used reserve - need advice

[ECVZZ 0]

I'm looking at a used PD193R and would like to know the pros and cons.

DOM is 95 and has two sub-terminal deployments. It has been repacked 20 times, and the asking price is $675, shipping included.

It seems I remember that a reserve is supposed to be sent back to the mfr. after a certain # of re-packs for inspection. Can anyone elaborate on this?

I'd appreciate any advice/info that anyone can offer. The price seems kinda steep to me.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[PhreeZone 20]

PD requires 20 jumps/ 40 repacks it gets reinspected. No other company I know of does this.

675 is just about average price in my opinion when you can get a brand new off the shelf for a little over 900 or cheaper.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[ECVZZ 0]

Thanks Phree - sounds like it would last me till I downsized w/out a factory inspection. For the difference in price though, I may just look for a new one.

G. Jones

"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."

[lummy 4]

Question:
Is the factory inspection mandatory? For example, Cypri are required to be pulled out if they are past the maintenance time frame. A rigger will not leave a cypres in if it's out of date.
Would the same hold true for a PD reserve? Can a rigger legally repack it if it's passed a 20 repack cycle?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[alan 1]

Quote

Question:
Is the factory inspection mandatory? For example, Cypri are required to be pulled out if they are past the maintenance time frame. A rigger will not leave a cypres in if it's out of date.
Would the same hold true for a PD reserve? Can a rigger legally repack it if it's passed a 20 repack cycle?

I may be wrong on this because I haven't looked it up, but if my memory is correct there is something in the FARs that refers to IAW the mfgr's instructions. My interpretation would be that if the mfgr says 40 repacks/20 jumps, then it would fall into the same category as the CYPRES. As a rigger, I would not repack and return it to the customer. Here is something to think about along the same lines. PD has a placard sewn onto the reserve canopy with the insrtuctions and a table to check off the repacks and indicate if it was a repack after use. More often than not, the number of sign offs on the data card does not coincide with the number of repacks indicated on the check off table. Did a rigger simply forget to check the box or is it evidence of a "pencil pack"? Both, I would guess. So, what am I supposed to do, check off the boxes to coincide with the number off sign offs or let someone else worry about it? What if there are 41 sign offs and only 20 boxes checked? Do I refuse to pack it?

alan

[riggerrob 643]

Oh boy, you have opened a huge grey can of worms!
First, the American FARs are quite clear about "maintaining equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Some of those inspections are obvious: i.e. 8-year inspection on Strong tandems. After 7 or 8 years in the desert, Strong tandems are faded, frayed and filthy, requiring repairs beyond the expertese of most Master Riggers.
If you live in a litigatious society - like California or Australia, then riggers must follow the letter of the law. Even if a rigger is deemed to have contributed 1% to the accident, it can still cost him $10,000 to defend himself and he may be forced to pay $100,000 in restitution.
On the other hand, a Canadian Rigger Examiner told me that P.D.s reserve inspection criterian are "silly" and he quietly advised me to ignore them. If you consider that Canadians only have to repack their reserves twice a year, a P.D. reserve would be 20 years old by the time it has to return to the factory. I sincerely hope that P.D. introduces a better reserve within 20 years of the introduction of their first reserve. Compare this with 20-year-old Swift 5-cell reserves. Ha! These days you cannot "give" away a 5-cell Swift!
I also disagree with P.D.'s requirement to pull-test their reserves at every repack. I had to patch a P.D. reserve after a junior rigger pull-tested a hole it in, all because he pull-tested too close to an earlier pull-test. I believe that pull-testing does more damage than packing.
My other disagreement with P.D.'s inspection criterian is that Bill Coe has never given me a straight answer on this issue. I suspect that it is an attempt by the factory to slough off some of the liability to field riggers. If P.D. can prove in court that the letter of their inspection schedule was not followed, then they are off the hook legally. If enough people are involved in a mistake, then no single person is liable.
Ethically, I doubt if it will ever be an issue. P.D. builds tough reserves and the only way you are going to tear one is if you are over-weight and over-speed when you scare your Cypres. Anyone who has already made that many mistakes should be laughed out of court!

[billvon 3,119]

>Some of those inspections are obvious: i.e. 8-year inspection on
> Strong tandems. After 7 or 8 years in the desert, Strong tandems
> are faded, frayed and filthy, requiring repairs beyond the expertese
> of most Master Riggers.

This is an example of where a required inspection does not address safety issues adequately. Major components on Strong rigs (drouges, bridles, risers, drouge releases) require maintenance before the 8-year inspection if used heavily; if used as a TM-owned rig and well maintained, they can easily go beyond 10 years with nothing but routine maintenance. 8 years is insufficient to 'catch problems' with heavily used gear, and unneccesary on less heavily used, carefully maintained gear. In both cases I'd argue that the rigger who actually sees, maintains and packs the rig is the best person to determine whether or not it needs repairs outside his expertise.

>Compare this with 20-year-old Swift 5-cell reserves. Ha! These days
> you cannot "give" away a 5-cell Swift!

While I agree, that is no reason to outlaw use of Swifts, or require a factory instead of a rigger inspection.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So, what am I supposed to do, check off the boxes to coincide with the number off sign offs

According to PD, yes, you mark the canopy for the correct # of re-packs, "Brought into compliance". This is from PD's newsletter Vol 2, Issue 2, april 2000.

Hook