0
rapaz

Service life

Recommended Posts

Recomended manufacturer service life.

UPT Vector - doesnt have recomended SL
Javelin - doesnt have
Aerodyne - 13 years from DOm
PD reserves - 40 packjobs, 10 openings
Strong DHT 18 years from DOM or indefinied the new ones

Other manufacturer examples ?...

Any advice will be apreciate

After that if the rig still in very good shape, do you riggers still packing those, in the packing card do you put any "on condition" or similar like porosity and TS108

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rapaz

Recomended manufacturer service life.

UPT Vector - doesnt have recomended SL
Javelin - doesnt have



rapaz


Aerodyne - 13 years from DOM


Source please ?

rapaz


PD reserves - 40 packjobs, 10 openings


Not service life. Mandatory inspection after 40 packjobs or 25 rides.

rapaz


Strong DHT 18 years from DOM or indefinied the new ones


Not for the Master reserves

rapaz


Other manufacturer examples ?...

Any advice will be apreciate



Advice : CHECK YOUR GOD DAMN FACTS !

rapaz


After that if the rig still in very good shape, do you riggers still packing those, in the packing card do you put any "on condition" or similar like porosity and TS108



ParaPhernalia harnesses produced after Sept 2009 - 20 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of an Aerodyne life.

Basically I'm used to North American gear where nothing has a life listed and national organizations don't have any arbitrary life limits...

... except some pilot rig manufacturers (where one can debate whether the restriction is FAA legal or not based on original certification data etc)
... except Strong tandems
... except usage and pack limits for some reserves (before inspection, not grounding)


Personally I've landed a 55 year old main, landed a 34 year old reserve used after a malfunction, and used a 37 year old harness. So you see I might have a certain bias about gear ages. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piisfish

***I send an email and get that direct from Aerodyne

could you please post a copy of the email ? it doesn't matter what email he posts. To the OP, manufacturers cannot impose a service life via email and have absolutely no means to impose a service life retroactively. Since aerodyne has never imposed a service life before then there is none. The company can email you whatever bullshit they want but it doesn't matter.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcordell

******I send an email and get that direct from Aerodyne

could you please post a copy of the email ? it doesn't matter what email he posts. To the OP, manufacturers cannot impose a service life via email and have absolutely no means to impose a service life retroactively. Since aerodyne has never imposed a service life before then there is none. The company can email you whatever bullshit they want but it doesn't matter.

A date of 13 years sounds alot like someone sent in some ratty gear for some work/check out and were told it was unservicable;)
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a rather obscure number to go with for service life isn't it? I'm certain it's a miscommunication between the manufacturer and OP but even if it isn't...who cares. As long as it's not written into official documentation it doesn't bother me if they impose a 6 month service life. :P

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Strong has a very specific set of service intervals and life limits on their tandem gear.

Para-Phernalia sets a 20 year limit on their PEP's.

Other than AAD's that's all I've personally seen.

As to retro-active limits... there has been much argument on this, including the notion that since it must be maintained per the mfg instructions, new instructions could (arguably) include limits that would apply to older gear.

I don't wish to debate that either way.

As a rigger, when working with gear worn by others, I will go with the mfg recommendations. Don't like those, I've got a list of other riggers to whom I can refer you.

JW
Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A "retro -active limit" IS available for all mfg's in the form of a Service Bulletin. That is how it is done. Not some vaguely worked half-attempt to slip it in a new manual and pretend it applies to older rigs. It doesn't. If they feel it is unsafe or should be tested: Issue a service bulletin or shut up.
An industry attempt to pass liability onto riggers in the field who pack rigs over 20 yrs old. One mfg wants to say 17 years and still not issue a service bulletin.

If it is in the manual when it was sold, then OK. If not, then issue a Service Bulletin.

(Similar in nature to an "ex post facto" law = make some activity illegal after the act was done. Lacks the "fair warning" principle.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Walt,

Quote

A "retro -active limit" IS available for all mfg's in the form of a Service Bulletin.



As I read the FAA's letter on service life post certification, this would not work either.

IMO the FAA put the 'new service life' into it's grave when they issued that letter.

Each rigger gets to make his/her own decision on whether or not to work on any piece of equipment.

Just my $0.02 on this,

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Walt,

Quote

A "retro -active limit" IS available for all mfg's in the form of a Service Bulletin.



As I read the FAA's letter on service life post certification, this would not work either.

IMO the FAA put the 'new service life' into it's grave when they issued that letter.

Each rigger gets to make his/her own decision on whether or not to work on any piece of equipment.

Just my $0.02 on this,

Jerry Baumchen

I agree with you on this. That's how I read it too. Once it is certified and sold without a service life, there is no way to retroactively impose one.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not it is legal for a manufacturer to set retro actively a service life. If something were to go wrong and a family sued i wouldn't want to go to court and and argue that I went against what the manufacturer said because it wasn't legal.
just my $.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
accumack

Whether or not it is legal for a manufacturer to set retro actively a service life. If something were to go wrong and a family sued i wouldn't want to go to court and and argue that I went against what the manufacturer said because it wasn't legal.
just my $.02



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


Accumack prefers to rely on "best business practices."

Similarly, I do not care what the FAA, manufacturers, etc. say, because I no longer pack round reserves that were made during the acid-mesh era. They were sewn about 30 years ago. If they remained in normal service, all that repeated pH and pull-testing has worn out the fabric by now.
I might have an old bottle of broom reason laying around, but I no longer have the clamps for pull-testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......

A date of 13 years sounds alot like someone sent in some ratty gear for some work/check out and were told it was unservicable;)

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

Agreed.
Hard-working student and tandem containers rarely last 12 years without major repairs. I told one DZO "Quit sending me your 13 year old tandem Vectors because I am tired of sewing patches on them."

Factories saw too much ratty year that was 12 or 15 years old.
Just to give you a little background: Strong and Relative Workshop started selling tandem gear in 1984. They had a lot of problems with their first generation gear and issued a lot of Service Bulletins to correct faults. Some of those faults could be corrected by field riggers, but others required specialized sewing machines and patterns that were only available at the factory.

After realizing that a lot of out-dated rigs were still in service, Strong instituted mandatory 8-year, 13-year inspections and grounded all tandem gear more than 18 years old.
Their first goal was to ground first-generation gear.
Their second goal was do all the factory updates on earlier rigs.
Finally, they wanted to ensure that the hardest-working-gear-in-skydiving was properly maintained. They quickly learned that main canopies usually wore out (more than 1,000 jumps ) before they reached their 8 th birthday.
The factory saw a lot of harness/containers that were faded, frayed and filthy after 8 years in the California desert.
The factory rarely saw damaged reserve canopies. Strong sewed new reinforcing tapes across the tails of hundreds of first-generation tandem reserves, but eventually decided to ground the first-generation after 18 years. Newer Strong tandem reserve may stay in service for 22 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get that: A mfg imposes a "service life" on a rig they sold in 1994 and it appears the rigger is going to be legally correct in doing an I&R, but it could be argued the company wants to say the rigger shouldn't. Now, if you ask any mfg that has imposed one of these service life pronouncements on one of their rigs that is over 20 years old: "What do you mean by the term "service life"? You will get a bunch of garbled waffling, wordsmithing, and doublespeak. If they would put out a letter or statement in their manual that says: "Any assembly we have manufactured that exceeds 20 years is unsafe for use and no rigger should pack it."; I'd totally be cool with that. It would amount to issuing a Service Bulletin and would end this whole discussion. Every rigger would show the customer this letter/Service Bulletin and that would be the end of all discussions.
Why won't they do that? Would it be an admission of sorts, that their rigs are unsafe the day after 20years?
If they would make this pronouncement, that would be totally OK with me. Instead, they absolutely refuse to define the term, "Service Life" except in vague baloney wording. (See National's explanation of the term, for example). They are cowards, and more than willing to continue not to define the term. Think I'm kidding? Just ask one of them at PIA to explain what they mean by "Service Life". Get ready for words of obfuscation and
qualified opinion speak.

Dang it. Just say the 20+ rig is unsafe and shouldn't be packed: and that would end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

I get that: A mfg imposes a "service life" on a rig they sold in 1994 and it appears the rigger is going to be legally correct in doing an I&R, but it could be argued the company wants to say the rigger shouldn't. Now, if you ask any mfg that has imposed one of these service life pronouncements on one of their rigs that is over 20 years old: "What do you mean by the term "service life"? You will get a bunch of garbled waffling, wordsmithing, and doublespeak. If they would put out a letter or statement in their manual that says: "Any assembly we have manufactured that exceeds 20 years is unsafe for use and no rigger should pack it."; I'd totally be cool with that. It would amount to issuing a Service Bulletin and would end this whole discussion. Every rigger would show the customer this letter/Service Bulletin and that would be the end of all discussions.
Why won't they do that? Would it be an admission of sorts, that their rigs are unsafe the day after 20years?
If they would make this pronouncement, that would be totally OK with me. Instead, they absolutely refuse to define the term, "Service Life" except in vague baloney wording. (See National's explanation of the term, for example). They are cowards, and more than willing to continue not to define the term. Think I'm kidding? Just ask one of them at PIA to explain what they mean by "Service Life". Get ready for words of obfuscation and
qualified opinion speak.

Dang it. Just say the 20+ rig is unsafe and shouldn't be packed: and that would end it.



Not really. If it wasn't in the manual when the gear was manufactured and it's not due to a defect not known at the time of manufacture then I don't give a damn what they have to say about it. In that sense it wouldn't end anything. If the gear can legally be packed and used and it is airworthy then it is within my certificate privileges to inspect and pack it and I would if someone brought it to me. I don't care about some letter they wrote after the fact and wouldn't use that to refuse to inspect and pack airworthy gear.

I can sit in court and say I followed the manual provided by the manufacturer as well as all legal requirements. If I am in court due to something other than a mistake on my part and some letter from the manufacturer is brought up that says I can't pack their equipment after some artificial life has expired I can honestly answer that that letter carries no legal authority and I inspected the equipment and packed it in accordance with FAA regulation and the requirements of my certificate.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi mcordell,

Quote

If it wasn't in the manual when the gear was manufactured . . .



IMO it is not so much that it would need to be in the original manual, is that it would need to be submitted to the FAA as a part of the specifications that must be submitted during the TSO application process.

It is at that time ( IMO ) that the mfr has the opportunity to define a service life.

While the FAA does really define what the 'specifications' are, most of us would consider them the drawings for the component. It is also where the mfr has the opportunity to list his materials, general notes regarding whatever, etc, etc.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi mcordell,

Quote

If it wasn't in the manual when the gear was manufactured . . .



IMO it is not so much that it would need to be in the original manual, is that it would need to be submitted to the FAA as a part of the specifications that must be submitted during the TSO application process.

It is at that time ( IMO ) that the mfr has the opportunity to define a service life.

While the FAA does really define what the 'specifications' are, most of us would consider them the drawings for the component. It is also where the mfr has the opportunity to list his materials, general notes regarding whatever, etc, etc.

Jerry Baumchen



The only reason I say "in the manual when the gear was manufactured" is because of the certificate privileges which require me to pack in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. I figure if the original manual at the time of manufacture states it cannot be packed after 20 years then I would be bound by those instructions. I do not agree however that the manufacturer could later alter those instructions to include a service life because those then aren't the instructions for that piece of equipment.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

Your interpretation is correct about their ability to retro.
But, a Service Bulletin, "unsafe due to age" would end the whole question. I think they should put up or shut up.

A service bulletin would certainly carry more weight than changing the manual after the fact, but in order to deem the equipment unsafe they would have to specify a design problem that makes it unsafe. If they simply say due to degradation of materials they would really have to specify the testing requirements to return to service. I do not believe they can just issue a service bulletin stating "if the gear is 20 years old it's no good". If they could do that then manufacturers could just issue service bulletins any time orders are low and they need income.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0