hot trunk

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements? You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc. What if my reserve canopy needs to be packed every 180 days and my freebag needs to be inspected every 200 jumps?

I'm not a rigger or any kind of expert at how often these things need to be inspected or repacked. I'm just saying that any system that is based on something other than time would be really hard to implement. Also these rules kind of have to apply to pilot emergency rigs as well.

A reserve that is going to malfunction because it got wet or was left in a hot trunk or whatever is going to have the same problem regardless of the repack cycle. If riggers in some areas are opening rigs that were last packed 6 months ago and finding major wear-related problems, maybe those jumpers need to get their rigs packed more often than the FAAs maximum allowable time between repacks. Maybe jumpers need to get their reserves repacked every time they get wet in a swoop pond. And maybe some rigs could easily go years without a repack and still be perfectly safe. One rule isn't going to possibly cover every imaginable scenario. But we need a rule (well, according to the FAA). So I'd like to see a simple rule that makes sense for most rigs. Dunno what that rule should be, but 120 days has worked (I think?) for years. 180 days seems to be doable and might reduce unnecessary wear and tear on gear.

Dave

[billvon 2,379]

>>Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

>So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements?

No, manifest just needs to be able to read a date. Rigger repacks it and signs it off, and puts the date it was packed _and_ the date it has to be repacked. This solves a lot of other problems.

Cypres battery going to expire in 3 months? Right now you have to replace it before the repack. Under the new system, rigger just signs it off for 3 months.

>You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy
>manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

Correct. Riggers already have this info.

[pilotdave 0]

That's assuming the manufacturer recommendation is to repack the reserve after a certain amount of time. I was assuming the manufacturer could use any metric they want.

It sure would make things easier if it worked like you said it. At least for jumpers. Probably a bit of a pain for riggers, who would have to keep track of all the requirements, figure out which one is closest, and calculate the next repack date. Bet it'd help sales for manufacturers that set nice long repack cycles though!

Dave

[mark 102]

Quote

You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

That's more or less the current system in Germany, so it's not so far fetched.

Mark

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

Quote

You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc.

That's more or less the current system in Germany, so it's not so far fetched.

Mark

AFAIK Germany has strict standards. I have a German friend who was not allowed to even have a certain main canopy in germany, was odd I thought. So manufacturer requirements more or less are used in the U.S. as well (cypres). I'd guess the majority of jumpers do not maintain manufacturer requirements for the 3 ring assembly (monthly) here in the U.S. How about germany?

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

Quote

Why would'nt we just go with manufacturer recommendations instead of pack cycle?

So manifest needs to keep a database of manufacturer requirements? You'd need requirements from the container manufacturer, canopy manufacturer, AAD manufacturer, etc. What if my reserve canopy needs to be packed every 180 days and my freebag needs to be inspected every 200 jumps?

I'm not a rigger or any kind of expert at how often these things need to be inspected or repacked. I'm just saying that any system that is based on something other than time would be really hard to implement. Also these rules kind of have to apply to pilot emergency rigs as well.

A reserve that is going to malfunction because it got wet or was left in a hot trunk or whatever is going to have the same problem regardless of the repack cycle. If riggers in some areas are opening rigs that were last packed 6 months ago and finding major wear-related problems, maybe those jumpers need to get their rigs packed more often than the FAAs maximum allowable time between repacks. Maybe jumpers need to get their reserves repacked every time they get wet in a swoop pond. And maybe some rigs could easily go years without a repack and still be perfectly safe. One rule isn't going to possibly cover every imaginable scenario. But we need a rule (well, according to the FAA). So I'd like to see a simple rule that makes sense for most rigs. Dunno what that rule should be, but 120 days has worked (I think?) for years. 180 days seems to be doable and might reduce unnecessary wear and tear on gear.

Dave

120 days has worked for many years, 60 days in the past also worked, 180 days could work fine, 2 years could also work. On another thread in 'gear and rigging' you may read about a riggers bit of experience with pilot rigs and issues he has found. The most common problem i've found on a basic inspection of a pilot rig is stow bands being tacky and/or fragile. I suspect due to heat and/or time. Q: If it wqas up to you, how long a time would you go without having your pilot rig inspected? How long would it take till you would be scared to use it?

[billvon 2,379]

>Probably a bit of a pain for riggers, who would have to keep track of all
>the requirements, figure out which one is closest, and calculate the next
>repack date.

They have to do that now with cypres inspection/battery change requirements and grace periods. And they have to deal with things like canopy/container compatibility; ask Derek if a PD reserve is legal to pack in a Mirage.

>Bet it'd help sales for manufacturers that set nice long repack cycles though!

Conversely, if a manufacturer allowed a 5 year repack cycle and there was reserve damage during that time, their gear would get a reputation as unreliable, and fewer people would buy it. Plus which they wouldn't sell as much; gear would last a lot longer. So it would behoove them to set a realistic time that's not absurdly long.

[billvon 2,379]

>Why be wussies here, push it to 2 years, why not?

I wouldn't be in favor of making the repack cycle 2 years for everyone, but I _would_ be in favor of giving the responsibility to the gear manufacturers. If you get an Icon, and the manual says "must be repacked at least once a year" and your Smart reserve says the same thing, then it gets repacked at least once a year. If you have a Smart reserve and a Racer, and the Racer manual says once every 120 days, then you have to go with the 120 days.

>My guess is the same thing that happens in 120 days or 2 years or
>20 years, the parachute is still a parachute, the risk of it working properly
>or improperly are the same.

I agree - assuming it is stored well and not jumped a lot. Problem there is that some jumpers jump so much they can wear out gear rapidly. I've seen a few harnesses that looked mighty iffy after 3-4 years of hard usage. (Check out Fury's gear for example.)

Again, I'm not competent to say "therefore 1 year is a sufficient time to always catch wear like that" - but I think the manufacturers are. If you want to make all your harnesses out of quad-thickness type 7, maybe it can last 5 years without a problem even if Uli is making 15 jumps a day on it every day. If it's doubled type 8, maybe every 180 days would be a better cycle.

> Some rigs should be on a lesser pack cycle than 120 days.

That's fine, and that's why I think riggers should post the repack date on the packing data card. Want to repack a rig with a cypres about to need batteries? Make it good for 90 days (or however long the batteries will be good for.) If you're repacking for a school, and see consistent problems with dirt/gravel in reserve containers? Make it 90 days, or 60 days. That gives them a lot more control over what happens with that rig.

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

>Why be wussies here, push it to 2 years, why not?

I wouldn't be in favor of making the repack cycle 2 years for everyone, but I _would_ be in favor of giving the responsibility to the gear manufacturers. If you get an Icon, and the manual says "must be repacked at least once a year" and your Smart reserve says the same thing, then it gets repacked at least once a year. If you have a Smart reserve and a Racer, and the Racer manual says once every 120 days, then you have to go with the 120 days.

>My guess is the same thing that happens in 120 days or 2 years or
>20 years, the parachute is still a parachute, the risk of it working properly
>or improperly are the same.

I agree - assuming it is stored well and not jumped a lot. Problem there is that some jumpers jump so much they can wear out gear rapidly. I've seen a few harnesses that looked mighty iffy after 3-4 years of hard usage. (Check out Fury's gear for example.)

Again, I'm not competent to say "therefore 1 year is a sufficient time to always catch wear like that" - but I think the manufacturers are. If you want to make all your harnesses out of quad-thickness type 7, maybe it can last 5 years without a problem even if Uli is making 15 jumps a day on it every day. If it's doubled type 8, maybe every 180 days would be a better cycle.

> Some rigs should be on a lesser pack cycle than 120 days.

That's fine, and that's why I think riggers should post the repack date on the packing data card. Want to repack a rig with a cypres about to need batteries? Make it good for 90 days (or however long the batteries will be good for.) If you're repacking for a school, and see consistent problems with dirt/gravel in reserve containers? Make it 90 days, or 60 days. That gives them a lot more control over what happens with that rig.

I like your opinion of the riggers discretion of when the rig should be inspected again if the rigger thinks it should be done in less time than the FAA cycle. Fury is a good example, so is Koji. Now my next 'can'o worms' has to do with maintenance and repairs. Why is this gear not being repaired? better Q: How come gear that is in need of repair being allowed to be jumped? I do like the idea of manufacturers calling the shots on the time frame that the gear be inspected. I'd also like a listing of issues with gear that can be 'gotten away with' without repairing prior to jumping.

[billvon 2,379]

> Now my next 'can'o worms' has to do with maintenance and repairs.
>Why is this gear not being repaired?

Because most people don't inspect their gear on a regular basis, and most people don't think that gear can fail catastrophically. Witness how lax everyone was about slinks/risers until Koji had his accident; suddenly everyone was into inspecting their slinks. Now it's died down again.

>better Q: How come gear that is in need of repair being allowed to be jumped?

Well, most of the serious problems I've seen have been on on mains (really the riser/link/main/slider/dbag/PC assembly.) Heck, I let things go too. I've been watching the lines on my Nitro lately because they are getting very close to needing replacement. Suddenly they started wearing faster and one of my front risers started getting damaged. Lo and behold, one of the slider grommets had worn through, so I got them replaced, and am in the process of relining the canopy and replacing the risers (which had around 1000 jumps on them.) In the meantime I'm using Amy's Pilot as a backup main.

Now, although I was letting things go for a bit, I knew what signs I was looking for - and I knew how to fix them once the problem came up. I think a lot of jumpers let things go as much as I do, but don't know what to look for ("Front riser getting damaged? Must be the packer") and don't know how to fix it once they do identify the problem - which means they are tempted to just jump it until their next repack, or the next time they see their rigger. They can't fix it and they can't just get another canopy to jump, so they put off fixing the 'minor' problem which may or may not really be a minor problem.

In my experience harness/reserve assemblies have less of a problem since they're inspected during repacks.

>I'd also like a listing of issues with gear that can be 'gotten away with'
>without repairing prior to jumping.

Well, that's always an issue. Often manufacturers are pretty good about that, and with digital cameras you can take a picture and get a response pretty fast. A few of them can be stubborn (i.e. "you're the rigger, you have to make the call") but most are pretty accommodating.

[CrazyL 0]

thanks for your response Bill. Gotta get to some rigging and repairs now, Later, Larry

[mark 102]

Quote

Because most people don't inspect their gear on a regular basis

and because some "riggers" don't inspect all they should.

I packed a Smart reserve recently. Its warning label says it's approved for single harness systems having a main parachute that can be released.

If the 3-rings don't work, the reserve won't work as intended. To me that means release systems including main risers need to be inspected as part of every repack. And we should inspect both ends of each riser (including links) while there's an opportunity.

Mark

[billvon 2,379]

>To me that means release systems including main risers need to be
>inspected as part of every repack.

There's some validity to that. But what do you do if the rig is dropped off without the main, as is often the case? And if you do have the main, and the slider is going on one seam, do you refuse to repack the reserve? After all, the harness was not designed to be compatible with an unreefed main. Suppose they say they are getting a new main in in a week or so; do you not repack the reserve until you see the main?

The issue of where the rigger's responsibility ends is a murky one. I'm generally in favor of requiring compliance on everything up to the base rings, and recommending service above the base rings. (i.e. refuse to repack if the legstrap webbing is going, but recommend replacement of the risers if they are showing signs of wear.) But everyone's different, and there is definitely something to be said for taking more responsibility than that.

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

>"I support the 180 day cycle" without any reason as to why . . .

I support it because:

It results in less wear on gear, meaning that a given rig/reserve combination will be safe to jump for a longer time
--------------Less wear on gear = less jumping and more time in gear bag. Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.

• Quote

[billvon 2,379]

>Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.

The #1 thing that wears out reserves are repacks. That's why PD has a 40 repack limit on their reserves before it has to go back for factory inspection. That's not because most riggers are careless, it's because _any_ repack causes that sort of wear.

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

>Wear on gear due to rigger = shitty rigger, choose another rigger.

The #1 thing that wears out reserves are repacks. That's why PD has a 40 repack limit on their reserves before it has to go back for factory inspection. That's not because most riggers are careless, it's because _any_ repack causes that sort of wear.

I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system. Not all riggers are going to damage gear. Some will.

[billvon 2,379]

>I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system.

Actually I think it causes _most_ of the wear on a reserve canopy.

[dgw 8]

CrazyL,

Here is a post I made a while back. Some info on reserve repack wear...

http://www.bpa.org.uk/forms/council/Riggers%20Minutes%20-%201%20June%202006.doc

"John Harding had also included information and statistics on tests carried out by a number of organizations regarding the handling of parachute material vs porosity. The results from these organizations show that there was a marked increase in the porosity of the fabric due to handling, and this is mainly during the packing process.

They also concluded that parachutes that undergo such a porosity increase might not pass TSO tests. John had also included information of countries that have adopted a one-year re-pack cycle and a list of manufactures who have endorsed 1 year repack cycles on their equipment where regulations allow."

[CrazyL 0]

thanks

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

>I agree that packing a parachute adds very little wear on the system.

Actually I think it causes _most_ of the wear on a reserve canopy.

I opened a racer about 2 weeks ago that had 2 holes in the reserve P/C and the reserve P/C had not been used during a reserve ride. 1 hole a little bigger than a quarter, the other about the size of a nickel. I ordered a new one. Do you think the past rigger either let it go or caused the holes? Canopy fabric wear: I've seen some riggers stress the fabric a bit much while packing. During inspection I do a stress test on fabric (thumb test, or PD pull test) which may increase porosity. Otherwise i'm pretty gentle with the reserve canopy. I understand that riggers may have an occasional incident when packing a reserve, humans. Hence the most wear on a canopy. I realize that the canopy should receive very little wear while packed in normal circumstances. What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.

Folding the fabric. Wear is more severe than on a main canopy because you spend a lot of time re-dressing folds.

The synopsis from the Belgian Army study is interesting since it suggests less wear occurs on the center cell which can have the least manipulation of its topskin during a pro-pack.

http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=158

The Belgians found porosity increases from 0-5 CFM to as much as 18 CFM in areas, with 32% of canopies exceeding 9 CFM.

Precision found that manipulating fabric samples 16 times "using methods typical of the packing of a parachute" resulted in 4-12X porosity increases.

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

Quote

What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve canopy due to packing. I know a few , i'd like your opinion.

Folding the fabric. Wear is more severe than on a main canopy because you spend a lot of time re-dressing folds.

The synopsis from the Belgian Army study is interesting since it suggests less wear occurs on the center cell which can have the least manipulation of its topskin during a pro-pack.

http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=158

The Belgians found porosity increases from 0-5 CFM to as much as 18 CFM in areas, with 32% of canopies exceeding 9 CFM.

Precision found that manipulating fabric samples 16 times "using methods typical of the packing of a parachute" resulted in 4-12X porosity increases.

From what i've visually seen on mains as far as porosity goes is that the most fading and porosity of the fabric occurs on the center and end cells. 'redressing folds' I do very little 'redressing folds'. Because of knowing of the research done on canopy wear due to packing especially on the reserve, I make an effort to be a 'clean person' and handle the reserve canopy with very little pressure ,tightening of the fabric, and don't lay on a reserve canopy. I've refined my main canopy techniques similarly. I stress the reserve canopy during inspection. Stress ribs a bit and stress stains. Ever seen a sweaty packer lay on a canopy? That's not me. The Belgians may not have as much porosity on the center cell as Americans would because of their technique and fabrics. I would like similar porosity test results for fabrics and packing techniques used today instead of several years ago. Textiles have advanced a bit as well.

[CrazyL 0]

Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the porosity loss becomes less? If there could be such a training program ?

[billvon 2,379]

>What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve
>canopy due to packing.

Just handling/folding it. George Galloway once took a new piece of F111, tested its porosity, and then handed it to the crowd to examine. They all took a look at it (handled it) and he re-tested it - the porosity had increased significantly. And these weren't people sitting on it or dragging it across the floor, they were just handling it/folding it a bit.

> Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the
>porosity loss becomes less?

Maybe. But so far the only factor I've seen that can help with increased porosity is the packing surface. Painted concrete is best, outdoor-rated carpeting is worst.

[CrazyL 0]

Quote

>What do you think riggers are doing to cause the wear on a reserve
>canopy due to packing.

Just handling/folding it. George Galloway once took a new piece of F111, tested its porosity, and then handed it to the crowd to examine. They all took a look at it (handled it) and he re-tested it - the porosity had increased significantly. And these weren't people sitting on it or dragging it across the floor, they were just handling it/folding it a bit.

> Do riggers need training on how to handle reserve canopies so the
>porosity loss becomes less?

Maybe. But so far the only factor I've seen that can help with increased porosity is the packing surface. Painted concrete is best, outdoor-rated carpeting is worst.

Quote

thats a great test that George did. Packing on painted concrete sounds like it would suck for the rigger. The other thing that's worse than outdoor carpet is sand and grass with dog crap. What do you think about packing on a like surfacxe like zp or f111?

• Quote