Container Age

[maurice1369 0]

Hello all,

I noticed there is a long list of used containers and canopies that are offered up for sale but my question is How old should the canopy or container be before it is no longer airworthy. I mean I notine some containers are close to 20 years old but the owner says they only have a couple of hundred jumps on the original container. Now, just for argument sake lets say that the seller is telling the truth. What is the cut off age of equipment before it needs to be retired for good

EXPECT THE WORST, HOPE FOR THE BEST!!!

[PhreeZone 15]

There are not many official age limits on skydiving gear. I've jumped canopies made all the way from the early 70's through brand new stuff. I also jumped a container that is going on 18 years old this summer, it was in great shape having spent most of its life in storage.

The issue is that if its a really old design that is not used anymore you might have trouble finding a rigger to pack it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

This is an age-old... pun intended... discussion around DZ.com, that can get pretty heated at times.

Things can differ mfgr to mfgr, country to country and "opinion" to "opinion" regarding this topic... one example, I've heard it said here, "I'd refuse to pack anthing over 10 years old if its been jumped in the desert those past 10 years"... as you can imagine, things like that can spark some "energenic" discussions...

I'd suggest you do some searches on "old gear" and things like "air worthy" or "life limits"... I'm sure there are many other catch phrases one could search on too. After finding some other, related, threads, I'm sure you'll get the picture.

I'm sure others will come along with lots of gems of wisdom and information.

Enjoy!

[councilman24 36]

There really is a drop dead age. But realize that we can't test a harness for strength without destroying it.

For containers it really is wear, sun damage, and design obsolesence. And the design issues often depend on what type of skydiving you want to do. What will do fine for belly flying may not be acceptable for freeflying.

Also realize that some designs have been or were built for many years. I 1992 Javelin isn't much different than a 2005. So a early Javelin that has been a closet queen may be a great buy. A 5 year old Javelin with a 1000 jumps a year may be toast.

Some designs are old enough that while jumpable they may not be a reasonable choice or be readily resold when your done with it. I've got a couple from my early days that by the time I was done with them and moving to something else there wasn't much market.

Work with an experienced rigger or instructor for appropriateness of any particular rig, then have it inspected condition. Beaware that there are some riggers who won't work on particular rigs, including brand new ones. But usually there is a rigger available that will.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[JerryBaumchen 1,052]

Hi Terry,

Quote

But realize that we can't test a harness for strength without destroying it.

I have been giving this subject a lot of thought of thought recently. I believe that it is possible to test an 'older' harness and/or reserve canopy to determine its airworthiness.

I would suggest a harness test in a tensile testing machine to a value of 3,000 lbs (the Low Speed value in TSO C23b/NAS 804). I chose this 3,000 lb load because the Standard Category in NAS 804 is 5,000 lb. I would recommend three tests and hold the load value for a minimum of three seconds. This would easily determine the useful/useable strength of the particular harness.

For a canopy, it could be tested at some value less than that called for in the applicable TSO standard; oh, say about a 67% value. Again, this would easily determine the useful/useable strength of the particular canopy.

Think PIA might come up with something along these lines?

JerryBaumchen

PS) This type of testing is done quite often in the non-parachute world to determine usefullness of a given item.

[darkwing 4]

There is no useful automatic number of years. The only answer is to have it inspected.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Nylon, in the absence of salt, dust, and in particular UV, has a VERY long shelf-life... if you read the pointer's manual it basically says it lasts so long we really haven't gotten there yet.

That said, many riggers and lofts are refusing to pack gear older than 20 years. While many debates have been started over this, it is a fact that must be considered.

Most designs over 20 years old wouldn't be worth the savings in my opinion. Prettymuch the only container from that era I would buy today is a Vector II... some that could be close to that old, such as Javelins and the Racer Elite I would consider, but only carefully. I don't think I'd go that old on a canopy... there are FAR better mains available, and I just can't justify a 20 year old reserve unless I know the full history for a fact.

When modern designs get that old the line will get fuzzier... i have a 10-year-old Vector III and Sabre1 that are each in perfect condition. In another 10, they probably still will be.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[jimjumper 25]

Those tensile strength machines are really tough to pack into my rigging kit!

[councilman24 36]

Jerry,

Say you test a harness to 3000lbs. I'm not sure any harness was every TSO'd at the low speed category. Maybe some of the old pilot rigs. But anyway, then you put a reserve in it either standard category B, C without any number, or TSO D with an assigned shock load number, all of which may give a load greater than 3000lbs. Then it comes apart on opening because it's loaded to 6000lbs by the reserve and the thread has weakened. Hmmmmmm

IF we were going to test an old harness shouldn't we test it up to its original load? If it fails we know it no longer met the minimum it was tested to. If is survives it's at least as good as it's "labeled."

But, AFAIK there is only one harness test tower in the country, maybe the world and Bill Coe has it. We wrote harness testing using it into TS-135. I assume others will have one in the near future. And the French put a harness on a static test table and pull it in several modes. (As I understand it, this is actually how the Wonderhog harness was tested.) Most of the U.S. manufacturers weren't satisfied with a static test or a load slowly applied. They wanted a dynamic test to test the load transfer through the webbing and stitch patterns as the thing was shock loaded.

But these tests, either static or dynamic, aren't something that many/most master riggers have experience with, let alone could afford to have the equipment to do. And if someone wanted to put together the equipment to offer "piece of mind" testing then they would have to deal with the liability of 10 destroying someones rig, and 2) any future failures. Would it have to cost so much that it would make more sense putting the money toward a different harness. The current TSO B,C, and D compatibility issue is hard enough to deal with. PIA's statement on that will note that with very rare exceptions, only two that I know of, properly designed harnesses, no matter what age, haven't come apart. (Death Star Trac II doesn't count!)

I would like to have a simple, inexpensive tensile tester to test webbing assembly samples. Can't afford the 10s of thousands to get one.

Before I had a harness tester I'd much rather have an inexpensive air permeablity tester. I've read about the European riggers one, was it Willam? But even that is beyond many riggers who aren't engineers to put together.

Being my normally skeptical self for the sake of debate.

Damn, I've got to stop posting and write my LATE PIA minutes!

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[JerryBaumchen 1,052]

Hi Terry,

Always good to read your comments; and I mean that!

The Crossbow & the Rapid Transit System (which I believe is today's Mirage) were both tested in the Low Speed category. You only have to read the TSO placard to determine.

Quote

IF we were going to test an old harness shouldn't we test it up to its original load? If it fails we know it no longer met the minimum it was tested to. If is survives it's at least as good as it's "labeled."

I think the parachute industry needs to quit thinking like the parachute industry. The rest of the world thinks and acts differently; and there are a lot of life saving devices out there. Most products get some type of Max Design Load test and then, what is usually known as, the Safe Working Load test.

If we read the standards (TSO documents) then we know that the product should never see the Strength Test loads that it had to pass for certification. That is unless some dufus decides to exceed them; and I cannot prevent stupidity. It's tough enough controlling my own stupidity.

Quote

But, AFAIK there is only one harness test tower in the country

I did not use the words 'harness test tower' did I? The original Centaurus rig was Strength tested in a tensile machine, it was never drop tested at the higher loads & airspeed. Troy Loney convinced the FAA that he could duplicate the testing better by doing it in a tensile testing machine. So the precedent is there; even if today's world does not agree with it.

I understand that there are two test towers, PD's & Butler's; or so I have heard. I've seen PD's.

I do agree with you that the concept does or could lead to some expensive testing, possibly. However, I also believe that most field riggers do not possess the knowledge or experience to really inspect & determine if a harness is no longer capable of holding the loads it was designed for.

I am just trying to get some thinking and discussion going on this subject as I think it serves a worthwhile purpose.

Is that not what the Rigging Committee is for?

Thanks for your thoughts,

JerryBaumchen

PS) 1 1/2 years ago, after many emails with numerous people at PD, I flew down to DeLand to do some harness testing in their drop tower. I rented a car, drove to DeLand, checked into the hotel and called over to them. The first they they said was "Uh, didn't you get our email?" I had a nice visit, a nice tour, but flew home with no testing being completed. Their machine was down for maintenance.

[councilman24 36]

Always good to read your comments too.

Your right as usual the current Mirage is a low speed based on the original TSO I assume of the RTS. Hmm, that actually makes the isssue or TSO version compatiblity more complex. I know they've done a lot of drop testing on the new ones though. I have a Crossbow piggy back rig and I think your right again but the printing is so faded I don't think I can read it. And it's been several years since the reserve container was open.

As to the rest of the world. I'm trained in high angle rope rescue. Our equipment had to have a 15x safety factor. Two person equipment, not shock loaded of course, rated to 600lb working load had to have a 9000lb stength. Much stronger than most dynamic climbing ropes. Always seemed like over kill to me. Probably why I was the least nervous of our industrial team jumping over the side of a silo. I can't think well enough to do the math but we don't come near that level of safety factor.

And we do have all these dufus' exceeding the ratings, they're called head downers. In fact I used to pull my Crossbow harness with a PC in it in a track all the time. I may have been exceeding it's rating way back when. Of course I wasn't as fat.

I didn't know the Centarus was tensile tested rather than drop tested. I wish I had more exposure to the industrial setting and history than I have.

I haven't seen either harness drop tower. I'd forgotten about Manley's ground testing. I know he drops some hellacious (sp?) loads though.

Quote

I do agree with you that the concept does or could lead to some expensive testing, possibly. However, I also believe that most field riggers do not possess the knowledge or experience to really inspect & determine if a harness is no longer capable of holding the loads it was designed for.

So the point wasn't to promote field testing? Was it just a discussion point or was it to promote manufacturer testing of used harnesses?

Hey, did I answer your question about MARD testing?

Too bad we hijacked this thread.

Later,

Terry

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE