Retirement of Old, Unused Reserve?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

The fact is you believe (substitute know if you'd like) it and others don't. I didn't state my opinion.

Terry,
When you say "many" (without documented proof of a tested study), it is an opinion.

Also, "many " is a vague number/statement compared to some unknown comparison.


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[councilman24 36]

masterrigger1

Quote

The fact is you believe (substitute know if you'd like) it and others don't. I didn't state my opinion.

Terry,
When you say "many" (without documented proof of a tested study), it is an opinion.

Also, "many " is a vague number/statement compared to some unknown comparison.


MEL

So you argue the adjective? I've talked to enough "know" it is not a few, not several, I considered most but that would be an opinion so settled on many. I stand by many based on personal observation of PIA committees and others. And still haven't voiced my opinion.

See you in FL.

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

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

So you argue the adjective? Crazy

...of course!

Quote

And still haven't voiced my opinion.

Still the same Terry I've always known................

Anyway, the first beer is on me. See you Thursday I guess.

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[Guest]

mcordell

If you are concerned you can also send the canopy to Precision and have them inspect it.

That's a very good suggestion. Thanks!

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

councilman24

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.

Many thanks for your remarks.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

skytribe

Quote

The 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.

Your remarks are valid.

It wasn't a snipe at the rigger. His rationale was made clear, and your remarks support this. I'm very glad you agreed to put your chop on the repack, and I sincerely thank you.

I'm just trying to get more information about the industry rationale for older parachutes. As you can see from the discussion, consensus appears to be that due to so many wildly varying factors, retirement age for parachutes isn't something which can be easily nailed down, and it seems to be a judgment call based upon experience.

Furthermore, if I have annoyed anyone, I regret it, and sincerely apologize.

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[mcordell 2]

Quote

if I have annoyed anyone, I regret it, and sincerely apologize.

I really don't think that's the case at all. The whole retirement of a canopy due to age thing is an ongoing debate between people. Many new riggers refuse to pack anything older than 20 years because that's what they have been taught but when asked to support that position they have very weak reasoning or fall back on the fact they have the right to refuse to pack anything they don't want to pack. That is a valid reason not to pack a parachute, but I hate that a lot of riggers seem to think as soon as a parachute is 20 years old it's suddenly dangerous. They will pack it at 19.5 years and be comfortable with it but 6 months later it is unairworthy and will kill you and your family while you sleep.

There is at least one master rigger and DPRE that I know of that agrees with me that the 20 year thing is BS. I can go to an old DZ and find a closet full of mantas that have been packed and jumped well over 1000 times as student canopies yet they are still airworthy. They may not be the best landing parachutes out there but they won't explode on a terminal deployment, yet somehow if I have a raven that is 20 years old and has been maintained according to the old 4 month and new 6 month cycle but NEVER deployed, the packjobs alone make it too porous to be airworthy. If that same raven were an F-111 main that had been packed 50-60 times but never jumped it would be considered brand new. The argument to that seems to be that it's your "last chance" and so it is different from a main. I have no problem with certifying a reserve with 60 pack jobs as being airworthy as long as I inspect it fully which is no different than what I would do with a brand new one from the factory.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[mark 102]

mcordell

If I have a raven that is 20 years old and has been maintained according to the old 4 month and new 6 month cycle but NEVER deployed, the packjobs alone make it too porous to be airworthy. If that same raven were an F-111 main that had been packed 50-60 times but never jumped it would be considered brand new.

When Optimums first came out and were on tour, I demoed a 143. IIRC, it had about 200 jumps on it. Nice opening and landing.

Mark

[mcordell 2]

mark

***If I have a raven that is 20 years old and has been maintained according to the old 4 month and new 6 month cycle but NEVER deployed, the packjobs alone make it too porous to be airworthy. If that same raven were an F-111 main that had been packed 50-60 times but never jumped it would be considered brand new.

When Optimums first came out and were on tour, I demoed a 143. IIRC, it had about 200 jumps on it. Nice opening and landing.

Mark

Exactly! and there are plenty of super ravens out there that were used as student canopies and jumped over and over until they were as porous as a paper towel. I personally jumped one that had to have had over 1500 jumps on it. Landed off the dz due to a bad spot and stood it up in between two rows of trees. I wouldn't pack THAT one as a reserve but they most certainly aren't safe as mains but will explode if packed in the top half of the container. Yes reserves open with more opening shock due to the packing method but clearly they work just fine if they aren't bagged out student canopies

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[skytribe 16]

I don't necessarily buy into the whole we jump mains with x number of jumps so reserves should be fine.

Some manufacturers put limits on the gear for repacks and activations and want to check them at that point. The swoopers who land in the water and further contaminate them. Do you guys really expect me to believe that PD (the largest manufacturer and parachute company that does probably the most testing) simply pulls figures out of there ass and when canopies get sent back and some they deem them unairworthy because of failed porosity amongst other things that the rigger in the field is a better judge of airworthiness. Would you pack a PD canopy which they had deemed unairworthy ? Or do you consider AAD ok to use after the manufacturer life'ng just because they turn on and appear to checkout ok ?

I've jump ragged out F111 canopies and they opened - maybe a bit of a snivel at terminal which made things comfortable however is that what I really want for a subterminal chop reserve canopies. The original point was on old "unused" reserves.

Age alone is not a reason for unairworthiness but we know degradation happens with age - do we know to what extent and have good ways to determine this. I think this is where there is a lack of good solid information. There are many factors such as the materials involved, contact with each other, external environment factors (temp, humidity etc) and there are many examples in skydiving of age related changes occurring ( rubber/brass grommets, acid mesh, safety stow, oxidation on hardware, zp sticking to itself when left packed for long periods of time, coatings on material such as freebags, electronic degradation). As well as general improvement in designs on some of the more modern equipment.

Example - Do we know if these coatings used on equipment are causing any increased degradation ? My opinion is that there is not enough study to determine the true extent and perhaps as this issue keeps coming up over and over again - PIA should undertake some more in depth study/testing to better provide solid information. I can do my due diligence as a rigger, comply with legal aspects and advise my customers.

The response is not a finger pointing exercise but merely pointing out that riggers are in a area where there is a lack of solid information and all make decisions that they may have to justify if something should happen on the equipment that they service. Having more solid information would benefit manufacturers in establishing limits, riggers in servicing equipment and jumpers in making decisions on equipment.

[mcordell 2]

My point with the main/reserve argument is that an old reserve which has been packed 50 or 60 times is not unairworthy simply because of the pack jobs. There could be other factors, but the idea that 40 packjobs is that hard on an F-111 canopy is ludicrous.

I also often see the argument that "PD must have a good reason for the 40 repack inspection" used as an argument to prove that the packjobs alone have a significant effect on the canopy and old canopies can't be trusted. I have had a conversations with manufacturers (not pd) and one DPRE who has been very involved in PIA about this issue. It has been explained to me more than once that there is a motive behind the 40 repack inspection that isn't because they have your best interest at heart. Money is a driving factor behind a lot of things. I would be curious to know what the difference in porosity is between a brand new canopy and that same canopy after 40 repacks.

There have been requests for a 20 year life to be imposed by the FAA. At least one of those requests was by a manufacturer. That manufacturer was asked if they had data to support the 20 year life. Requiring inspections after 40 repacks seems to be a good way to collect data doesn't it? If that data is then ultimately intended to justify implementing an across the board 20 year life on certificated parachutes then don't manufacturers stand to make more money through obsolescence? That may all be bullshit and it may be rhetoric from someone who simply disagrees with the requirement to send the canopy back after x number of repacks but it has been explained that way to me by a manufacturer and a DPRE and if that's the case then people are drinking the Kool-Aid under the guise that it's because the manufacturer cares so much about jumpers. If it's not then I guess I drank the Kool-Aid of people who disagree with that manufacturer's business practices. I guess people just have to decide for themselves.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[Guest]

Interesting views.

It's also possible that the vendors can come up with their own policy and get it accepted as an industry standard. If they get FAA buyoff, they will be covered with respect to liability from this angle; e.g., if a canopy does blow up, they can always say "we told you so", but that kind of lawfare works both ways. I don't know enough about the industry or about rigging practices to make any kind of qualified statement, but if you think about it, canopy failure which cannot be attributed to other factors such as aging and repack cycles could end up as defective manufacturing...just sayin'...

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[skytribe 16]

mcordell

.
I also often see the argument that "PD must have a good reason for the 40 repack inspection" used as an argument to prove that the packjobs alone have a significant effect on the canopy and old canopies can't be trusted. I have had a conversations with manufacturers (not pd) and one DPRE who has been very involved in PIA about this issue. It has been explained to me more than once that there is a motive behind the 40 repack inspection that isn't because they have your best interest at heart. Money is a driving factor behind a lot of things. I would be curious to know what the difference in porosity is between a brand new canopy and that same canopy after 40 repacks.

I spoke with one of top engineers at PD and a couple of Master riggers/DPRE's last month about his and was told quite clearly that the handling of reserve canopies did make a significant difference in the porosity of the canopies. The fact that PD wants to collect this data after repacks and has the equipment to do thorough testing etc. and yet some riggers don't mark the data panel as per manufacturer instruction and hence skew any results on the only permanent record with the canopy annoys me. (Again different argument).

So lets give credit to PD for actually doing something to get hard data and not just trying to set a time limit. Many that have sent canopies for recertification have received positive results - whether 5,10,20 more pack jobs, others have been deemed unacceptable and un-airworthy. That should tell you that there is variance in the results due to many factors. Its not a slam dunk 20 years and your done.

Other manufacturers have recertification schedules so it is not PD alone.

40 repacks (not even jumps) may be an acceptable loss in performance for a main but unacceptable for a reserve. Its the manufacturers who ultimately may establish the acceptable limits. Once again your establishing that loss being ludicrous based upon your limited personal experience and that is a valid opinion. PD may be basing it more on real world data from a much larger sample set. (I don't work for or sell PD equipment and have gear from a variety of manufacturers). Its not about the Kool-Aid. Its about the lack of strong data to support or disprove any argument on aging leaving riggers/jumpers in a grey area and advise being more opinion based than scientific hard data.


Example of what is legal, acceptable and desirable. The number of patches on a reserve canopy. The number a master rigger can put on there may be legal, the manufacturer may not particularly like this but deem it acceptable but how many jumpers want a reserve with patches all over it - even though it may be perfectly airworthy. Can I put a patch on a reserve legally ? Yes !!!, am I going to do that and take on that liability, probably Not !!!. On a main - completely different story.

[mcordell 2]

But collecting permeability data for what purpose? According to the info I was given it was to try to justify changes to FAA regulation to make 20 years the mandatory limit on all certificated canopies. If that is why they are collecting the data then I think it's bullshit. If they want to limit their own gear that's fine but if they are gathering information to justify forcing others to limit their gear then I can't agree with that and won't give props to PD for trying to force it on the industry.

If that's not why they are gathering the data then I apologize for helping to spread that rumor. Obviously I only know what has been relayed to me by people in the industry.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[skytribe 16]

Quote

But collecting permeability data for what purpose?

Perhaps to better understand the degradation of reserve parachutes over time....

But if the data leads to that conclusion and it can be justified amongst others in the industry then wouldn't that provide a definitive answer and avoid the grey area for riggers/jumpers.

The AAD manufacturers don't seem to have any problem with placing life limits on there units and people seemed to willingly accept replacing them even though the unit was functioning correctly. One day its legal and the next day its trash....

[mcordell 2]

apples to oranges in my opinion. Electrical components and fabric or far from the same thing. That being said I do have an issue with cypres for that very reason. People buy vigils in some cases because they disagree with cypres killing of the AAD after 12 years plus requiring maintenance every 4 but then they buy a PDR and think nothing of it when there are numerous other reserve manufacturers that don't impose a limit. Do you really believe PD just cares that much more than other companies about your well-being? How many other manufacturers have had reserves just blow apart because they had been repacked too many times? Is the issue that more repacks will cause the performance to be affected more than the airworthiness? If that's the case isn't that a decision I should be able to make for myself? I jump ravens in my containers but that's my person preference. I know how my gear is maintained since I do it all myself and I don't need a parachute that times out. For gear that is swapped around and sold without a full history it makes more sense, but even then a rigger can tell if it is airworthy. If it lands a little harder because it is more porous then get a different one but it will still save your life. They are, after all, emergency parachutes.

I am all for people buying whatever they want. They just aren't for me!

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[skytribe 16]

Sure, electrical and fabric are different things but people are used to buying something that has a finite limit. The fact that the unit does its self checks isn't enough and the manufacturer sets limits. AAD's are not even certified components.....

I don't buy into the PD are doing these porosity tests for nefarious reasons and trying to sell more canopies. I truly believe that the goal is to get data so that more educated decisions can be made rather than just visual inspection and heresay. I applaud this rather than opinion and anecdotal evidence. PD don't care more than other manufacturers but do more testing than any other and that requires data. They have more canopies out in the field, a long track record and appear to be collecting a decent amount of data. The other manufacturers don't appear to be pursuing this data.

The fact that they are finding a variety of gear in various states - some they recertify other they don't should indicate that a blanket 20 year life is not justified. Porosity/Performance - you look at this as just a landing but perhaps its more than that and they are concerned about it meeting any of the performance criteria such as openings not just landings. So again before just likening it to just porosity effecting landing performance it might be better to get the info on what limits PD establish and why they are set at this level.

I don't see this as a reserves blowing up argument. If that was occurring with any degree of regularity I think you would see a SB or AD issued by manufacturer or FAA.

Everyone has choices - if you don't like the limits established by a manufacturer then don't buy that gear. Whether its PD, Aerodyne, Strong or any of the other manufacturers who have recertification testing. Even if you had a PD reserve that they deemed un-airworthy because of failed porosity - you could still deem it airworthy and pack it based upon your assessment. Would you do this ?

[pchapman 261]

skytribe

Quote

But collecting permeability data for what purpose?

Perhaps to better understand the degradation of reserve parachutes over time....

To add to that:
After collecting permeability stats, one would have to do drop tests or live jump tests to see how much the openings might differ from similar jumps done with new reserves.

Work can be done with canopies given a certain number of jumps, vs. canopies given a certain number of pack jobs. If there is some consistent similarity, then information from demo reserves might be a guide to how a reserve might age, in terms of opening characteristics.

I would expect PD to have at least some data on that sort of thing, even if they haven't exactly replicated TSO drop tests with aged reserves. (200+ mph drops of 250+ lb dummies don't usually come cheap).

I vaguely recall someone claiming older reserves (ie, many pack jobs or demo jumps?) not opening as quickly, but that's anecdotal. Of course at some point increased permeability will affect things, but the question is when.

Packing, permeability, and reserve opening characteristics could be a topic for another thread some day, if anyone has some data.

[mcordell 2]

skytribe

Even if you had a PD reserve that they deemed un-airworthy because of failed porosity - you could still deem it airworthy and pack it based upon your assessment. Would you do this ?

If it were legal for me to do so under my ticket then it's possible. Depends on the individual canopy.

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[fcajump 153]

(directed in general, not specific to pchapman)

I believe that I recall that PD is not expecting to find that reserves would blowup on opening. Rather their position was that after a certain amount of handling/packing a canopy's porosity could degrade such that the speed of opening (and other criteria?) would exceed an (their) acceptable performance level. Its not just a question of whether it handles a high-speed/heavily loaded deployment, but also whether or not it can do so, reliably when the ground it way too close and you have no airspeed.

The fundamental question in my mind (despite the many opinions have been expressed) is this...

Is the TSO standard intended to be a standard to which the product will perform when NEW such that it will still perform at an acceptable level over its life, OR is the TSO standard intended to be the performance level to which the product must perform in order to continue to be used??

AS A CONSUMER of this product (reserve/emergency system), it is my desire that AT ANYTIME my system will perform to (or exceed) those standards. I also know that over time handling will degrade its opening time/altitude-loss. SO, it it my opinion that, yes reserves should retired at some point way before we're talking about structural failure issues.

As a rigger, this still sticks in my mind. So, it is my choice to go conservative with what I will work on for others. Mfg _recommendations_ will be followed and I choose to limit the age of systems I will service for others.

As long as you guys keep saying '...well, that's what I've got a reserve for...' I'll keep insisting that the reserve be all it can be... 'good enough', ain't good enough.

JW

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

[mcordell 2]

I can respect that reasoning and you raise some valid points

www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

[pchapman 261]

For what it's worth, I started a new Gear & Rigging thread on the whole permeability issue, looking for any data that anyone might have.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view&post=4716155#last

[fcajump 153]

masterrigger1

Quote

So you argue the adjective? Crazy

...of course!

***
And still haven't voiced my opinion.

Still the same Terry I've always known................

Anyway, the first beer is on me. See you Thursday I guess.

MEL


(for the newer members of the forum... these two and Jerry EACH probably have packed more reserves than you will likely ever make jumps... and while they will quibble/disagree over the exact interpretation of the rules, or even the definition of the word 'is', I would trust any of the three with my reserve and hold their different opinions in high regard. so, sit back, enjoy the tennis match and consider what each of these experts have to say... much to learn here even for the things that aren't 'settled'...)


JW

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

[skytribe 16]

I actually enjoy debating stuff with other riggers, it often allows us to see different viewpoints and may even allow us to change our position on things.

Even DPRE's learn new things from younger riggers. On my recent rigger course I'd pointed a DPRE to an FAA document which clarified an argument and changed his position on something. I'd been studying hard on the regulations and watching discussions here.

The discussion here often open up items which we may not see in our own little worlds but allows us to debate openly with our peers and gain knowledge and insight.

[fcajump 153]

Agreed. Did not mean to stifle anyone's contributions.
Just enjoying listening to the discussion.
JW

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