if no regulation how often would you repack your reserve

[rigger_john 0]

Quote

Quote

If the flight characteristics are being altered that much because of repacks, I tnink a safety alert should be popping up is these characteristics are to the point of being extreme.

I think so too, but of course there are alot of people who would see less repacks a year purely as a reduction in income, thats a shame but all the arguments I see against extending reserve repacks are based on suppersition, where as the arguments for tend to be based on actual research.

People have said for years that longer repacks are unsafe! the simple fact is this statement just does not bear examnation.

Quote

How much damage can occur from using a reserve or better yet not using one because it hasn't been inspected?

As you can see in the pia docs, little wear comes from the actual use.

_________________________________________

Nullius in Verba

[Beatnik 2]

I don't deny the reports. However, they don't mention how noticeable the difference is. I think 100 ft would be noticeable, is that the same for everyone?

If you look at the graph of handling and porosity. There is a huge difference after the first few repacks. After that the decrease isn't as bad. The report is good in many aspects, however much of the details on the actual trials and information that they are providing is from the eyes of the manufacturer without showing a frame of reference so other people can provide a real accurate interpretation of what is going on. Even the graph it says near zero porosity to higher porosity. Lets say that near zero is 0-3 cfm what is higher porosity 8-10 cfm. This is important information that is being left out.

There was a time in the Canadian Forces when reserve repacks where mandatory every month. That was a long time ago but it still happened. As far as I know we still have stricter regs than the civillian world.

I don't want to get into a huge pissing match but most of these reports are not giving detailed information about what is going on.
From the report

Quote

They will certainly degrade to a point that the landing characteristics will not be acceptable to their owners or to the standards of the manufacturer, even if they do pass the TSO tests for landing performance.

My question is when and after how long? These are things not addressed.

This is a very good report but it is meant to sell a point not push hard evidence with the numbers of the reports. Plus this report was done several years ago, fabrics have changed since then. That is not to say that these reports aren't valid.

Personally I think that the 120 day repack is a bit much, but I don't agree with having a long period of time between repacks. As much as repacking the reserve is part of the process so is inspecting it. I have seen many rigger errors, they happen, we are all human, but if it means having a canopy with higher porosity above my head then no canopy, I would rather have a canopy than none.

[billvon 2,467]

>My question is when and after how long? These are things not addressed.

Hard to address them for all jumpers. A good canopy pilot can land a really ragged-out PD176R loaded 1.1 to 1 without much trouble. But if it's a PD106R on a 180lb jumper and they aren't used to smaller canopies, it better be in very good shape.

>I have seen many rigger errors, they happen, we are all human . . .

Right, and the more often you get a repack, the more chances there are for those errors to occur. As always, getting a good rigger, and knowing how to inspect your own gear, are key.

>but if it means having a canopy with higher porosity above my head then
> no canopy, I would rather have a canopy than none.

Well, if you watch your rigger pack your reserve, and are certain it was done correctly - wouldn't it be better to keep that pack job than to have a new one performed that you couldn't watch? After all, better a known-good pack job than a questionable one.

Of course, the ideal is to watch (and be certain of) all your rigging - but realistically, the more often that rigging is required, the less likely that is.

>If the flight characteristics are being altered that much because of
>repacks, I tnink a safety alert should be popping up is these
>characteristics are to the point of being extreme.

PD has such a warning system - they require testing after 40 pack jobs or 25 deployments. That's an instructive number. If deployments were really the primary wear mechanism, those numbers would be more like 40 pack jobs or 5 deployments. But since most of the wear on reserves comes from handling/repacking, the numbers are much closer.

>I know people, despite being against the regs, have been using old
>raven mains as their reserves.

It's not against the 'regs.' See George Galloway's postings on the subject - they are quite informative.

[selbbub78 0]

I think it'd be fine every year, but to be more safe I would say every 6 months. I think that would still be a safe barrier.

CReW Skies,

"Women fake orgasms - men fake whole relationships" – Sharon Stone
"The world is my dropzone" (wise crewdog quote)
"The light dims, until full darkness pierces into the world."-KDM