Reserve pack cycles

[Bob_Church 7]

I've been trying to remember what the pack cycle was when I started, in 1978, and when it went up to 120. I found an old PIA document that says 60 days but I think it may be about something else, because I really remember it as 90 days and more importantly a couple of other people that were jumping then said they thought 90 days too.
If I remember correctly, and I wouldn't put money on that, when the cycle was increased to 120 days it made trouble for people with the custom built leather Vectors because having any natural materials meant that you had to go by the older cycle. So that would put it in the early 80s rather than late 70s.
It's not important, it's just bugging me that I can't quite remember.

[mjosparky 4]

Bob_Church

I've been trying to remember what the pack cycle was when I started, in 1978, and when it went up to 120. I found an old PIA document that says 60 days but I think it may be about something else, because I really remember it as 90 days and more importantly a couple of other people that were jumping then said they thought 90 days too.
If I remember correctly, and I wouldn't put money on that, when the cycle was increased to 120 days it made trouble for people with the custom built leather Vectors because having any natural materials meant that you had to go by the older cycle. So that would put it in the early 80s rather than late 70s.
It's not important, it's just bugging me that I can't quite remember.

The FAA extended the repack cycle from 60 to 120 in 1978. Then from 120 to 180 in 2008. I can’t remember there ever being a 90 day cycle.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[1888 0]

It's interesting to note that when the cycle went to 180 days the price of a repack doubled!

[Bob_Church 7]

1888

It's interesting to note that when the cycle went to 180 days the price of a repack doubled!

I'd happily pay three or more times for an annual repack. I hate messing with it.

[mark 107]

1888

It's interesting to note that when the cycle went to 180 days the price of a repack doubled!

Now the usual repack price is the equivalent of three lift tickets. That's just too much.

[JerryBaumchen 1,318]

Hi Mark,

Quote

That's just too much.

That depends upon whether you are buying or selling.

When I got my rigger's ticket in the Spring of '65, the price of a repack was $2.50; which was the price of a 10 second delay.

Jerry Baumchen

[highspeeddirt 0]

it is also interesting to note that when the first square reserve(safety flyer by Para Flite) came out, you legally had to have a square reserve rigger rating (administered by USPA). some riggers (with the rating)starting charging double or triple to pack one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,318]

Hi highspeed,

Quote

. . . you legally had to . . .

This was a ParaFlite req'ment, not an FAA req'ment.

It later became a USPA req'ment, but still not a FAA req'ment.

Jerry Baumchen

[mjosparky 4]

highspeeddirt

it is also interesting to note that when the first square reserve(safety flyer by Para Flite) came out, you legally had to have a square reserve rigger rating (administered by USPA). some riggers (with the rating)starting charging double or triple to pack one.

USPA can't make anything legal or illegal. At one tome they sad that plastic rip cord handles were illegal. They were wrong. The rigs were TSO'd with them.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[accumack 14]

It became defacto because at the time the FAA regs stated you must follow the manufacturer recommendation and Para-Flite required it. It was meant to keep riggers that had never seen a ram air or packed one from packing it. At the time there were quite of few riggers that were not familiar with the ins and outs of ram airs and PFI didn't want problems with such a big change.

[Bob_Church 7]

mjosparky

***it is also interesting to note that when the first square reserve(safety flyer by Para Flite) came out, you legally had to have a square reserve rigger rating (administered by USPA). some riggers (with the rating)starting charging double or triple to pack one.

USPA can't make anything legal or illegal. At one tome they sad that plastic rip cord handles were illegal. They were wrong. The rigs were TSO'd with them.

I remember this from the Nationals in 79. Jumpers were finding out at registration that they wouldn't let them jump their gear.

[JerryBaumchen 1,318]

Hi accumack,

Quote

It became defacto because at the time the FAA regs stated you must follow the manufacturer recommendation and Para-Flite required it.

Could you expand on this? The SafetyFlyer was TSO'd under C23(b), which has no req'ment for a packing manual.

This is the part I do not recall: " . . . you must follow the manufacturer recommendation . . ."

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 615]

Para-Flite introduced a square reserve packing endorsement shortly after they introduced the first square reserves (late 1970s). The first square reserves were 5-cell Safety-Fliers and Safety-Stars and Swifts.
Later (1980s) on USPA took on the task of training FAA riggers to pack square reserves. Eventually (1990s) square reserves became the norm. Now young riggers barely pack enough rounds to pass the FAA Pratical Exam and forget everything about rounds the following week.

Sure, some rigs were TSOed with plastic ripcord handles, but a few years later plastic ripcord handles started cracking. After many years of service, cracks reduced handle strength to less than 22 pounds. IOW old plastic ripcords deteriorated until they were weaker than the TSO standard. So manufacturers issued Service Bulletins (grounding plastic ripcord handles). Newer SBs over-ride the original list of TSOed components.

On a related note, I have seen fibreglas handles 30 years old that were still strong .... even after a decade serving on ground training vests.

[mjosparky 4]

The plastic handle problem was before SB’s. The FAA still issued AD’s on parachute related equipment. The last AD that I am aware was issued to RWS in 1999 for an amp fitting problem.

Only two manufactures had an AD out on the plastic, Strong and Herbie Hog.

No I didn’t make that name up.


USPA took it upon themselves to ground other rigs.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[accumack 14]

JerryBaumchen

Hi accumack,

Quote

It became defacto because at the time the FAA regs stated you must follow the manufacturer recommendation and Para-Flite required it.

Could you expand on this? The SafetyFlyer was TSO'd under C23(b), which has no req'ment for a packing manual.

This is the part I do not recall: " . . . you must follow the manufacturer recommendation . . ."

Jerry Baumchen

It wasn't in the TSO it was in the regs for riggers I forget what part. We consulted with our FAA contact at the time and he thought we could do that.

[councilman24 37]

Holding the Paraflite "rating" was not an instruction, it was a requirement. My FISDO did not recognize it, had the opinion that no manufacturer could impose an additional rigger training requirement, and said I didn't need it. It got even less legitimate when USPA tried to issue ram air rigger ratings. Never had either and my FISDO didn't care.

There may have not been a TSO requirement for a manual in b but Paraflite had one and stated the Paraaflite rating as a requirement.

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