riggerrob 558
fcajump 153
[replyI still personally believe it's long enough now. I have never seen an example to support the added wear argument and I still think unseen things can happen such as punctures from the outside, chemical intrusion, whatever...I am not taking a side on this topic as I see both ends and I really don't know what to think. (and I am a S Rigger) However, it seems to me PD thinks repacking wear is an issue because when we repack a PD reserver we are to check the boxes on the label and send the canopy in after a certin number or repacks. If there is another reason someone please tell me as I am just making a guess here
I am also a SR, but from all the arguments I have heard over the years, both on the "damage" done by handling (and yes, I believe it is and is measureable... but what is the affect?) and also the argument about age limits... so here goes my theory...
TSO states that the tested 'chute must be fully open and flying in 3 seconds. (someone will reply with full wording and explain how I am wrong on the wording, but this is close enough for my theory...)
But recently (last 10-20 years) the MFGs have been asked, "when is the parachute manufactured under a TSO no longer 'good' for use as a certificated parachute?"
MUCH harder to define...
If the sample 'chute(s) passed the test, but were only 3 months old, and had porosity value X, what about the unit in the field that is 6 months and porosity Y? If TESTED, that 'chute might take 3.01 seconds to open... is it still "good"?
What about 10 years and porosity Z1?
What about 20 years and porosity Z2?
What about 30 years and porosity Z3?
What about 40 years and porosity Z4?
What about 50 years and porosity Z5?
Years ago, it was enough to say "it didn't rip when I pulled on it..." But now the porosity plays into the opening times and performance of flight and therefore survivability... Also, folks retired systems because there was something new. But what about that "never been jumped" Raven I s/n 45? Is it still "good"?
PD took the attitude that for them (and their lawyers) the porosity if the key and it must be better than X2 which you get after ~40 repacks or ~25 jumps.
Strong takes a different view... roughly that if the Rigger says its OK, then it is (until proven wrong).
Others say 20 years is enough, but its not a legal restriction, just that they will not service their own rigs after that...
BTW - YES I have had 50+ year old 'chutes brought in for repack (mil. rigs for pilots), so this is a valid concerns for the riggers and mfgs until such time as we adopt the military way of saying that after it is a certain age it is out of service EVEN IF UNUSED! (not saying I'm for it, just that its an issue as long as we are asked to keep older and older gear in the air.)
JW
PS - yep, probably over 500 words, but its very late and I get wordy after 2am.
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Currency requirements are written into the Federal Air Regulations, but are so vague that they border on meaningless.
For example: merely cleaning your rigging tools - every few months - might satisfy the FAA's currency requirements.
The FAA Riggers' Continuing Education Program - during PIA Symposia - is an attempt at formalizing continuing education.
Tracking currency can generate tons of meaningless paper-work.
For example: circa 2000, the Canadian Sports Parachuting Association considered requiring riggers to submit written proof (i.e. a photo-copy of their rigging logbook) as proof of currency, but CSPA soon realized that tracking riggers would be generate tons of paper-work and become cost-prohibitive.
I practice, half the riggers burn-out by their third year and quietly retire. Problem solved.
The only continuing problem is riggers who live too far back in the hills and rig alone for so long that they lose touch with technological developments. Fortunately, hill-billy riggers are rare.