Oct 5, 2012, 4:54 PM
Post #51 of 70
(1476 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....
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!!!!!
Oct 6, 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #53 of 70
(1427 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.
Oct 7, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #54 of 70
(1380 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.
Oct 7, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #55 of 70
(1348 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.
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.
Oct 9, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #57 of 70
(1257 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.
Oct 9, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #59 of 70
(1240 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.
Oct 10, 2012, 7:30 AM
Post #62 of 70
(1181 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)
Oct 10, 2012, 8:18 AM
Post #64 of 70
(1164 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)
Oct 10, 2012, 8:52 AM
Post #65 of 70
(1150 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.
Oct 10, 2012, 11:16 AM
Post #67 of 70
(1105 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.
(This post was edited by theonlyski on Oct 10, 2012, 11:18 AM)
Oct 10, 2012, 12:01 PM
Post #68 of 70
(1085 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.
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.
