0
NovaTTT

FAA Letter re Mfgrs Service Life

Recommended Posts

Good Friday morning.

On 08/21/2012 the FAA issued a letter to Randy Ottinger clarifying their position on the applicability of manufacturers limiting the service life of TSO'd parachute equipment.

The letter appears to state that without a Service Bulletin, and possibly an AD, a manufacturer cannot retroactively apply service life. The burden is clearly put on the rigger to determine, at 180 day intervals, the serviceability of the TSO'd equipment.

Anyone have a full copy of that letter? The copy I have (attached) was poorly scanned and is incomplete.

Cheers!
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NovaTTT

On 08/21/2012 the FAA issued a letter to Randy Ottinger clarifying their position on the applicability of manufacturers limiting the service life of TSO'd parachute equipment. Anyone have a full copy of that letter? The copy I have (attached) was poorly scanned and is incomplete.



Attached. This is all I have and I think all that was issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can wave this letter over a smoldering crater to prove that the deceased was dead rights to law.

There are legal limits and practical limits.

Practical experience tells (brighter) manufacturers the service life of their parachutes.
We have discussed parachute service lives repeatedly on these forums.
I can provide a dozen examples from memory.

Yes, a few closet queens are still airworthy after 20 years, but manuals are difficult to find for them and most riggers that do have dusty old photo-copies of the manuals do not want to bother with gear that old.
For example, I wish that all the round reserves sewn during the acid mesh era would quietly slink off to museums because I no longer have the tools or the desire to tensile-test them for the umpteenth time.

Bottom line, most parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.

There are legal limits and practical limits.
My recent experiences with lawyers proves that they can slice the law so finely that the original author can not recognize it!
The average pilot cannot even read the Canadian Air Regulations!
For example, a lawyer representing Transport Canada recently (2015 January 26) said in court (Superior court of British Columbia) that "Mr. X's maintenance plan is okay ..." despite the fact that the maintenance plan did not vaguely resemble instructions (manuals, Service bulletins, special inspections, etc.) published by: Beechcraft, Pratt & Whitney of Canada, Hamilton Sunstrand, Transport Canada or the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. X's maintenance program also failed the practical test by falling out of the sky!

so go wave your fancy letter over a smoldering crater ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bottom line, some parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.



Fixed it for you;)

My 3 PD reserves are all over 20 years old and still in perfect condition. I had a ride on one just last summer and it performed flawlessly. I have no intention of retiring them anytime soon.
Onward and Upward!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Age is a "MOOT" point. Back in the day (early 60's) we were jumping 28' C-9's mfged. in the early 50's!! Have jumped several old '51 "Fashion Frocks" mains!! 'Thing is when they were mfged, they were put into these hermetically sealed bags and when we tore them open it was like "Day one!! And' they were already at least 10 years old!! 'Thing is, if you keep a canopy in a "Climate controlled enviornment!!!!" it ain't gonna age much!! When I worked on the ACES II Ejection seat program they extended the "Service life" of the B-1B Parachutes to 10 years over the usual 7 because it helped get one more repack cycle because of the 3 year cycle for the reefing line cutter replacement "AND" the seats were "Climate Controlled in the cockpits!!!!! Go Figure!! Flat out "Knowing" the "History" of "THAT" parachute is the only way to gauge how far to push it!!!
'Remember a bunch of years ago some jumpers found some really old packed parachutes and "Drop tested" them!! Think they were packed for 20+ years (??) anyway, "They worked!!"
SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your making Rob's point The stuff your talking about was only 10 years old!. In the 60's But I recently was asked to pack 2 2001 Strong seat rigs with 1953 C9's. Sixty two year old parachutes! Someone had packed them when they were 54. :S They are closer in years to the first intentional freefall in 1918 by Leslie Irvin than they are to today!

They might have been actually have been airworthy but they were stained, smelly and tired. While I could pull test them I can't pull test every inch. I can't pull test the thread or every seam. When I started in 1980 they would have been 27, not so bad. But we've both gotten older.[:/] Riggers can ask themselves would I sew a patch with a dusty, stained 60 year old roll of thread? If the answer is no why would you pack a parachute that old? If the answer is yes I'll give them your name. (Actually the current owner got them with an airplane and is more than happy to replace them.)

I don't quite agree with Rob. In the last 20 years there hasn't been that much advance in reserve/emergency canopies or container design (other than style, ignoring MARD's for this discussion PLEASE). And while a manual for a 1980 GQ Security 150 might be hard to find (not really) and a bad copy the manual for a 1995 Softie or Preserve I hasn't much changed. I'm as much concerned about design as I am age. In 1990 we had Safety Flyers, X210R's, Tricon's, Sac's, unreefed lopo's, 5 cell swifts, etc. Along with original Kevlar lines that liked to break, acid mesh (it wasn't only the mesh!). I pretty much won't pack any of those. I've got lots of gear older than 20 years that I jump and a pilot rigs that old that I'll pack. But I also have grounded three year old rigs that had faded from hot pink to white.

We all get to pack what we want. And it's real tough to go to court and explain why you packed something the manufacturer said you shouldn't. Doesn't matter if it makes sense. Suing AirTec because the loop wasn't through the cutter didn't make sense either.

It doesn't help that the FAA won't issue an AD for a parachute anymore. Haven't since the 1999 RW amp fitting AD. They have said in the past parachutes weren't an aircraft appliance so AD's couldn't be issued, even when manuf. wanted them. Today we wouldn't have grounding AD's for acid mesh canopies. Lately some FAA officials have said they didn't see why they wouldn't issue an AD for a parachute. But I'll believe it when it happens.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

...it's real tough to go to court and explain why you packed something the manufacturer said you shouldn't. Doesn't matter if it makes sense.



While I might choose to do differently on my own gear (within what's legal), THIS is a strong point when I'm dealing with customer gear.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

You can wave this letter over a smoldering crater to prove that the deceased was dead rights to law.

There are legal limits and practical limits.

Practical experience tells (brighter) manufacturers the service life of their parachutes.
We have discussed parachute service lives repeatedly on these forums.
I can provide a dozen examples from memory.

Yes, a few closet queens are still airworthy after 20 years, but manuals are difficult to find for them and most riggers that do have dusty old photo-copies of the manuals do not want to bother with gear that old.
For example, I wish that all the round reserves sewn during the acid mesh era would quietly slink off to museums because I no longer have the tools or the desire to tensile-test them for the umpteenth time.

Bottom line, most parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.



Out of curiosity, are you aware of any modern reserve failures that were attributed to age?

Also, are you aware of any manufacturers that have gone through the process of seeking an AD to ground old reserves?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question it self is a little contradictory. By definition any reserve suffering from age would not be a modern reserve.

It's also a little hard to define a problem as strictly age related. In theory it would have to sit hermetically sealed in a plastic bag for twenty years to give a good test based strictly on age and their just are not that many canopies like that laying around.

I've seen older reserves fail where their was not a clearly defined source of damage. An old safety star comes to mind. I watched Wag pop it and rip the thing from nose to tail. The fabric was bad, their was kind of a musty smell but no sign of discoloration or contamination. I've seen old military reserves fail pull test, generally on the out side gore that is constantly on the outside of the pack job.

As to AD's. how about the bad finishing process on the old military reserves? It was related to a change in the manufacturing but it was some thing that showed up over an extended period of time. The fabric was perfectly good so I can't call it defective. They gave good service but they just deteriorated over time and now sixty years later are about as strong as tissue paper.

Lee
Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

***You can wave this letter over a smoldering crater to prove that the deceased was dead rights to law.

There are legal limits and practical limits.

Practical experience tells (brighter) manufacturers the service life of their parachutes.
We have discussed parachute service lives repeatedly on these forums.
I can provide a dozen examples from memory.

Yes, a few closet queens are still airworthy after 20 years, but manuals are difficult to find for them and most riggers that do have dusty old photo-copies of the manuals do not want to bother with gear that old.
For example, I wish that all the round reserves sewn during the acid mesh era would quietly slink off to museums because I no longer have the tools or the desire to tensile-test them for the umpteenth time.

Bottom line, most parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.



Out of curiosity, are you aware of any modern reserve failures that were attributed to age?

Also, are you aware of any manufacturers that have gone through the process of seeking an AD to ground old reserves?

Reserve AD, although it's a bit old :)
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/E2298A242C935A4286256A39004DEA58?OpenDocument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riggerlee,

I suspect that you are referring to the problem with titanium dioxide. It was applied to a batch of military canopies (USN conicals?) made back during the 1950s. Titanium dioxide was originally intended as a "de-lustrant" ... er ... camouflage, but if exposed to sunlight, it soon weakened the canopy fabric.
The last time (circa 2000) I saw one of those canopies, my inspection stopped at the data panel and I refused to have anything more to do with it.
See Poynter's manual for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SStewart

Quote

Bottom line, some parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.



Fixed it for you;)

My 3 PD reserves are all over 20 years old and still in perfect condition. I had a ride on one just last summer and it performed flawlessly. I have no intention of retiring them anytime soon.


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

Perhaps I should have said: most school harness/containers are worn out after 20 years ... and a few reserve canopies are worn out after 20 years.

My personal reserve fits that later description. It is an Amigo 172, sewn in 1994.It has only been deployed twice and has one small patch on the tail. I realize that the re-sale value is close to zero, so I will probably keep it in service for 30 years.
OTOH Most tandem and student harness/containers are worn out after 12 to 18 years in service. Strong Enterprises insists on factory inspections of all their tandem gear after: 8, 13 and 18 years in service. Dual Hawks are grounded after 18 years and the older reserves are also grounded, but newer SE reserves can stay in service for more than 20 years.
While SE's guidleines are not binding on tandem gear from other manufacturers, I have told more than one DZO "Don't waste your time mailing that 13-year-old Vector Tandem, because I am tired of sewing patches on it!"

In other news, I had a few revelations on Sunday. I had been asked to resurrect a pair of closet-queens. One was a 1994-vintage Javelin with soft release housings. When I showed a soft release housing to a keen, young, local rigger, he mistook it for an RSL. I devoted the next 5 minutes to explaining the problems with soft housings and how I had refitted a hundred Talons (Hint: I worked at the Talon factory back in the mid-1990s) and dozens of Javelins. I concluded by grumbling about how I could not find the hard-housing retro-fit instructions on-line.

Then I pointed to the (Javelin) main loop anchor and asked him: "What is wrong with this picture?"
Blank stare ....
So I devoted another 5 minutes to explaining how I was working in the Perris loft the day Dr. James Martin thundered in a half-mile away.

While inspecting the Javelin's reserve risers, I finally understood why they issued that confusing letter (a decade or so ago) stating that only FAA Master Riggers were allowed to remove RSLs from Javelins.
Yes, was familiar with the problem of exposed (RSL) hook Velcro chewing on the other reserve riser. I have even had to replace risers on a couple of harnesses, because of excessive chewing.
Sadly, by the time the letter got past Sun Path's legal department, all mention of hiding exposed hook Velcro was deleted and all we heard was some vague legal mumbo-jumbo limiting who was allowed to remove RSLs from Javelins.
This reminds me of a couple of FAA TSO-C23 updates that were mangled beyond recognition by FAA lawyers and refused by the PIA committee that originally wrote the update.

Finally, I showed the young, local rigger the chest reserve that I was assembling for a nostalgia rig. He made a flippant comment about "... so you repacked this a hundred times to earn your Master Rigger rating? Hah! Hah!"
I replied: "Despite earning my rigger rating back in 1984, I have only packed 60 chest reserves. However, I have repacked more than 300 seat-packs." ... more than 4,000 total ...

In conclusion, the most dangerous thing about closet-queens is that young riggers never learned their dangers and cannot find instructions on the inter-web.

Grumpy, old, grey-bearded master rigger wandering off muttering to himself ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did a hard housing update on a javelin earlier this year. I couldn't find the instructions either but I got a hold of Sunpath and they provided me with instructions (which took them a while to find) so I could get the job done. They also provided me with a new cutaway cable due to the existing one being timed improperly. They seemed to have decent customer service.
www.facebook.com/FlintHillsRigging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

The question it self is a little contradictory. By definition any reserve suffering from age would not be a modern reserve.

It's also a little hard to define a problem as strictly age related. In theory it would have to sit hermetically sealed in a plastic bag for twenty years to give a good test based strictly on age and their just are not that many canopies like that laying around.

I've seen older reserves fail where their was not a clearly defined source of damage. An old safety star comes to mind. I watched Wag pop it and rip the thing from nose to tail. The fabric was bad, their was kind of a musty smell but no sign of discoloration or contamination. I've seen old military reserves fail pull test, generally on the out side gore that is constantly on the outside of the pack job.

As to AD's. how about the bad finishing process on the old military reserves? It was related to a change in the manufacturing but it was some thing that showed up over an extended period of time. The fabric was perfectly good so I can't call it defective. They gave good service but they just deteriorated over time and now sixty years later are about as strong as tissue paper.

Lee



It's not contradictory. A 20 year old PD reserve (which mine will be in a couple years) is a modern reserve, yet according to some it will "suffer from age" the day it turns 20.

Without respect to your comment on military reserves, my question pertains specifically to the topic across the industry. Specifically, I'm asking if there are any manufacturers of reserves that have been and are "timing out" today that have gone through the process of grounding them.

Are there any actual reserves that are grounded based solely on age? And BTW, I'm not looking for a history lesson. I just want to know if there are reserves out there that are illegal to pack and jump ONLY because they are more than 20 years old (or whatever age a manufacturer might decide on).
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
likestojump

******You can wave this letter over a smoldering crater to prove that the deceased was dead rights to law.

There are legal limits and practical limits.

Practical experience tells (brighter) manufacturers the service life of their parachutes.
We have discussed parachute service lives repeatedly on these forums.
I can provide a dozen examples from memory.

Yes, a few closet queens are still airworthy after 20 years, but manuals are difficult to find for them and most riggers that do have dusty old photo-copies of the manuals do not want to bother with gear that old.
For example, I wish that all the round reserves sewn during the acid mesh era would quietly slink off to museums because I no longer have the tools or the desire to tensile-test them for the umpteenth time.

Bottom line, most parachutes are worn out after 20 years of service.



Out of curiosity, are you aware of any modern reserve failures that were attributed to age?

Also, are you aware of any manufacturers that have gone through the process of seeking an AD to ground old reserves?

Reserve AD, although it's a bit old :)
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/E2298A242C935A4286256A39004DEA58?OpenDocument

I guess I'm not asking the question correctly to be understood. The AD you provided was issued for specific serial numbers based on a strength issue. I'm asking about AD's to ground canopies based only on age.

As I understand it, some people are saying reserves should "time out", meaning they should have a life limit. If I understand the FAA letter in this thread correctly, the feds are saying that since no age limit was included in the TSO, they won't enforce one without the manufacturer going through a specific AD request.

So my specific question is - has any manufacturer gone through a formal FAA process to remove a reserve from service based solely on age?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, a few closet queens are still airworthy after 20 years,




Just like the one that prompted my question, Rob!

But it's not skydiving gear, it's a 1991 long Softie (w/FFE 201-A) that was assembled, I&Red twice and then properly stored for 22 years. It's in excellent condition, practically looks new. A real closet queen.
"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chuckakers

***The question it self is a little contradictory. By definition any reserve suffering from age would not be a modern reserve.

It's also a little hard to define a problem as strictly age related. In theory it would have to sit hermetically sealed in a plastic bag for twenty years to give a good test based strictly on age and their just are not that many canopies like that laying around.

I've seen older reserves fail where their was not a clearly defined source of damage. An old safety star comes to mind. I watched Wag pop it and rip the thing from nose to tail. The fabric was bad, their was kind of a musty smell but no sign of discoloration or contamination. I've seen old military reserves fail pull test, generally on the out side gore that is constantly on the outside of the pack job.

As to AD's. how about the bad finishing process on the old military reserves? It was related to a change in the manufacturing but it was some thing that showed up over an extended period of time. The fabric was perfectly good so I can't call it defective. They gave good service but they just deteriorated over time and now sixty years later are about as strong as tissue paper.

Lee



It's not contradictory. A 20 year old PD reserve (which mine will be in a couple years) is a modern reserve, yet according to some it will "suffer from age" the day it turns 20.

Without respect to your comment on military reserves, my question pertains specifically to the topic across the industry. Specifically, I'm asking if there are any manufacturers of reserves that have been and are "timing out" today that have gone through the process of grounding them.

Are there any actual reserves that are grounded based solely on age? And BTW, I'm not looking for a history lesson. I just want to know if there are reserves out there that are illegal to pack and jump ONLY because they are more than 20 years old (or whatever age a manufacturer might decide on).

I just recently had a customers PD reserve determined un airworthy by PD after it's 20 year (40 repack) porosity check. They replied with the following test results - The average center top skins were 9.44 CFM and the maximum is 8.00 CFM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dan43

******The question it self is a little contradictory. By definition any reserve suffering from age would not be a modern reserve.

It's also a little hard to define a problem as strictly age related. In theory it would have to sit hermetically sealed in a plastic bag for twenty years to give a good test based strictly on age and their just are not that many canopies like that laying around.

I've seen older reserves fail where their was not a clearly defined source of damage. An old safety star comes to mind. I watched Wag pop it and rip the thing from nose to tail. The fabric was bad, their was kind of a musty smell but no sign of discoloration or contamination. I've seen old military reserves fail pull test, generally on the out side gore that is constantly on the outside of the pack job.

As to AD's. how about the bad finishing process on the old military reserves? It was related to a change in the manufacturing but it was some thing that showed up over an extended period of time. The fabric was perfectly good so I can't call it defective. They gave good service but they just deteriorated over time and now sixty years later are about as strong as tissue paper.

Lee



It's not contradictory. A 20 year old PD reserve (which mine will be in a couple years) is a modern reserve, yet according to some it will "suffer from age" the day it turns 20.

Without respect to your comment on military reserves, my question pertains specifically to the topic across the industry. Specifically, I'm asking if there are any manufacturers of reserves that have been and are "timing out" today that have gone through the process of grounding them.

Are there any actual reserves that are grounded based solely on age? And BTW, I'm not looking for a history lesson. I just want to know if there are reserves out there that are illegal to pack and jump ONLY because they are more than 20 years old (or whatever age a manufacturer might decide on).

I just recently had a customers PD reserve determined un airworthy by PD after it's 20 year (40 repack) porosity check. They replied with the following test results - The average center top skins were 9.44 CFM and the maximum is 8.00 CFM.

Quantitative information. Thanks for the reply.

The vast majority of DZ lofts wouldn't have equipment to test that and thus any particular reserve - dated or not - might get repacked while outside of that spec. Can you tell me how it ended up at PD?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found a problem with old Long-Softies before I worked at the Softie factory.
The problem is that the hook Velcro on the side flaps is sewn all the way to the edge. If the Velcro is not mated properly, it will chew on the canopy fabric. I had to patch two canopies because of that problem.
By the time I started working at the Softie Factory, they had added an extra couple of inches to the side flaps, making it more difficult for hook Velcro to chew on canopies.
If you insist on re-packing those old Softies, at least sew some 1.5 inch or 2 inch tape along the edges of the side flaps. That extra tape will allow you to comply with the intent of the law, even if you refuse to comply with the letter of the law.

Another problem with really old Softies is their lack of riser covers. Eventually sunlight will damage un-covered risers. This problem is not unique to Softies because I have seen similar sunlight damage on Butler, Security and Strong PEPs.

When the Softie factory issued that lif- limit, it was a discrete way of saying "our old gear as good as our new gear" but they are scared to say that in front of American lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an AD, no. (stop reading here if you want)

I don't believe the answer could be yes for two reasons, as I tried to explain. No one needs to. And more importantly the FAA will not issue an AD for a parachute. That was their stated position for over 10 years. And in spite of recent 'comments' to the contrary by people that may or may not be in position to make the decision and in spite of the above letter I still consider that to be their position.

I don't know that the letter above would stand up to FAA legal dept. review. I don't give it as much weight as many people.

BTW you can look up all the AD's yourself and answer your own question. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/


As an original manual requirement? Yes Butler and PD. Butler up to interpretation. Language in 1994 manual is:

"When used in civil aircraft in the United States of America, under the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration this parachute has an estimated service life of 20 years." I have a butler parachute that falls under this language.

And we all know non TSO'd equipment that is illegal due to age under the FAR's. Airtec Cypres', "(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device." Doesn't say requirements at time of manufacture. And that time limit has changed over the years.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can you tell me how it ended up at PD? 



The PD reserve manual from day one has required the reserve to go to PD for evaluation and possible recertification for additional use after 40 pack jobs or 25 deployments. All of which are recorded on the canopy label. At 120 days 40 packs are between 13 and 14 years if kept in date. Results have varied from grounded to another 40 pack jobs.

For about $1000 any rigger can have the same instrument that Strong uses to re-certify their tandem canopies.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Parachutes Australia Manual

http://www.parachutesaustralia.com/s2/imgs/prods/airfrc_rsrv/airforce_manual.pdf

The Airforce Reserve Parachute has a service life of 20 years from the Date of Manufacture stamped on the Parachute Canopy (whether used or in storage), due to the natural degradation of the textiles used for its manufacture.

http://www.parachutesaustralia.com/s2/SB/PASB9502.pdf

At each periodic inspection the Packer/Riggers must check the age and condition of the equipment. Those components that have a finite service life shall be permanently withdrawn from service when they reach their service life, or earlier if deemed un-airworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
councilman24

Quote

Can you tell me how it ended up at PD?



The PD reserve manual from day one has required the reserve to go to PD for evaluation and possible recertification for additional use after 40 pack jobs or 25 deployments. All of which are recorded on the canopy label. At 120 days 40 packs are between 13 and 14 years if kept in date. Results have varied from grounded to another 40 pack jobs.

For about $1000 any rigger can have the same instrument that Strong uses to re-certify their tandem canopies.



Based on that description it sounds like age is not part of the criteria. Obviously many reserves sit dormant at times so it sounds like if the canopy is within the 25 deployment limit and 40 pack job limit it can be repacked without regard to age at all as long as it is otherwise airworthy.

Am I getting that right?

I'm not too savvy with the nuances of the rigging world, but so far after asking several people questions for clarification, I have heard nothing that mandates removing a reserve from service at a specific age. Even your quote from Butler falls short of limiting the reserve to any specific life span, instead mentioning a number only as an estimate.

So - given that numerous people have implied that there is a 20 year (or other) life limit on reserves, can anyone site an actual example where age alone makes a reserve illegal to pack?

I'm not trying to be snippy or argumentative. I really want to know whether there is a life limit on any reserve as dictated by any manufacturer.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes your right. A PD reserve sitting on a shelf in the civilian world does not have a manufacturer's service life. And PD publicly stated time doesn't matter. Only wear and tear from packing/use.

National has a calendar life limit. None have reached it since they changed their language. Softie has a life limit on the container. If you believe the letter above makes it not possible to be retroactive then none have reached the service life. pends if you believe it only has to be in the manual when purchased or in the data submitted when the TSO granted. This is an unknown grey area. Some believe both interpretations of the above letter.

Of course everything sold to the military, even if it's sport gear, has a stated calendar service life. Much of the surplus stuff is new old stock never issued because it's reached it's limit. It's an interesting question if these should/could be applied to the surplus material in the civilian world. Usually these limits are not in documentation available easily to civilians and I don't know of a case of a rigger applying them. Frankly they are pretty short. Ones I know about range about 7-10 years. And are not based on data, only on the military wanting a date to through it away so they won't have these debates. Long enough to get the contract.

All of this is up to interpretation by various FAA officials and individual riggers and manufacturers. That's why your not getting a simple answer.

To the sport jumper on the DZ and what they use and are concerned about your answer is no. But riggers deal with lot more than that. And while not legally based riggers apply there own as they wish. Paragear is 20 years, I believe used to be 15.

Of course we are one of the few countries with active parachute regulations that do not have a calendar based service life. That's why Eric has so much gear from Europe for sale.:P

This discussion goes on and on. Bottom line, riggers choose what they will and won't pack.

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

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