Guest #1 March 20, 2015 Hello Riggers, Took my gear in for inspection after being away working overseas for the past 9 years. My rig was kept in a climate-controlled storage area (my home, then offsite). The CYPRES unit was a write-off, of course, but fortunately the batteries hadn't leaked. One of the riggers at my home DZ here in WA remarked that the Raven 2 reserve, though never used, should be replaced due to its age (25 years). The rigger told me that nobody knows how long the materials will hold up over the long term, and that static deterioration was a possibility. I asked the rigger whether there was any PIA guidance on this but he said he knew of none. So I'm asking for informed FACTS, not opinions, concerning this matter because if I'm going to spend $750 or more replacing the reserve I think I should know why and be assured that the rationale is accurate, and not based upon bias or speculation. Thanks! mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #2 March 20, 2015 It is difficult to keep opinions out, because of the uncertain knowledge about the nature of nylon and parachute aging. Some riggers don't like to pack old stuff at all, while some will. You can of course have a rigger do PD style 30 lb tensile tests on the reserve, to at least guard against any unusual strength loss for any reason. Nylon does degrade over time but very slowly, although it is worse if it stays hot. Although the data I have is sparse, I did post something in another thread on old gear: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4604089#4604089 That suggests only a couple percent a decade, but other factors might make it more in practice, who knows. As I've said before, one can jump a hard opening, 20 year old Sabre 1 all day, and unless it is really faded and worn, nobody expects to blow up all of a sudden. An older reserve might be considered perfectly acceptable for gear that is occasionally used. The Raven is not outdated in flight or landing characteristics, if wing loading is kept reasonably low. More frequent skydiving or more high speed skydiving might push a jumper towards spending the money for a more modern (spanwise reinforcement) reserve. Even if one thinks the reserve is ok at 25 years, what will be the plan at 30 or 35? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcordell 2 #3 March 20, 2015 The remark that a raven should be replaced because it is 25 years old is stupid. There are factors that play into degradation of a parachute such as how many deployments it has, how many repacks it has, the climate and other environmental factors it has been exposed to, etc. None of those are the age. If it really hasn't been deployed and it has been in climate controlled storage for 9 years then I'm sure it's fine, but having a rigger do a full inspection is the only way to tell. That is a rigger that isn't biased because of age. I have said before numerous times, I have gear older than that and I still jump it. 2 of my 3 reserves are 29 years old and the third is 20 years old this year. two of my mains are much newer because I prefer ZP for a main but I have zero concerns about my reserves. One of the 29 year old reserves and the 20 year old reserve are both raven I. If you are concerned you can also send the canopy to Precision and have them inspect it.www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sammielu 3 #4 March 20, 2015 I understand the need for an extra inspection for any old or otherwise uncertain gear. I also understand a rigger taking into account that if a full inspection is done in a case like this and the gear is deemed not airworthy, that makes for an unhappy customer with a bill to pay. Its a grey area and I completely understand any riggers wanting to stay out of that grey area. Riggers work hard, for very little money, and they have to operate within their ethical comfort level if they're going to put their number on lifesaving gear. Personally, all advice I've received from riggers has been saftey-conservative and I wouldn't change that - even when it's not what I want to hear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,910 #5 March 20, 2015 Find an older rigger. Or ask for a better reason. Your general feeling is correct. You did say the rigger says it "should" be replaced. Not that it "must" be replaced. It's only his/her personal opinion.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #6 March 20, 2015 Fact - PIA has taken no position on imposing or recommending a service life on gear and leave it up to the individual manufacturers to do as they choose. PIA had long discussions on recommending a service life but the majority realized life was based on condition not age. Fact - Some experienced riggers including at least one DPRE and at least one manufacturer believe the fabric tensile test in PIA TS-108 damages the parachute and won't do it (manuf. bans it). Many others don't agree. Fact - The new FAA parachute TSO (NOT the PIA document but the FAA TSO letter that references TS-135) requires some statement concerning service life in the manuals of newly TSO items under TSO C-23f. This is not defined and referencing a rigger's inspection may be enough or may not. Yet to be determined as items are submitted under f. Fact- Manufacturer's can impose a service life at time of sale. Later is still an area debated by some and considered settled by the FAA by others. Fact - Riggers have no way of testing threads and tapes in a parachute. Fact - Most riggers cannot test air permeability in the field. Fact - Many riggers impose their own limits on what they will service. The shortest I know is 15 years. It may have changed. Fact - No rigger is under any obligation to pack any particular equipment. Fact - Each owner is free to seek any rigger they chose. Fact/opinion- No one on here should give an opinion about the airworthiness of your reserve with out seeing it. And even then opinions may vary. Opinion - If a TSO'd component has been in constant use and is near 20 years old I start preparing the owner for the need to replace it. Reserves like yours, if kept in date, are showing wear from packing and are becoming questionable. I have reserves I have retired for piece of mind and 25 year old reserves I happily pack for myself and others. I'm sure you can find a rigger that will pack it. There are riggers that will pack well worn 1950's gear for use. Get used to this. I haven't met another rigger yet that I am in total agreement with.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #7 March 20, 2015 Hi Terry, QuoteFact- Manufacturer's can impose a service life at time of sale. You sure that you do not mean: Fact- Manufacturer's can impose a service life at time of initial certification. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytribe 16 #8 March 20, 2015 QuoteThe remark that a raven should be replaced because it is 25 years old is stupid I know the rigger in question and the reasons for not taking on the repack. The DZO has a policy of not wanting to service any equipment which is older than 25 years irrespective of condition. This is a policy that the rigger adheres to because he works at that loft and this is not uncommon for riggers or specific to this canopy. Its purely a liability issue. In fact, as I was there when the discussion took place. I do work for both the dropzone and myself - I undertook and inspection of the equipment and repacked the reserve and deemed it airworthy. The rigger in question I have no doubt about his abilities, experience or knowledge. However, if the design was something like an old 5 cell reserve (who's manufacturer no longer exists) or even an old round reserve, I to would have probably not packed it and advised the owner that there are better options out there irrespective of condition. (And yes, I do know how to pack round reserves and have packed 100 in the last 2 months alone - different discussion). I don't want to see people hurt themselves for the sake of a few dollars. In fact, I advised a friend recently who had a 28 year old reserve that it was getting to that time when he should consider a new more modern design. I believe his wife made the decision for him. I don't sell equipment either so I wasn't trying to make a new sale. I was told recently by some very knowledgeable representatives of a canopy manufacturer that the action of packing them over time is what leads to porosity changes. So a reserve that was repacked every cycle for 28 years would have significantly different porosity than a canopy which had been packed and left untouched in a temperature controlled environment. Again, peoples idea of a controlled environment are somewhat different and have implications. Repack cycles do have an issue. If they didn't then PD wouldn't be asking for porosity checks after 40 packs / 25 usages and they wouldn't need to recertify canopies or deem them unairworthy. I believe they do more research than any of the canopy manufacturers and do listen to what they say about equipment. So ultimately any rigger has a choice if they want to service older equipment. I wouldnt try to put down a rigger that doesn't want to take on the liability. As to equipment degredation I think the jury is out on this one, not enough testing to definatively say how much it does/doesnt degrade over time/conditions and hence the decision on airworthiness comes down to the individual rigger on whether they want to take on the liability of packing older equipment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcordell 2 #9 March 20, 2015 That wasn't a shot at the rigger in question, but rather at a statement that a 25 year old raven isn't airworthy for no reason other than age. I wasn't there for the conversation and haven't seen the reserve so I can't speak to it's condition. That being said, if the OP decides that it's not worth using, I'll happily give them $100 for their "unairworthy" reserve and the liability will be off the shoulders of that loft. I have no problem with my reserves based on age. And btw the one that's not a raven is a phantom from 1986. I trust that one too. There are reserves from the late 90s/early 2000s that I would never trust. I don't see a correlation between age and airworthiness.www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #10 March 21, 2015 I'll have to read the letter again but I thought.it said.or.implied that a manufacturer could add a service life to the manual for products.sold.going forward but not retroactively.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peek 20 #11 March 21, 2015 JerryBaumchenQuoteFact- Manufacturer's can impose a service life at time of sale. You sure that you do not mean: Fact- Manufacturer's can impose a service life at time of initial certification. Man, you guys sure are detail oriented sometimes! It keeps us all sharp. Yes, Jerry, I think you stated that more accurately, and I think Terry was talking about when the time period starts. I would think that it starts at the date of manufacture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #12 March 21, 2015 Hi Gary, Quote Man, you guys sure are detail oriented sometimes! It keeps us all sharp. And just think about all the time we can waste discussing it all over again in Daytona Beach. See you there, Jerry Baumchen PS) And just to be still detail oriented: I do believe it is at the time of certification, i.e., when the product is submitted for TSO-authorization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #13 March 21, 2015 See attached letter Ottinger got when he asked. Think I win. Manf. can impose a regulatory service life asking for a AWD. Of course FAA has refused to issue AWD's on parachute for decades (last 1988? too hard to look up on phone.) So maybe not. I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
megamalfunction 1 #14 March 21, 2015 Pack it in a rental rig and take it up for a test jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baksteen 84 #15 March 21, 2015 pchapmanAn older reserve might be considered perfectly acceptable for gear that is occasionally used. General comment, and perhaps slightly off-topic: I have difficulties with 'you'll be okay if you only use it occasionally' - which I've heard in several contexts from several people for widely varying scenarios. Specific to this case, a high speed deployment could still occur on one of those infrequent usages."That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport." ~mom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skez 0 #16 March 21, 2015 long live the super ravens!!! haha and i love how ppl get scared of them when they get that old it means i usually get them for next to nothing for either a reserve or even shenanigans ,water base etc... FTMC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #17 March 21, 2015 Hi Terry, QuoteThink I win. I disagree. It does show the procedure to establish a service life; which will not happen. I printed it out & will bring it with me, Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #18 March 21, 2015 Ah but more than one FAA official has said in recent.years they would issue a parachute AD. We'll know when it happens.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #19 March 21, 2015 .... I have no problem with my reserves based on age. And btw the one ... is a phantom from 1986. I trust that .... ......................................................................................... You are braver than I. I refuse to repack any round reserves built during the acid-mesh era. A - Because 25 years of bromocreasol and tensile-testing has damaged the fabric. B - Because no young jumper knows how to land a round canopy. Most have never seen a round canopy in the air and it is increasingly difficult to find an instructor who has jumped rounds. For example, I did 70 jumps on round canopies back during the 1970s, but my last "round" jump was in 1986 ... almost 30 years ago! Because of accumulated injuries, I will never jump a round again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #20 March 21, 2015 The civilian method for grounding canopies requires cutting of the (orange data panel. Many riggers also cut off the lines to ensure that no-one ever jumps it again. The Canadian Armed Forces ground old canopies by rigger-rolling them, the band-sawing them at least 3 times. That is standard military practice for scrapping weapons, vehicles, etc. The Canadian gov't fears that some silly civilian will injure themselves jumping an old military parachute, then try to sue for damages. In the long run, band saws are cheaper than lawyers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcordell 2 #21 March 21, 2015 riggerrob.... I have no problem with my reserves based on age. And btw the one ... is a phantom from 1986. I trust that .... ......................................................................................... You are braver than I. I refuse to repack any round reserves built during the acid-mesh era. A - Because 25 years of bromocreasol and tensile-testing has damaged the fabric. B - Because no young jumper knows how to land a round canopy. Most have never seen a round canopy in the air and it is increasingly difficult to find an instructor who has jumped rounds. For example, I did 70 jumps on round canopies back during the 1970s, but my last "round" jump was in 1986 ... almost 30 years ago! Because of accumulated injuries, I will never jump a round again. That would be a valid point except there is no requirement to continue to test it once it is certified acid free which this was and the Kevlar reinforcement sbca was done so one acid test, Kevlar added, one required pull test.....it's good to go.www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keithbar 1 #22 March 22, 2015 markharjuHello Riggers, One of the riggers at my home DZ here in WA remarked that the Raven 2 reserve, though never used, should be replaced due to its age (25 years). I asked the rigger whether there was any PIA guidance on this but he said he knew of none. 25 years that's what Dom of 1990 I have the exact same reserved Dom 1988 I trusted it 3 times today I've got no problem with it its lived its entire life packed inside of the container never been deployed So I'm asking for informed FACTS, not opinions, concerning this matter because if I'm going to spend $750 or more replacing the reserve I think I should know why and be assured that the rationale is accurate, and not based upon bias or speculation. Thanks! mh .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 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mcordell 2 #23 March 22, 2015 mcordell***.... I have no problem with my reserves based on age. And btw the one ... is a phantom from 1986. I trust that .... ......................................................................................... You are braver than I. I refuse to repack any round reserves built during the acid-mesh era. A - Because 25 years of bromocreasol and tensile-testing has damaged the fabric. B - Because no young jumper knows how to land a round canopy. Most have never seen a round canopy in the air and it is increasingly difficult to find an instructor who has jumped rounds. For example, I did 70 jumps on round canopies back during the 1970s, but my last "round" jump was in 1986 ... almost 30 years ago! Because of accumulated injuries, I will never jump a round again. That would be a valid point except there is no requirement to continue to test it once it is certified acid free which this was and the Kevlar reinforcement sb was done so one acid test, Kevlar added, one required pull test.....it's good to go. Ok so somehow that got all messed up. fixed itwww.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #24 March 22, 2015 Quote Fact - Some experienced riggers including at least one DPRE and at least one manufacturer believe the fabric tensile test in PIA TS-108 damages the parachute and won't do it (manuf. bans it). Many others don't agree. Terry, If you are going to post something as fact, please don't quote your opinions. ...i.e, "Many others don't agree and the word "believe" in the earlier sentence. I do not believe, but know that it damages the fabric. TS-108, as bad as it is, even states that earlier tests will effect permeability. What it does not mention is the fact that it can also weaken the fabric. On the other side of the coin is this. I will not pack canopies that have been pull tested more than 1-2 times from any other rigger or canopy manufacturer. Lucky for us, the new FAA person that is now overseeing skydiving is also a certified Non-Destructive Testing person like myself. Remind me to bring this up in the PIA meeting with him. MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
councilman24 36 #25 March 22, 2015 The fact is you believe (substitute know if you'd like) it and others don't. I didn't state my opinion.I'm old for my age. Terry Urban D-8631 FAA DPRE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
