6 month plus reserve repack cycles

[billvon 2,400]

Not going to reply point by point because you're trying to "win the argument" and I'm just posting my opinion. Which from before is:

Skydivers should decide on their own how much risk they want to take as long as it does not affect other people. Jumping an 88 square foot canopy, jumping without a helmet or AAD, or doing 372 ways are all far more risky (to both the jumper and to other people) than going an extra 60 days (or even 240 days) on a repack cycle. Thus it should be their choice (IMO.)

A longer repack cycle has some benefits and some drawbacks. Benefits:
-Less wear on the reserve
-Less cost to the jumper; that money can be spent on a better rig, more jumps or an AAD, which makes cost something of a safety issue.

Drawbacks:
-Less opportunity to incorporate required AD's and service bulletins. Not much of an issue as long as there is another mechanism to handle it, as seen during Capewell pin testing.
-Possibility of having a poorly cared for rig (i.e. one that gets wet) accrue more damage before it is inspected.

One thing that's neither a benefit or a drawback - an incompetent rigger will have less opportunity to cause problems. This is exactly counterbalanced by the fact that an incompetent pack job will be in the rig for longer. It is, of course, not an issue at all if the rig is always packed by the same person.

Another issue is that each rig is different; the manufacturer knows best how to care for it. We currently require AAD's to be maintained to manufacturer's specifications - we don't call out a mandatory service interval for AAD's in the FAR's, and people are still, for the most part, buying the more expensive AAD that requires periodic maintenance. We should do the same for rigs, since the FAA really can't keep up with advances in materials or design. Nor should they try; that's up to the manufacturers. They got it right with their approach to AAD's.

Another reasonable approach might be to let riggers choose the next repack cycle per the manufacturer's recommendations and the condition of the rig. A brand new rig and reserve, used in a dry and cool environment by an experienced jumper, might be able to go 360 days. A frayed student rig, used heavily in Eloy, might need inspections every 120 (or even every 90) days.

Many years back we changed the repack cycle for synthetic materials from 60 to 120 days. People didn't die left and right. Some countries go 180 days between repack cycles; people are not dying in Russia and Australia left and right because they have a 180 day repack cycle and reserves aren't inspected often enough.

Some other info that may be of interest to people:

This document outlines the PIA's position on the issue. They are in favor of a 180 day repack cycle. Their conclusion: “The Parachute Industry Association supports the adoption of a world-wide standard 180-day repack cycle for civilian certificated parachutes." Note that they did not make a recommendation on whether manufacturers should come up with the times, just whether or not they would support an extension to 180 days. Also note the data on reserve wear from manufacturers.

Here is the FAA's decision on the 180 day cycle, which can be summed up by saying they punted on making a decision. In their own words: "With regard to the repack cycle, the 180-day and 6 month repack cycles were not part of the original proposal; therefore, they are outside the scope of this rulemaking."

[teason 0]

People DO make gear choices based solely on maintenance cycles and if you do believe me, then I'll sell you a one of three cypres' I have with that need 8 yr checks and batteries. The owners have abandoned them! Many jumpers at my DZ are opting for Astra BECAUSE of their lack of mandatory maintenance and eternal life span. One of my customers wants to bang a nail through his cypres and send it back to airtec! It doesn't matter to them how well it works, they're just pissed over the costs of maintenance and life cycle.

Also, if you think that the average jumper researches his gear to figure out what he wants then you've been sucked in by the Sprite ads that say "image is nothing..." Image is everything. Some jumpers I know will see an ad for gear and the only research they do involves finding people to justify their choice. Once they've decided what gear they want, they research the manufacturer's site to determine why they want it. Ask them about any other set of gear and they are clueless... but they know all the options on the one with the cool ad.

Finally if you think that cycles shouldn't regulated, go to a hang gliding air park and offer someone a free repack at random.
God only knows what you'll find or how long it's been there.

In a perfect world we would all make the right choices. I the real world we require regulation.

P.S. don't tell Transport Canada I said that! They'll F*** it up!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[billvon 2,400]

> People DO make gear choices based solely on maintenance cycles and if
> you do believe me, then I'll sell you a one of three cypres' I have with
>that need 8 yr checks and batteries.

Based on what I've seen out here, people choose Cypreses over Astras because they are far more concerned about reliability and functionality than maintenance cycles.

>Also, if you think that the average jumper researches his gear to figure
> out what he wants then you've been sucked in . . . .

Hmm. Isn't your contention that average jumpers WILL research their purchase and choose the one with the shortest repack interval? Sounds contradictory. Although I agree that most rigs are chosen for their popularity (i.e. "Oooh! Look! Omar has a Javelin!" trumps any sort of specification advantage.) If this were to come to pass, most people would still buy the cool rig, not the rig with the shortest repack interval.

>Finally if you think that cycles shouldn't regulated, go to a hang gliding
>air park and offer someone a free repack at random.
>God only knows what you'll find or how long it's been there.

How many hang glider pilots have been killed by their parachute being too old? How about paraglider pilots? Heck, how many regular jumpers have had their mains blow up or not open because they hadn't repacked them in a long time?

[teason 0]

Quote

Based on what I've seen out here, people choose Cypreses over Astras because they are far more concerned about reliability and functionality than maintenance cycles.

Unfortunately we're both talking anacdotal evidence. My region and your region may be far apart. We have the knickname "Wholesale City" because of our consumer mentality (which I dispise!!!!!) and I don't think we are unique.

Quote

Isn't your contention that average jumpers WILL research their purchase and choose the one with the shortest repack interval? Sounds contradictory

My contention is that their research often seems to be for the purpose of jusitfying a choice, not making the choice to begin with. The latter is educational the former is not. How can you make a choice when you only reserch one rig? How do you weigh the options if you only fill one side of the scale?

Quote

How many hang glider pilots have been killed by their parachute being too old? How about paraglider pilots? Heck, how many regular jumpers have had their mains blow up or not open because they hadn't repacked them in a long time?

Good point and certainly adds credence to the longer cycle which I actually agree with. My point was that if left to thier own devices, there may (I believe would) be abuse going unchecked.

By the way, our DZ has an on site Hangliding school. I've seen chutes go without a repack for years and they are ok. I have also seen e-chutes that send a chill down my spine! I also have a rigger friend with an old set of gear who decided to see if a 5yr old pack would work(yes he had a terch) all it did was snivel.
My opinion on a regulation is that it's like an AAD. We should have the common sense not to need it but sometimes...
you get the picture

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[NightJumper 0]

Bill, If you read my post I agree with the 180 proposal.
1. I strongly believe that the manufactures should not nor do they want to be setting different dates for the reasons that I listed before. Which manufactures would set the dates? Container, canopy etc. There are only three USA manufactures that make all of the components that would be in a position to make that decision.

2. I also strongly believe that the repack cycle should not be left up to the individual skydiver as the average skydiver has neither the training or skill to make that determination that as stated before can affect other people as every skydive has the potential to effect someone else.

So at this point I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Stay safe

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

That's a silly argument. Gear manufacturers are already allowed to make gear as light, as durable (or non-durable) as easy to pack (or as hard to pack) and as safe (or as unsafe) as they want.

If this is true, how do they get around the requirments of AS8015 Rev. B speicfied in TSO-C23d?

Quote

If it were true, the Dolphin and the Genera would be the biggest sellers out there. They are in fact not a popular product, and the more expensive rigs are the more popular ones. Hence the vast majority of skydivers care less about cost and convenience than about other aspects of the gear (safety, durability etc.)

People buy the more expensive one because it is more popular. It is a fashion statement.
The Dolphin and the Javelin were designed by the same person and functionally are identical. Harness rings, chrome hardware, your name on the mud flap and a 5 color middle flap do not make a rig safer.

AFAIK, there had not been a sports rig manufactured with anything but 3-rings since you have been in the sport. How did the subject of capewells get into a discussion on re-pack cycles?
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,400]

>If this is true, how do they get around the requirments of AS8015 Rev. B
>speicfied in TSO-C23d?

That calls out specific performance standards and does not detail anything about how the rig has to work. You could pattern a reserve on a Nova, and use quickrelease legstrap hardware that was very easy to accidentally release, and still pass TSO testing.

>The Dolphin and the Javelin were designed by the same person and
>functionally are identical. Harness rings, chrome hardware, your name on
>the mud flap and a 5 color middle flap do not make a rig safer.

I agree. However, things like how you set grommets, what sort of hardware you use for legstraps, main and reserve closing loop protection, riser covers etc DO make a rig safer or less safe. I've jumped rigs with no riser covers whatsoever. I wouldn't do that now, because I have a choice in terms of what rigs I use. People should use that choice to decide what their acceptable level of safety is.

[masterrig 1]

I have to agree with you Sparky! How anyone can say that a Genera or Dolphin in not 'safe'... I don't understand. Both harness-container systems are manufactured by highly reputabla people who have been in their business for a long time. Just because they don't have all the 'bells and whistles, makes them 'un-safe'? To me, the Dolphin and Genera are on the market for those who don't have the 'deep pockets' to afford a more 'expensive' rig. These harness containers allow the beginning skydiver 'on a budget', the opportunity to own their own gear and enjoy skydiving. All I have ever seen of all the Dolphins I have packed or sold, was high quality workmanship. I have never packed a Genera, but, just knowing the manufacturer, he wouldn't think of producing something that was 'un-safe'.
As for the 'original' question in this thread: I'm really not in favor of the 180-day pack cycle, but, if the FAA accepts and changes it, I'll abide by it.
By the way... how did capewells enter into this thread?

Chuck
P.S. My wife burned my toast and I'm still up-set!

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

By the way... how did capewells enter into this thread?

Quote

Quote

Should there be a law against small reserves, or rigs without an RSL, or the Racer RSL, or lightweight small rigs, or rigs without cypreses, or pullouts, or Capewells on old rigs, or round reserves? All of those things have, directly or indirectly, caused injury or death

From earlier in the thread.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[masterrig 1]

Got it!

Chuck

[teason 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Should there be a law against small reserves, or rigs without an RSL, or the Racer RSL, or lightweight small rigs, or rigs without cypreses, or pullouts, or Capewells on old rigs, or round reserves? All of those things have, directly or indirectly, caused injury or death

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a coincidence, so has jumping out of a plane

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

That calls out specific performance standards and does not detail anything about how the rig has to work. You could pattern a reserve on a Nova, and use quickrelease legstrap hardware that was very easy to accidentally release, and still pass TSO testing.

You are in over your head on this. Performance standards dictate how the rig will work. You can play the word game all you want but a system or the component parts do not "accidentally" pass TSO testing. Have you ever been involved in a TSO testing program? The quickrelease legstrap hardware you mention passed the military "Alpha quals" for use in ejection seats up to around 600 knots. Are you saying they are unsafe for sport rigs? How many have you seen fail on deployment?

Quote

I agree. However, things like how you set grommets, what sort of hardware you use for legstraps, main and reserve closing loop protection, riser covers etc DO make a rig safer or less safe. I've jumped rigs with no riser covers whatsoever. I wouldn't do that now, because I have a choice in terms of what rigs I use. People should use that choice to decide what their acceptable level of safety is.

By your statement you seem to be saying the Dolphin and Genaria are made to a lower quality standard then others on the market. Do you have any information that shows this to be true other then the grommet set problem on the rig you jump?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 2,400]

>Have you ever been involved in a TSO testing program?

Yes.

>The quickrelease legstrap hardware you mention passed the military
>"Alpha quals" for use in ejection seats up to around 600 knots. Are you
>saying they are unsafe for sport rigs?

Blast handles passed all tests for ejection seats. Do you think they were as safe as any other sort of handle? Would you recommend them on new rig designs?

All rigs must pass TSO testing. Some rigs that have passed TSO testing were safer than others. That's fine; it is ultimately up to the jumper, not the government, to decide what rig they want and what tradeoffs they make.

>By your statement you seem to be saying the Dolphin and Genaria are
>made to a lower quality standard then others on the market.

Didn't say that. I've jumped both and there's nothing unsafe about either one.

[teason 0]

um excuse me but wasn't the original point that if left to the manufacturers, some would recommend longer cycles as a selling point?
How did we swerve so far off topic.
By the way, the argument for: AAD manufacturers seem to be trying it.
The argument against, Car manufacturers don't recommend longer mantenance cycle for oil and such.

Now...... Discuss!

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[PhreeZone 15]

>The argument against, Car manufacturers don't recommend longer mantenance cycle for oil and such.

My new Honda has its oil changes at every 5000 miles per manufactor instructions. My previous Ford said I had to do it every 3000 miles. Manufactor recommendations are different

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Chrisky 0]

I was under the impression the cycle in Germany was turned up because you can only jump like half the year in Germany, and if you'd go somewhere else during Winter you'd have to have a repack according to local regulations anyway.
The idea was mostly to get your repack in spring just before the season starts, and jump it all through the season, even if it may be a month longer than 6...

If riggers in the US would up their prices for when the cycle bcame longer, they are not paid for their work anymore. They may earn less, but they have less work too.

I don't think that getting a repack every 200 jumps is a bad idea at all. People are recommended to change their linesets every 500 jumps, and do they not? I'd assume that there are very few jumpers that actually do 200 jumps in two month (though i sure wish i would). I'd further assume that jumpers who do wouldn't have to mind due to a backup rig and the use of packers anyway.

The ill spot of the regulation is to when does your standard, John Does' reserve take on a setting from storing/usage conditions that will delay the opening compared to a fresh ("in-cycle") packjob.
This will be impossible to fixate for all the different jump surroundings out there. Thus, a jump number in combination with a timeframe would be a good thing IMO.
Like the Cypres batteries, 4 years or 500 jumps (NO, i don't mean that as a repack cycle...).
So what about 1 year or 200/250 jumps? (1/4 of the Cypres cycle=1 yr or 125 j?)

The mind is like a parachute - it only works once it's open.
From the edge you just see more.
... Not every Swooper hooks & not every Hooker swoops ...

[billvon 2,400]

>The argument against, Car manufacturers don't recommend longer
>mantenance cycle for oil and such.

My current Honda says to change the oil every 5000 miles. My previous one said to change it every 7500 miles, or half that interval if the car was subjected to "heavy usage" which included things like city driving or operation in a dusty environment. Which seems like an eminently sensible way of looking at things - maintenance depends both on length and type of usage.

[teason 0]

Ah crap, now we're talking about cars!
How about this, "The maintenance cycle on my car didn't factor into the purchase"

just trying to keep us on track.
I know F*** all about cars

I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Blast handles passed all tests for ejection seats. Do you think they were as safe as any other sort of handle? Would you recommend them on new rig designs?

I did not bring up blast handles, you did. And I did not bring up quickejects, you did.

Quote

>By your statement you seem to be saying the Dolphin and Genaria are
>made to a lower quality standard then others on the market.

Didn't say that. I've jumped both and there's nothing unsafe about either one.

You may not have said it, but your post strongly implied that price was a way to determine quality.

Quote

If it were true, the Dolphin and the Genera would be the biggest sellers out there. They are in fact not a popular product, and the more expensive rigs are the more popular ones. Hence the vast majority of skydivers care less about cost and convenience than about other aspects of the gear (safety, durability etc.)

Has there ever been a time when you felt you were in error on any subject?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals