Reserve/PEP Inspection cycle 6 years later

[councilman24 36]

First this poll and thread is NOT about whether the inspection cycle should be 365 days or whether the way your country does it is better or worse. Only the old debate about 120 versus 180 in the U.S.

A recent request from another country prompted the memory of this change. PIA and USPA asked for an exemption to 180 days for it's members, EAA members, and Soaring Society members in order to be able to collect data supporting longer cycle. FAA indicated exemption was too broad but initiated rule change to 120 days on its own. PIA never voted to support or not to support the 180 day cycle. Rigging committee was split on issue but didn't meet after the NPRM was issued and before the end of the comment period.

During the NPRM comment period many experienced riggers and DPRE's voiced objection to the extension. Not so much on grounds that the reserve wouldn't work but based on the other maintenance that was needed on the rigs. Most pro comments were from customers who wanted a longer cycle for convenience and cost reduction. PIA didn't have an opportunity to comment as an organization because the comment period opened and closed between PIA business meetings. It would have been a lively debate and I don't know what PIA's position would have been. As we know it went into effect based on military and foreign experience with longer cycles.

Six years later a question has brought this to mind and I've been thinking whether I've changed my position. How about you? Poll questions say it. Good or bad then, good or bad now? Did you change or not?

Just curious. I was against it and haven't really considered if I've changed my mind.

Your votes and comments?

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

[dwhenline 0]

I certainly wasn't around when this debate occurred but given the fact that my airplane parachute needs a repack only every ten years, I find it unfathomable that a reserve repack would need 120 cycle.
Obviously a rigger who advocates 120 cycle might be a bit biased.
dwh

[BIGUN 1,049]

How often do you use your airplane parachute?

How often would you want the entire rig inspected if you used it 300 times a year?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Quagmirian 40]

Would it be possible to have different repack cycles for different parachute types?

[theonlyski 3]

Quagmirian

Would it be possible to have different repack cycles for different parachute types?

The current FAA system defines the different types of parachutes as seat, back, chest and lap.

They could be square or round (though I don't know of any square lap rigs).

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[dwhenline 0]

Bigun

I hope to never use my airplane parachute, much like I hope to not use my reserve. I am not here to debate you on the proper repack of resereve cycle. I just would find 120 days quite short given that the reserve is unused during this time.
If you wnat to debate that the system needs to be inspected, then break down your arguement to just that.
dwh

[pchapman 261]

dwhenline

I just would find 120 days quite short given that the reserve is unused during this time.

Yeah in the I+R it is almost more about the Inspection than the Repack. Check for loop wear, clean out dirt, that sort of thing.

Heck if you're a rigger and not quite following rules for yourself, just open it up, look around, and close it up again.

In Canada we've had 180 days for longer than the US, and it is pretty much a non-issue in that everyone is used to it now and nobody really discusses the issue, at least among the riggers & jumpers I know. Those who just jump in summer only need one repack a year, and those who will jump all season or travel in winter get two.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Terry,

Quote

Only the old debate about 120 versus 180 in the U.S.

I supported the change to 180 days and still do. I would like to see it go to one year but that is NOT the subject.

I voted here: I was for and still am.

Now I am wondering just what did I vote for.

So, using good old Monday morning quarterbacking, should this have read:

A. I was for 120 days and still am.

B. I was for 180 days and still am.

Just wondering,

JerryBaumchen

[mark 102]

Quagmirian

Would it be possible to have different repack cycles for different parachute types?

This is an interesting question, and I think the answer is "yes," depending on what you mean by "type."

One possibility would be to propose that a tandem, student, or rental rig should be subject to a 120-day cycle, and a privately owned personal rig should be permitted a 1-year cycle. This would be analogous to what we do for aircraft. In the US, an aircraft in commercial use must be inspected every 100 hours or annually, whichever comes first. The same aircraft in private use needs just the annual inspection.

An intermediate system might require a full annual inspection, plus a mid-cycle inspection of the exterior of the pack.

I'd like to see a 1-year repack cycle, and the technical data I've seen supports a 1-year repack. I'll add the issue to the PIA Rigging Committee agenda for discussion at the next business meeting (this August, in Denver) to see what the current thinking is.

Mark

[betzilla 56]

I was against the change at the time (but too lazy to submit a comment about it), out of worry that a stupid mistake left in someone's rig was more likely to cause problems if it had an extra 60 days to possibly be deployed. At that time I worked on a large DZ with exceptionally well-trained riggers who made few mistakes (even the campground riggers are pretty good there!). Now I work in a loft not on a DZ, where I'm seeing many more pilot rigs than I used to, and opening sport repacks from an entirely new group of riggers. I'm seeing more mistakes and general "stupid stuff," but the vast majority of it wouldn't really cause problems. So I feel as though my worry was unwarranted, and the 180 day cycle seems just fine to me these days.

[BIGUN 1,049]

dwhenline

Bigun

I hope to never use my airplane parachute, much like I hope to not use my reserve. I am not here to debate you on the proper repack of resereve cycle. I just would find 120 days quite short given that the reserve is unused during this time.
If you wnat to debate that the system needs to be inspected, then break down your arguement to just that.
dwh

I'm not here to argue and offered my opinion to the FAA back when the issue was up for discussion.
I was for the 120 day repack cycle for the following reasons:
1. It's not just a repack; but an entire inspection of the H/C and a reserve repack.
2. A second set of professional eyes on my rig every 120 days is better than just mine.
3. There are a number of people that pencil whip their reserves extending an A.I.R to once a year.
4. The Rigger that places their seal on the rig has an added extension of liability to time.

In the end, my opinion was overruled and - it is what it is.
And, there's nothing that prevents me from still maintaining mine on 120 day A.I.R.
>EXCEPT: Those crafty Riggers would raise the price of an A.I.R to maintain the same revenue threshold. Bastards!!

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[dwhenline 0]

one thing that people have overlooked is the idea of maintainence induced failure (MIF) in the airplane world. Often the inspection is capable of causing as many problems as fixing. In the example given, where the rigger "sees mistakes" and then assumes that shorter inspection periods would be beneficial, forgets to include that shorter inspection periods will likely add "mistakes " to the system.
The idea of extending an inspection cycle is to fall into the category of "if it aint broke dont fix it."

DWh

[councilman24 36]

I would submit that there are fewer mistakes available on a parachute and the sooner the inspection the sooner it will be found.

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

[pchapman 261]

... and the sooner new mistakes will be introduced into the pack job.

Although there is something to be said for having different sets of eyes on something. One also gets into a whole discussion of types of errors and their likelihood, whether they are more random (e.g., inadvertently routing something wrong) vs. ongoing (e.g., an old service bulletin missed initially and nobody later expected it to still apply).

Fewer repacks might be better if it means people are willing to pay a little extra for a really good inspection; on the other hand, at least here in Canada, I didn't really see any price change when it went 120 to 180 days.

[DBCOOPER 1]

I can't for the life of me figure out why they made it 180 days instead of 6 months like everything else in aviation. The only thing that I can think of is a bunch of old military guys that like the Julian calendar.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

Hi Terry,

Quote

I would submit that there are fewer mistakes available on a parachute and the sooner the inspection the sooner it will be found.

And I would submit that it makes no difference.

Once you, I or the next dufus packs a 'mistake' into a repack it can be 'found' about 45 minutes later when the customer uses the parachute.

I contend that mistakes are random, they are just as random at 120 days as they are at 180 days or one year. And the results are just as likely to occur 45 minutes later regardless of the I & R cycle.

Just my thoughts,

JerryBaumchen

PS) And I like Mark's idea of various I & R's depending upon the useage; commercial vs personal.

[councilman24 36]

Mark's idea isn't new. We were discussing this when we asked for.the.exemption and as I recall the.exemption request did not include student or tandems.

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

BIGUN

...And, there's nothing that prevents me from still maintaining mine on 120 day A.I.R.
>EXCEPT: Those crafty Riggers would raise the price of an A.I.R to maintain the same revenue threshold. Bastards!!

I didn't jack the price up, and I am not aware that anyone else did either (not saying it didn't happen, just that nobody I know did it).

I was in favor of the 180 day and still am. Being in the upper midwest, it means one I&R right before the season starts will more than likely be good for the whole season.

I don't think a 60 day span will make any real difference in the wear and tear on a rig. Any sort of damage that would make it unsafe is something that the owner should catch on a pre-jump inspection.

Other places have their schedule at a year and don't seem to have any real problems with it (not arguing for or against a year, just noting that other places do it).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo