Parachutes in Citabrias and Decathlons

[BB57]

Reaching over his shoulder for a switch during an engine out emergency is how John Denver died.

If you decide to unload that seatpack chute, lemme know.

The seat pack was a demo, so it's not mine to sell.

As for John Denver's crash, your statement is both hyperbole and conflating several other factors:
- He had a half hour in the aircraft;
- he wasn't current and didn't have a medical due to DUI issues;
- the "switch" was a fuel selector that was;
- difficult to turn;
- in a non standard location;
- could in fact not even be reached by the pilot when strapped in (i.e. not "less easy", not "difficult", but rather "
impossible");
- worse, the act of rotating 90 degrees to reach the handle resulted in the pilot pressing the right rudder; and
- the fuel gauge also could not be seen by the pilot.

That's substantially different than reaching back behind you to flip a toggle switch you've flipped well over 200 times in one on hundreds of Citabrias where pilots wear back style parachutes about as often as they wear seat packs, based on personal build and preference.

It's also the standard location for the fuel boost pump switch in a Citabria from that era - I can't speak to the current crop of ACA Citabrias. Strangely, legions of Citabria pilots are not dying because of that location.

There's no free lunch. The reality is that I found it much harder to enter and exit with a seat pack, and quite frankly it'll be hard enough to exit if I ever have a structural failure without making it harder. So in effect, a seat pack means more difficulty and wear and tear on aircraft and chute on every routine entry and exit, and it means a reduced chance of exit in an emergency. That's balanced against the fuel boost pump switch being slightly harder to reach in a back parachute - something that can be mitigated - if necessary - by moving the switch to one of the more forward locations. Although that also has downsides as it now places the switch in a non standard location.

 

[Big Ed]

It's your plane. I'm just making an observation. I probably wouldn't change it either. But open discussion is how we learn as a community. In that spirit, out of those 100 times you have flipped the switch, how many were while flying at MCA with no power at low altitude and trying to select a suitable landing site, plan your approach, make a mayday call, and run through the restart checklist? Seems to me that having items on the emergency checklist directly in front of you would be preferable to having to turn around and distract your attention from flying the plane.

 

[Bob Turner]

That's why I like my switch right in front of me. My mental takeoff briefing includes that switch and a target altitude for turnback.

 

[BB57]

It's your plane. I'm just making an observation. I probably wouldn't change it either. But open discussion is how we learn as a community. In that spirit, out of those 100 times you have flipped the switch, how many were while flying at MCA with no power at low altitude and trying to select a suitable landing site, plan your approach, make a mayday call, and run through the restart checklist? Seems to me that having items on the emergency checklist directly in front of you would be preferable to having to turn around and distract your attention from flying the plane.

When I used to flip it on and off for every take off and landing (on just prior to the take off roll, and then generally at 500' on climb out) I'd reach back with my left hand, feel the curved lower corner of the switch panel, with my palm and then flip the switch - all while looking forward and flying the aircraft. There's no need to turn around. There's still no need to turn around, there's just a bit more stretch needed in the parachute to reach the switch.

If I've lost power and I'm at MCA, I'm going to be fine as I'll be a few feet off the runway accelerating to Vy. If it's a short field take off where a sudden failure of the engine driven fuel pump leaves me in the trees, I still have the option of turning it on. However, that's really an argument for turning it on for take off and landing, not switch location and whether you need to reach it in an emergency.

If you really lose power at low altitude, and low airspeed, loss of fuel pressure that will be resolved by turning on the fuel boost pump is just one of several possibilities for engine failure and is by no means the most likely culprit.

If you are really low enough on both speed and altitude, you have more important things to focus on than a restart checklist and the fuel boost pump switch, such as finding a suitable location to land or crash land, and then turning off the master and the fuel selector to prevent that fuel boost pump from pumping fuel through a broken line on to a hot engine and or shorting electrical system. Few things are more effective at turning a forced landing into a fatal crash than a pilot in denial that he or she is going down and 1) spending too much time trying to restart the engine, and/or 2) not identifying a suitable landing site and heading for it *before* attempting a restart. You are far better off expending that time and effort before you start running through an emergency restart checklist, even if you do successfully get pilot cooling fan turned back on.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on switch location, but I didn't design the aircraft. With the FAA being what it is, it's not a simple process to just move the switch, it'll involve a mechanic, a 337, etc. At some point I'll redo the panel and that will probably include replacing the generator with an alternator, converting to CBs on the panel instead of fuses in the switch panel, and relocating critical switches like the master and the fuel boost pump switches to the panel.

For now, I'm just going to fly it.

 

[Bob Turner]

I agree with everything there except the legality of moving that switch. Logbook entry/A&P. Just like a small fabric patch or a shoulder harness, only easier.

Sadly, we lost an aircraft with a serious injury this week. Same engine as Decathlon; very recent maintenance. I know zero about the details. Possible it was an attempted turnback from too low. Know that altitude - recite it mentally before each takeoff.

 

[Big Ed]

Hi all, found a seven year old Para-Phernalia Softie seat pack that is specifically made for the Citabria/Decathlon seats.

Bart, how well does the Softie fit your seat? Do you think the special Citabria shape is significantly better than a generic shaped seatpack?

 

[Bartman]

Bart, how well does the Softie fit your seat? Do you think the special Citabria shape is significantly better than a generic shaped seatpack?

sorry I missed this Ed. I'm not sure I can answer. It seems to fit fine but I'm not using it without the cushions so I don't know if it would fit down into the well in the seat frame if I tried it that way. I'm very high-waisted so I need the extra vertical that I get with the seat pack AND the cushions.

On another note, what is best for a rear seat occupant? A very accomplished friend is going to fly with me a bit and I want to get him a parachute that will be best for him in the rear seat. He's a little tall with normal proportions so he might not need the extra lift of a seat pack.

Anyone?

 

[Big Ed]

Sometimes if you leave a problem alone, it solves itself.

The airport manager at my new base owns a bunch of warbirds. He also owns 2 chutes. He is getting them repacked so I can use whenever I want. They are back chutes, which is not my preference, but beggars can't be choosers.

 

[Bartman]

Ed,

you've had enough good luck for the rest of us in the past year! happy for you.

I picked up a used micro Softie backpack for passenger use, we'll see in a week or so if it works out when it gets back from the rigger.

 

[kswans1314]

How and where are people finding all these used parachutes?

 

[Bob Turner]

Wish you guys had been around when I sold my Securities!

 

[Bartman]

How and where are people finding all these used parachutes?

i generally will ask around where aerobatic type people hang out. there's an acro email list and facebook are good places to start but there haven't been many replies lately when I asked. A free wanted ad on Barnstormers would probably work too.

 

[Michael Panek]

After reading these posts, I am reminded of an old motorcycle rider's saying about helmets..."If you have a $10 head, you buy a $10 helmet". Personally, while fit and comfort is important, knowing it will work when needed is imperative! Just my 0.02 cents...

 

[Big Ed]

Found a pair of back chutes to borrow for the cost of repack. I picked them up yesterday at the rigger and was a bit alarmed at the age of the canopies. One was '91 and the other was '89. Conversed with the rigger and he said it's all legal and TSO, but still makes me nervous.

I flew my first acro session yesterday and did NOT like the way the back chute fits in the front seat. Maybe this one is too thick, but it pushed me too far forward. My knees were brushing the panel, and I had to really strain to reach the switch panel and door latch. The stick was touching my stomach when fully deflected to the rear.

I am pretty sure I had the seat adjusted fully back. The mechanism is very stiff, so I will get under the seat with a light and make sure today. But based on this initial experience, I'm going to intensify my search for a seat pack, or buy a new one from Greg Koontz.

Bart, I saw you posted a chutes wanted notice on the Acro Group a few months ago. Did you find anything? Did you respond to that guy Scott who had posted a for sale notice for a seat chute a few weeks before you?

 

[Bartman]

Found a pair of back chutes to borrow for the cost of repack. I picked them up yesterday at the rigger and was a bit alarmed at the age of the canopies. One was '91 and the other was '89. Conversed with the rigger and he said it's all legal and TSO, but still makes me nervous.

I flew my first acro session yesterday and did NOT like the way the back chute fits in the front seat. Maybe this one is too thick, but it pushed me too far forward. My knees were brushing the panel, and I had to really strain to reach the switch panel and door latch. The stick was touching my stomach when fully deflected to the rear.

I am pretty sure I had the seat adjusted fully back. The mechanism is very stiff, so I will get under the seat with a light and make sure today. But based on this initial experience, I'm going to intensify my search for a seat pack, or buy a new one from Greg Koontz.

Bart, I saw you posted a chutes wanted notice on the Acro Group a few months ago. Did you find anything? Did you respond to that guy Scott who had posted a for sale notice for a seat chute a few weeks before you?

ed
try removing the seat back cushion but make sure the exposed seat frame won't get hung up on any of the chute's straps/flaps/etc.
I did get a backpack that is about 17 yrs old. it repacked fine, the rigger thought it was in very good condition. my seat pack was also second hand but newer and more money.

it is worth asking the acro explorer again, they seem to be out there if you ask.
bart

 

[BB57]

ed
try removing the seat back cushion but make sure the exposed seat frame won't get hung up on any of the chute's straps/flaps/etc.

I’m with Bart on this one. I modified my upholstery by making the seat backs removable.

I detached the seat back from the seat and then removed the padding from the seat cover. I then took a seam ripper and removed the stitching to separate the cloth front of the seat cover from the vinyl back. I used new burn tested vinyl from a local upholstery shop to cut and attach a new back to the seat cover and sewed a new slip cover to go over the seat frame. Both the rear of the seat pad cover and the front of the seat frame cover have velcro strips that hold the seat pad in place, but make it instantly removable. (Put the soft side of the Velcro on the seat frame cover so it doesn’t fray the container on your parachute.)

You‘ll still be about an inch farther forward with the parachute on and no seat pad than you are with the seat pad and no parachute as the pad compresses and the parachute doesn’t but the plant should still fit ok unless you are a lot larger than average.

 

[Big Ed]

I had already removed the back cushion.

 

[aftCG]

When I took my parachute to Paraphernalia and they declined to repack my '96 chute they showed me around and told me I could come back and try both a backpack and seat pack in my plane to see what I liked.
She was quite sure I would end up choosing a seat pack version. As a bonus that would be the preferred type in the T-6 also.
I guess the only downside is the feeling that you're sporting a loaded diaper.

 

[Bob Turner]

My Security chutes were quite comfortable. Alas the rigger almost destroyed one, because he thought it was too old. Passed the pH test.

 

[BB57]

When I took my parachute to Paraphernalia and they declined to repack my '96 chute they showed me around and told me I could come back and try both a backpack and seat pack in my plane to see what I liked.
She was quite sure I would end up choosing a seat pack version. As a bonus that would be the preferred type in the T-6 also.
I guess the only downside is the feeling that you're sporting a loaded diaper.

Paraphernalia and National both specify a 20 year service life limit either in the latest version of the manual or in the original certification for that model. If the service life is in a new manual, an FAA inspector will most likely consider it to be retroactive to older parachutes of that same model. Most European parachute companies also specify a service life of 20 years.

Strong is an exception as they do not specify a service life, but they recommend the parachute be sent back to the factory every 5 to 8 years for a complete inspection.

The idea behind the service life is that the fabrics used in the canopy, container and harness are all synthetics that are in essence chemicals that are not 100% stable and can degrade over time. Since they cannot control the storage conditions once a parachute leaves the factory they impose a service life of 20 years from the time it is made or in some cases since the date it was placed in service. The US military is a bit more conservative and allows a 12 year service life from the date for it was placed in service and no more than 4.5 years from date of manufacture until the PIS date.

That conservatism in the military arguably had an effect on the willingness for civilian riggers to pack parachutes older than 20 years.

Since the FAA doesn’t specify a service life, the manufacturer and rigger are both potentially on the hook if a parachute fails due to age related deterioration. That’s what drives manufactures to impose a 20 year limit either originally when a parachute container or canopy design is certified or after the fact in an updated service manual. When a service life is included in the original certification the rigger has no option. If the service life occurs in a manual update, the legal issues are a bit less clear. But it still leaves the rigger on the hook for certifying the parachute is still serviceable. If you use a parachute and it fails, the FAA will look at who last signed the packing card and pay them a visit. If the rigger went against the advice of the manufacturer it isn’t going to end well for the rigger as the inspector will be looking at the most recent service manual for that model of parachute and will consider any service life limit to be retroactive.

Bob mentioned a Ph Test above. However all that really does is test the canopy for acid contamination and to identify any contaminated areas so they can be removed and the canopy patched. There are not many methods available to test the strength of the fabric in a canopy and they are all destructive testing methods. For example you can do a tensile strength test by cutting a test piece from the canopy of the specified size and then testing it in the test fixture (much like approved testing of aircraft covering) to see if the remaining tensile strength conforms to the
TSO. However the rigger then has to patch the canopy. There are FAA mandated limits on the number of patches per panel (3 for a round chute) and the total number of patches in the canopy (10 for a round chute). So it might be ok on a one time or infrequent basis but testing it at each repack would be both a PITA and a self limiting process that eventually requires the canopy to be decertified.

The end result is that most riggers won’t pack a parachute older than 20 years, due to liability concerns, especially when the manufacturer indicates a service life limit.

A good rigger will also ask a few questions when you come in to get a parachute repacked. They will be noting your weight and or asking who will be using it. In essence if it is certified under TSO C23b a 22’ canopy is rated for a max weight of 254 pounds and a max deployment speed of 150 kts. If the customer/user is a 230 pounder with another 5 pounds of clothes and shoes, plus 14 pounds of parachute he is pushing the limits, and if he weighs 240 pounds he is over it And really needs a larger 24’ canopy. Similarly, if he does aerobatics in a Citabria or Decathlon, max speed is not an issue, but if he is doimg acro in a P-51, a rigger might elect not to pack his chute as his stated use places it outside the limits specified in the TSO.

Personally, I hope I never have to use a parachute, but if I ever have to, I want a high level of confidence that it will work. Service life limits are a bit of a bummer financially as it ends up costing you about $135 per year in depreciation for a $2700 parachute. That’s $270 per year for two of them, but it’s still cheaper than every else I put in an airplane each year.