with the EPA and DoT.
I am running for USPA Western Region Regional Director as a Write-In candidate, your vote is very important to me in this election, and to help make some of these things happen. Please write in my name in the box on the lower right sede of the ballot in your November copy of Parachutist, be sure to sign at the top and fill in your USPA number, name and address. The ballot is also available on www.uspa.org Thanks, Eike Hohenadl
CMan... is the Notice of Proposed Rule Making out (i.e. what's its #) or are you saying the FAA has not yet issued it for comment?
Anyway, good info to know... that its in the works.
Do you know what else may or may not go along with that NPRM? I'd hate to see something we wouldn't want bundled with a 6-month repack cycle in the same NPRM... don't know if the can/would do that, but it is the F... "We're not happy until you're not happy"... AA.
No the NPRM is not out yet. A request submitted by PIA for a wavier was denied based on it covering TOO MANY people. AOPA, USPA, PIA, EAA, and others. The FAA said never mind, we'll just draft a NPRM to change it.
FAA then asked for data. This was provided. During a very recent face to face meeting with them by another PIA rep is was acknowledged to be behind schedule. It was suggested that additional requests on the status of the delayed project from the major organizations envolved might be useful.
It is a done deal that the NPRM will come out sometime. I don't know if it will be bundled with anything else. Whether it is or not there will be dessenting opinons offered during the comment period that the FAA will have to address.
I do have a docket number but I'm not willing to publish it here yet. There is nothing published on the FAA website yet.
It was suggested that additional requests on the status of the delayed project from the major organizations envolved might be useful.
Unfortunately, if anything kills it, this will. I mean, other then a bunch of skydivers "wanting" the reserve repack cycle to be 6 months what "project" would be delayed?
There are probably more bailout rigs than skydiving rigs in use. AOPA should have an interest in getting the cycle extended because it will save their members time and money. Also, pilot rigs are notorious for being pencil-whipped, so requiring fewer repacks could, in theory, increase compliance.
My only concern about changing the length of the repack cycle is that there could be a 50% price increase as soon as the 6-month rule goes into effect. Riggers have to eat too, and if 1/3 of their business goes away overnight price increases are guaranteed. If I am paying the same amount of money, I would rather have three repacks a year.
No arguments on the price of repacks going up if / when the repack cycle goes to 6 months. I too will probably start charging more... maybe... maybe not... I don't rig for a living, but the riggers that do or do so as a substantial part of their income or own / run a loft will certainly up their prices... simple math.
But I doubt there are more pilot bailout rigs out there then sport skydiving rigs... I'd be be surprised.
All the major aviation groups were one board with the original request. AOPA, (hmmm later I think) EAA, IAC, and more. The request was for letters say "Hey where is it?" to get it bumped in priority. (My third hand interpretation.)
It's setting on someone's desk with "more important" things to do.