Very true! Some of us can remember "The Baron" having to exit one of his (6?) gliders at Tocumwal many years ago, following a mid-air collision. Rumor had it that his 'chute (which worked OK), was of WW2 vintage, and hadn't been repacked for years - if ever! Does anybody have the real facts regarding this matter?
Cheers, GS -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Jones Sent: Friday, 25 May 2007 11:26 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Parachute repacking A.I I agree how can our operations be seen as a extra risk.... One side thought on the risk Mathematically the more a chute is opened i.e. multiple weekend Para jumping every weekend by a APF member, the risk of a nasty thud will increase. by virtue of the massive number of jumpers and repacking and human error in the packing risk is higher no matter some ones quals or experience. humans brains do fail ! So if a GFA member used his chute once in a life time the risk is small to non existent ( I mean having the chute not deploy) I would hazard a guess if I deployed a chute out of a glider I would by a new chute and jeans to match. Would this not decrease our insurance costs due to a smaller chance of actually having to deploy a chute and further more having a chute not deploy at all. ? I make the gross assumption the insurance is to cover the liability against the packer for a non deployment followed by a thud. The only way I can see our operations as being higher risk is the fact that chutes are worn for 6 months between packs and can wiggle around in the backpack and slow deployment, but you would have to treat your pack like absolute crap for something to move that much to cause a non deployment or twist in extraction. Cheers Ben. Ok no more thoughts from me tonight. 8) > > Whats interesting is that its not clear (to me at least) what the > reason is for the APF's insurers to cut out the GFA (and possibly > other parties') repacking risk. As a small fish in the greater 'chute > packing pond, what if the the GFA chutes were an added insurance > option that was left off as its not economically worthwhile or worth > the hassle? Or is it perhaps because the GFA chute risk has been > bundled with some other repack groups' risk that is larger and is now, > as a whole unappealing to the APF and APF insurers? or maybe GFA > chutes are just plain higher risk than APF chutes? ( I'm in denial...) > cheers > A.J. > _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/817 - Release Date: 24/05/2007 4:01 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.8.0/817 - Release Date: 24/05/2007 4:01 PM _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
