Is 20+ years too old for a reserve parachute?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Now, I do realize that cost and value are relative terms--the difference in cost of a new rig vs a used one may be substantial and not in the budget of many--but--that difference may be less substantial to those who make the call that the prices they (and I) see here in the classified section just don't justify buying someone else's used gear.

I've really lucked out in that regard; I've been able to get fair deals (of course, other than my very first purchase, all of my other used gear purchases have been opportunistic - I see a great deal and jump on it vs. needing something right now and taking what's available) and have found that when I get fair deals, the used gear holds its value far better than new gear will. Also, one thing to always remember... the price listed in the ad isn't necessarily what the person will get. Most sellers will start high (somewhat high or very high) anticipating some level of negotiation. Like anything you'll find the buyer who wants their price no matter what and is willing to sit until they get it (or don't). Some buyers are super-motivated to sell, maybe because they need the cash from this sale to apply to a purchase. Most are somewhere in between. There's also what I call the "friends factor" where you'll knock off some of the cost to sell to someone you know, especially if it's someone local and the transaction just got way easier for you, the seller.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[TomSpoon 2]

Quote

riggerrob

Maximum 20 years is the simple answer.
The details are far more complex.

First, there was a bad batch of mesh woven during the mid-1980s, that grounded most round reserves.

Secondly, before 1990, few manufacturers knew how to design main canopies for wing-loadings greater than 1 pound per square foot, and nobody knew how to design reserves that would land softly at wing-loadings exceeding one pound per square foot. IOW older parachutes need different flying techniques than modern parachutes.

Thirdly, 20 years of steady jumping in the California desert will wear out any parachute.

Fourthly, it is difficult to find manuals for parachutes sewn more than 20 years ago ... er before the internet was opened to the masses ... It is even more difficult to find Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, etc. without looking in the dusty archives of grumpy old, grey-bearded Master Riggers.

Fifthly, many manufacturers have said not to use their products after "X" number of years, to limit their liabilities. IOW they can no longer predict how they will fly without a factory inspection.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. This is the FAA's opinion which is binding. http://www.parachuteshop.com/faa_service_life_limit_parachute.htm

[riggerrob 558]

TomSpoon

Quote

***Maximum 20 years is the simple answer.
The details are far more complex.

First, there was a bad batch of mesh woven during the mid-1980s, that grounded most round reserves.

Secondly, before 1990, few manufacturers knew how to design main canopies for wing-loadings greater than 1 pound per square foot, and nobody knew how to design reserves that would land softly at wing-loadings exceeding one pound per square foot. IOW older parachutes need different flying techniques than modern parachutes.

Thirdly, 20 years of steady jumping in the California desert will wear out any parachute.

Fourthly, it is difficult to find manuals for parachutes sewn more than 20 years ago ... er before the internet was opened to the masses ... It is even more difficult to find Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, etc. without looking in the dusty archives of grumpy old, grey-bearded Master Riggers.

Fifthly, many manufacturers have said not to use their products after "X" number of years, to limit their liabilities. IOW they can no longer predict how they will fly without a factory inspection.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. This is the FAA's opinion which is binding. http://www.parachuteshop.com/faa_service_life_limit_parachute.htm

........................................

To clarify the FAA's position: a manufacturer may state a life limit, at the time of manufacture, but not afterward.

[riggerrob 558]

To summarize:

Butler will not service any of their parachutes more than 20 years old.

Firebird: 15 years with possibility to extend longer

Cypres I: the last retires in 2015
Cypres 2: factory inspections after 4 years and 8 years. Retire after 12 years.

Flying High: "I thought all those old Bullets and Excaliburs retired years ago!"

GQ Security: retire after 15 years

National: retire after 15 years

Performance Designs reserves: factory inspection after 25 jumps or 40 pack jobs. Life will probably be extended after a factory inspection.

Para-Phernalia - retire after 20 years

Strong tandem gear: factory inspection after 8 years, 13 years and. 18 years. Harness/containers retire after 18 years, while (more recent) reserves may remain in service for a maximum 22 years or 20(?) jumps.

Please feel free to add to this list.

Local riggers are free to refuse to repack any parachutes younger than manufacturers' life limits, but they cannot legally repack reserves older. Remember that FARs always loop back to include "in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions."

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Rob,

Quote

but they cannot legally repack reserves older.

I am thinking that you are wrong.

I'm not going to chase it down, but I do believe that the FAA put out a letter that stated unless a service life was put forth at the time of original certification ( i,e., issuance of the TSO ) then a mfr cannot legally impose a service life.

JerryBaumchen

[TomSpoon 2]

Yes Jerry. You are right.

Here is the FAA letter.

http://www.parachuteshop.com/faa_service_life_limit_parachute.htm

[TomSpoon 2]

When I take my 20 year old reserve to a rigger for an inspection and repack I expect an objective knowledgeable assessment of it's airworthiness and either an extension of its legality to jump for an additional 180 days or a reason why it is no longer airworthy.
What I don't expect is an emotional opinion of how old gear should be replaced. Just because it's old.

This rigger, Don Meyer seems to share my opinion.

http://www.parachuteshop.com/life_limits_parachutes.htm

I especially like this part.

FAA Certificated Senior or Master Parachute Riggers refusing to inspect and repack your parachute due to age are ignorant and lacking in foresight and doing you a disservice, take your parachute to another Parachute Rigger.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Tom,

Quote

Here is the FAA letter.

Thanks for doing the work for me.

IMO this letter should be reviewed by every FAA licensed rigger.

JerryBaumchen

[RiggerLee 61]

This is all good and fine, as I happen to agree with that position. The flip side of the coin is of course that a civil court will not be able to understand this so the truth is that you're stuck with the shortened life span any ways.

But there is a larger question that I have a problem with. I'm not sure about the larger primus of this letter. If you were to take this same thought process of this letter and extend it. What about other changes to the original TSO'd design/manual/operating standards. Are you saying that these things can not be updated by the manufacturer? Let's look at manuals. Think of all the changes made over the years as we have evolved. By the same logic you would be stuck the instructions issued with that very generation of equipment. How often have you seen revisions with "This manual supersedes all previous versions of this manual." or some thing like it. This letter is just a very limited statement of position on one question that was submitted. It doesn't say any of this but I'm not sure I like the direction behind it because in some ways it ham strings the manufacturers in evolving their equipment.

Do you see where I'm going with this? I have doubts about the basic premise of not allowing the manufacturer to evolve their design in any way out side the AD system which is basically what they are saying.

Yah, I know. Only I could look a gift horse in the mouth and complain.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[rmarshall234 13]

>National: retire after 15 years

Is it 15 years for National? I thought it was 20. That's what the manual says so now I'm curious.

[pchapman 261]

RiggerLee

Do you see where I'm going with this? I have doubts about the basic premise of not allowing the manufacturer to evolve their design in any way out side the AD system which is basically what they are saying.

Yah, I know. Only I could look a gift horse in the mouth and complain.

The way I see it is the FAA is saying that if something has a particular certification, that certification is valid forever unless there is a problem serious enough that it warrants an Airworthiness Directive.

(It is another matter that the FAA hasn't liked issuing AD's on parachuting equipment in the last couple decades.)

So one does indeed have the confusing issue that according to FAR's, riggers must generally follow manufacturers' instructions (which would include "this new manual supersedes others"), while at the same time, it makes it sound like the original manuals are still legal to follow.

Possibly the way out of the apparent contradiction is the idea that one can't change a fundamental aspect of the certification in the manual -- If there's no lifetime in the original certification (and manual?) then you can't change that except with an AD. The manufacturer can change the packing method all they want, and the rigger must follow that, but they can't change the original weight / speed / lifetime.

Maybe that's the idea. Too bad the FAA's ruling was so brief as to leave us wondering about the words of the oracle, wondering what the gods wish us to do, lest they strike us down.

[riggerrob 558]

rmarshall234

>National: retire after 15 years

Is it 15 years for National? I thought it was 20. That's what the manual says so now I'm curious.

................................................

I stand corrected.
National: retire after 20 years.

[keithbar 1]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Rob,

Quote

but they cannot legally repack reserves older.

I am thinking that you are wrong.

I'm not going to chase it down, but I do believe that the FAA put out a letter that stated unless a service life was put forth at the time of original certification ( i,e., issuance of the TSO ) then a mfr cannot legally impose a service life.

JerryBaumchen

man I'm glad to hear that. I trust my life to a 1988 raven 2 on almost every jump. but hey it's never been deployed. lived it's whole life packed inside a cont. i an't worried one iota

i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .

[riggerrob 558]

For example, Performance Designs still builds reserves for Sigmas to the same drawings as they did back in 1986.
UPT would dearly love to make a few minor alterations to reduce pack volume (e.g. eliminate bridle attachment and substitute Maillon Rapide connector links) but the FAA insists on repeating all the drop tests and re-applying for certification under TSO C23E ... or is it "F" these days?

[RiggerLee 61]

Repeating drop test I could see, but reapplying? I thought that if you started a design under one TSO say C23c that you could continue to operate it under that same TSO. Wonder Hog becomes Vector becomes Vector 2 becomes Vector 3 all under b. Much larger changes there then changing out connector links. By the way I prefer L-bars for heavy loads and I think they are better off that way.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[likestojump 3]

riggerrob

***
>National: retire after 15 years

Is it 15 years for National? I thought it was 20. That's what the manual says so now I'm curious.

................................................

I stand corrected.
National: retire after 20 years.

May I disagree ? This is from the 2011 manual that I have :

"The Parachute Industry Association (PIA) has visited this issue without conclusion to date. Until the PIA
specifies otherwise, it is the recomendation of National Parachute that the maximum service life is 20 years
from date of manufacture (this includes the harness, container and pilot chute)."

This does not sound legally binding.
_____________________________________

For example, the Softie manual change from 2009 states :

"Independent testing of aged nylon materials has proven that its strength degrades over time,
therefore, Para-Phernalia, Inc. and Free Flight Enterprises have established a 20-year service life
from the date of component manufacture for the Softie Pilot Emergency System and the Preserve
line of emergency parachutes."

And that definitely sounds legally binding, but only for products manufactured since the manual change (as the FAA opinion letter posted above states).

And I agree with Don Mayer 100%. But, I also do happen to have a bias, and have just recently packed a mint Security rig.

[billvon 2,396]

>UPT would dearly love to make a few minor alterations to reduce pack volume (e.g.
> eliminate bridle attachment and substitute Maillon Rapide connector links) but the
>FAA insists on repeating all the drop tests and re-applying for certification under
>TSO C23E ... or is it "F" these days?

Given that thousands of Microns were built under the old two-pin Wonderhog TSO - I find it hard to take seriously their fear of modifications voiding the TSO.

[dpreguy 14]

Not replying to any particular contributor: If National, in 2009 (I have a copy of the of the paragraph), or Para Phernalia, a couple of years ago, or any mfg. that has put their retroactive 20 year "service life" into print---wants to do something bsides dance around the subject, (and proceed in spite of the FAA's correct statement)---then all they have to do is issue a Service Bulletin.

No one is pressuring them to do so.

When I tell pilots of it, most of them say it is only because the mfg wants to sell more parachutes. One pilot said "Have they done tests to show my parachute is unsafe?"

So, to me anyway, the bigger question is: Why don't the mfg's issue a Service Bulletin to say their product is unsafe/condemned after 20 years?

I believe it is because there isn't any such evidence that it is a true statement. I certify and repack a few such rigs. Not all of them by any means. I do it on a case by case basis. I feel I am on firm grounds in doing so, because the "service life" imposition is meaningless. In my opinion, they need to take the Service Bulletin route or shut up.

So far I haven't heard of any sport reserve mfg issuing a printed/electronic 'service life' statement. If any have I'd like to be advised.

[riggerrob 558]

Sometimes the written life limits give an official-looking excuse not to pack that ratty piece of $&@001! anymore.

As an aside: let year I taught a riggers' course to a class of eight keen :Swiss jumpers. I delivered a half-hour lecture about the why and wherefore of various life limits published by major manufacturers. The first rigs we inspected ere 19 to. 23 years old, faded, frayed. And filthy . During the final exam the students wrote "I will not pack reserves more than 20 years. That was not the answer I expected, but it was an answer I could respect. Most of the candidates passed ,

[pchapman 261]

likestojump

And that definitely sounds legally binding, but only for products manufactured since the manual change (as the FAA opinion letter posted above states).

One part of the FAA letter does make it sound like if you get a parachute and there's now a service life listed in the manual that comes with it, it is legally binding. But I think that's the incorrect interpretation when looking at the entire FAA letter.

The FAA considers the service life recommended by the manufacturer , "a non regulatory requirement for a parachute [. . . ] sold before a service life was established".

However, the paragraph after that shows how a service life is created -- and that involves an SB and AD -- which is not just a change in the manual.

That's the interpretation I go with, that any change in the manual is only a recommendation for equipment certificated without a life limit, unless an SB & AD are issued.

On the other hand:
One might interpret those two paragraphs of the FAA letter as meaning that "A manufacturer can change a service life for all newly manufactured gear in the manual, but if they want to change it for previously sold gear, they need to go the SB & AD route".

The FAA letter manages to squeeze in quite a few ambiguities in very few words!

[dpreguy 14]

Rob and Chapman
I agree with both of you.

If a mfg issued such a service
bulletin, then the FAA would follow with an Airworthiness Directive.

And yes, I also use the "20 year thing" to tell to owners when I refuse to pack old stuff, and ratty stuff. I guess I wouldn't need to use it, but it is a handy add on excuse. I just sorta mention it, but qualify it by saying they really can't retroactively impose it.....Yeah I know, I'm being a bit phony when I do so. Sometimes it's hard to say no without some stuff to go with the no.

I am very selective on which rigs 'over 20' get packed. Not many do.

I am still waiting for mfgs to 'put up or shut up' on this. I would be more comfortable if they would just issue a recommendation, and not use the undefined term - "service life".

[pchapman 261]

dpreguy

and not use the undefined term - "service life".

So just interpret it like an airplane's hours, since they didn't say "calendar life from time of manufacture" or similar.

A parachute system isn't in service unless worn. So a 20 year life gives you 175,200 flying hours.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The way I see it is the FAA is saying that if something has a particular certification, that certification is valid forever unless there is a problem serious enough that it warrants an Airworthiness Directive.

That's the way I see it, too, with emphasis on the text I've bolded above. See the last full paragraph in the FAA's letter (before the thank-you sentence). So it does allow a manufacturer to modify the standard for an existing design already on the market: it does so by means of an Airworthiness Directive.

[riggerrob 558]

Agreed!
Is have also used the PIA pull-testing methods to ground faded, frayed and filthy old canopies.
Back during the 1990s, an East Coast rigger was buying new PEP containers, stuffing well-used, military-surplus canopies into them and selling them to aerobatic pilots. Remember that this was shortly after skydiving schools converted from military-surplus canopies tomMantas for first-jump students.
The second owner of a Citabria aerobatic airplane brought in a pair of Softies for inspection and repack. As soon as I opened them, I saw dust and fading. Those canopies looked like they had hundreds of jumps as mains. Following loft policy, I applied the clamps and pulled slowly. One panel tore at 18 pounds. Another panel tore at 15 pounds. Third panel tore at only 13 pounds.
The Citabria owner's buddy was enjoying the process and encouraged me to pull-test a pilot-chute, that tore at about half the rated strength of MIL SPEC fabric.

Funny! But both Butler and Para-Phernalia quit wholesaling containers to that dealer!

For reference, that MIL SPEC fabric is supposed to survive a 30 pound tensile-test. I have pull-tested hundreds of brand-new C-9s to 40 pounds without tearing them. Civilian F-111 fabric is supposed to survive 40 pound tensile tests. I can count on one hand the number of canopies I have torn while tensile-testing.

[keithbar 1]

so I'm just curious if you pack and older reserve. and you pull tested and it passes fine. would it then need to be tested at each and every repack thereafter . or less often once a year ? just curious if there is an accepted standard for how often the pull test needs to be done

i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .