20 year old reserve

[irishrigger 32]

hi all,
i was just given gear to repack,and i discoverd that the reserve is over 20 yearls old.
its a maverick 200 and date of manufacture is feb88,manufacturer is glide path.
does anyone know what they recommend? i know PD ask tha you send the reserve back to them after 20 years for recertification and inspection.
i have cheked the canopy and its in very good condition,and it doesnt appear that it was used at any time.
any info regarding life span on this canopy be appreciated
Rodger

[councilman24 36]

Glide Path is no more. The designs etc went to Flight Concepts. They disavow all knowledge of Glide Path canopies (even thought the same folks are there)

They had no madated service life. Service life in the absence of manuf. guidance is up to the individual owner and rigger. Some riggers won't pack anything over 20 years old. Others will pack anything they deem airworthy. I service a number of rigs with similar reserves. I working on convincing the owners to replace them, but haven't actually hit 20 years yet and don't know whether I'll do them or not next year.

The GP canopies I do of that vintage are getting pretty limp. We know that packing affects porosity. I might base some of the decision on whether it's "overloaded" or not by the owner.

This is why you get the big bucks. To make decisions like this.

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

[irishrigger 32]

You mean i am supposed to get big bucks for this? think i have to put up the prices so
thanks for the info terry,the owner is quiet a big chap think about 240 lbs.so i think i will talk him into getting a new one.
thanks again for your thoughts.
rodger

[erdnarob 1]

I would do a complete inspection: lines, attachments points, stitching, bar tack, cascades etc. and would perform a fabric test on the tail area at 3 locations, at 30 lbs for 3 seconds, all at 3 inches or more than any stiching like PD is asking. Then I would do a acid test on the pilot chute mesh. If the inspection and fabric test is OK and since you said it's in good condition, I would go ahead and pack it.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[councilman24 36]

If he's 240 naked he's already overloading it, legally. He certainly is overloading it from a performance view. A tired maverick on 240lbs doesn't sound to me like a good idea. But I tend to be conservative about this stuff.

From the Flight Concepts web site for a new one.
Model Area Weight Est Pack Vol. Max. Suspended Wt.
Maverick 200 6.2 415 220 LBS.

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

[RIGGER 0]

FCI is NOT approving the PIA TS-108 fabric pull test on the reserve they mfg. or took over from GPI.

By the mfg. you can NOT test the fabric.

You forgot to ask for "Porosity" test as well.

The owner can not use this reserve for being overload it.

Be Safe !!!

[councilman24 36]

Shlomo,

You can't pull test an FCI reserve per their manual. No prohibition on GP reserve. Two different companies. As I said FCI takes no responsibility for GP products.

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

[erdnarob 1]

Hi Schlomo, I met you at Reno at the PIA symposium last year.

The problem here was: Is that reserve OK? I know we have to go with the manufacturer directives but what can we do when the manufacturer doesn't exist anymore? I guess using our judgement and perform adequate testing. According what we know, the reserve is in good visual shape, now we should check the strength by testing the fabric near the tail. This is the best we can do. What are you proposing ? Burning it or putting it in the trash! I have seen 20 years old reserves in a quite good condition. The fact that PD is still testing them after 20 years means they are generally OK provided they have been stored in suitable places (temperature, humidity and protected from light) and not jumped too much. For the porosity test, do you have a method we can use at home?
The fact that the owner is 240 lbs is another story.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[RIGGER 0]

This is a point to check with FCI, as much as I know they took over all.

Cheers

[RIGGER 0]

I would not put back in service a 20 years old reserve - there are reasons for that.

We went into that subject few month ago on this forum.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2949300;page=unread#unread


PD is testing PR's after 40 repacks or 25 deployments - nothing with 20 years as much as I know. Yes, in some countries 20 repacks could be 20 years service life = packed for 1 year.

Right now I know that there are riggers that are not packing skydiving / pilots systems which are 20 years or more from date of mfg.

Be Safe !!!

[councilman24 36]

Last time I asked FCI about a glide path canopy they essentially said, "different company, we have no opinion or advice".

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

[airtwardo 6]

Just curious, anything wrong with re-lining a 20 year old reserve and passing it on cheap as a docile old main type canopy?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[councilman24 36]

What Shlomo was pointing out is that FCI (but not Glide Path) has specifically BANNED using clamps on their reserve for any purpose. Packing, testing or anything else. They believe that the pull test as outline by PIA damages good fabric. For a long time before they specifically banned pull testing they maintained to me that it was illegal to pull test FCI reserves because it wasn't specifically allowed in their manual. Their recommnedation? Thumb test. I maintained that there were a lot of procedure not in their manual that riggers did and if they wanted to ban it they needed to say so. After about 2 years they finally did. That's their perogative but I don't agree with it.

The are lots of things we can't test at home. Had the thread degraded? We don't pull test a seam. Or bad it the porosity?

Up until about now reserves have been self limiting based on design obsolesence. But we now have 20 year old reserve with the same model available now. At some point I'll no longer feel comfortable jumping an old reserve, so I won't pack it for someone else. They're welcome to go somewhere else.

Many riggers would like a service life to take the decision off their shoulders. We all know 20 year old closet queens that are fine and we'd jump or pack. That's the biggest aguement for not having a time based service life.

Always a lively discussion at PIA meetings.

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

[hackish 8]

My main has had more packjobs in the last year than a 20 year old reserve would yet it is perfectly airworthy. If this design is current and trusted and the condition of the canopy is as good then why should the age have any bearing? I understand that designs improve as we progress but if the model has proven to be reliable and it's in really good shape why not?

-Michael

[erdnarob 1]

20 years could be an arbitrary figure in what we are concerned, why not 12 years like the Cypres! It seems to me that in this case we are hypnotized by a figure not by the real status of that reserve. For the porosity we always can send it to PD and asking them to do a test which costs 20$ even if they didn't make the reserve. We also can have an idea of the porosity by blowing air through the fabric (mouth against the fabric) of that reserve and repeat the action with a recent reserve fabric right beside to compare. That will give us an qualitative idea of the porosity.
Many arial stuff and other sensitive material have a duration way more longer than we could first expect provided they have been well maintained. Examples given:

* DC3 airplane made in 1937 and in the forties and still flying (the engines have been changed but not the wings) hundred of them are still flying after 70 years

* At Rantoul in 2005 I jumped the Carvair (modified DC4) and found out that the airplane has been made the same year I was born, ie: 1944

* At Rantoul again in 2006 I jumped twice the Perris DC-9 which was certainly more than 20 years old

* At Quincy in 1998, I jumped the Boeing 727 which was certainly more than 20 years old if not 30

* Aeronca Champion and Aeronca chief airplanes made in the thirties and the forties partially covered with fabric are still flying after 60 and 70 years

* Canada F18 fighters have at least 30 years and are still flying well. Same for the US Talon from Northrop. Nasa and US army are still flying them.

* Are you jumping from Twin Otter? I guess, some of them have at least 30 years of flying.

All those airplanes were or are certified by the FAA or the country authorities

* about AAD cutters containing a chemical explosive: I phoned the local riffle shooting club and they told me that some people are still shooting with WWII ammunitions made more than 50 years ago.

My point here is the following: we can always answer a question according the law, regulations, directives...etc. But we should also ask to ourselves, what is the purpose of the testing if not to get results good or not and proceed accordingly if there is no alternative. And there is always a local lab which can accoodate us.
For testing the big ring on my WONDERHOG in late seventies, I asked the Aeronautical department of the National research council of Ottawa Canada and they did it when I was there to direct them. Two years ago I went at that lab again to get a pull test of 3 samples of rip cord: cable, endings and pin. And they did it and the result was successful.
Reserves are made and tested under more strict standards than the main parachutes and we generally don't use them at all. My philosophy for a reserve is that it has to save my life not providing confort and that's why they are generally smaller than the main isn't it? Also I have not seen in 35 years anybody hurting himself badly with a reserve landing. Under a reserve, a jumper is generally flying conservatively, no wonder...
Old doesn't mean good for nothing and new doesn't mean good above all.
But Terry don't get me wrong, I understand also we need standards but we have a brain too.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[hajnalka 0]

Quote

Old doesn't mean good for nothing and new doesn't mean good above all.
But Terry don't get me wrong, I understand also we need standards but we have a brain too.

Excellent words of wisdom.

Bottom line is simple: I seal a rig and sign the card = I deem it airworthy to the best of my knowledge and ability when it leaves my loft.

I deal with the 20-yr service life issue all the time - and it's certainly a thorny one! (Oh wait - this is why I get the big bucks, right? )

A standard would certainly make my job easier, but it would be sad to see a bunch of perfectly potentially life-saving 20+ year old reserves immediately grounded ... although I'm sure someone could find good use for them.

Best,
Dawn

[Colson 0]

Is this about "lifespan" or "service life"? The terms seem to keep being interchanged.

Are people basing the 20 year descision on the DOM, or the time in service?

Retirement from 20 years of repacks seems like it may have some merit, but to say a 1988 C9 just removed from its plastic is junk seems like a waste of gear.

[Scoop 0]

Sounds like could possibly be my old reserve canopy. Is it a very bright yellow? Sold it in my rig quite a few months ago. I haven't got the serial number now as I gave all the info on to the new owner. If so I had it inspected by a rigger in the South East who was surprised what good condition it was in and also believed it had no jumps on it.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

The owner can not use this reserve for being overload it.

Do you know what the rules are in Ireland? The fact is the owner can jump the canopy as long as he gets is legally packed per the rules in his country. As for the US, there is nothing that says an end user has to abide by the TSO of the rig. If he breaks the TSO and dies nobody gives a shit.

Sparky.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[runnit 0]

Quote

My main has had more packjobs in the last year than a 20 year old reserve would yet it is perfectly airworthy. If this design is current and trusted and the condition of the canopy is as good then why should the age have any bearing? I understand that designs improve as we progress but if the model has proven to be reliable and it's in really good shape why not?

-Michael

I agree. And you can extend that arguement even further by saying what's the difference between a reserve and a BASE canopy which will be used on hundreds of jumps over its life, be exposed to large opening shocks, landed in water/trees, packed in the grass/dirt...

I assume that a reserve probably won't have as much reinforcing as a BASE canopy in some areas, but overall, is there really that much difference between the two?

[hackish 8]

My argument was made thinking of some of the old canopies that were designed to be used as mains or reserves. I can't remember if that was a swift or a raven or maybe both :) I know you can demo a PD reserve so I believe they're well enough built to act as a main. At the end of the day my decision would be based around the history of the design and if it is structurally sound.

-Michael

[erdnarob 1]

The first square reserves (late seventies) were first tested as main parachute like PARAFLITE company did with the Strato Flyer (not 100% sure of the name) which became the SAFETY STAR and after the SAFETY FLYER reserve, later from PARAFLITE again the CIRRUS 5 cells main became a reserve. For the Raven you could have them both as reserve or main parachutes.
Having a reserve tested as a main is probably the best way to test it. Paraflite which introduced the first ramair reserve was wise by doing so. They gave a Strato Flyer to hundred of selected people in the world who were jumping it as a main provided they were making reports on it. A year or two after, we go the SAFETY Star reserve and soon the Safety FLYER. I got my first square reserve in 1983. It was a Swift 5 cell reserve from Paraflite. I never uses it and subsequent owners didn't use it either. The last time I saw that reserve (5 years ago), it was still shiny and looking good.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[billvon 2,427]

> My main has had more packjobs in the last year than a 20 year
>old reserve would yet it is perfectly airworthy.

Except that:

It wasn't designed over 20 years ago, before advances in fabrics/coatings/finishing processes.

It isn't your last chance.

It's probably made of ZP, which is a very different fabric.

It hasn't been exposed to a skydiving environment (dirt, pressure changes, condensation, oxygen and ozone) for 20 years.

It doesn't have to be packed by someone who is certifying its safety both to you and to the FAA.

The argument "well, if I am willing to jump a main with 1000 jumps on it, and 500 jumps on the lineset, I should be able to jump a 20 year old reserve!" isn't really a good one. They are two very different scenarios.

[airtwardo 6]

...before advances in fabrics/coatings/finishing processes.

Quote

Advances or changes?


As was discussed at the PIA convention (Reno) the fabrics and hardware are different than 20 years ago, but not necessarily 'better' or stronger.

A 20 year old F111 type reserve that has been cared for, might very well be a better bet than a 2 year old reserve that's left in a hot car trunk 5 days a week.

That's one reason I'm fully behind 'riggers discretion' as the only needed governing factor as to a reserves viability.


We have a boatload of rigs with G-230 & G-300 reserves in them that are at or over the 20 year mark, one was torn a year or so back after an off spot landing...we tested the pull strength from several areas to failure, since it was going to be retired anyway...passed with 'flying colors'.

I have absolutely no problem using mine as I always have...loaded up to 300lbs. out the door.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[billvon 2,427]

>Advances or changes?

Changes that are _generally_ advances. The materials we have today are the result of decades of research and experience - which is why, for example, we don't have the acid mesh problem any more (or the PD 'silver' fabric for that matter.)

That being said, there are, of course, old materials that are perfectly good, and new materials that have problems. But for the most part materials technology has advanced.