Is Repack.me Safe

[Candi Ruman]

Waswondering if its safe to repack canned mixed vegetables? Why? Well If I could find a local store that sold mixed vegetables in the smaller 8.5 ounce cans (they do sell them) I would be set BUT all I can get is the larger 15 ounce canned ones. Only want 8.5 ounce worth per serving. Fresh is to much a pain and work. Buying online cost to much to be worth it. Maybe getting big can then repack into 2 small 8 ounce Nalgene screw top plastic bottle? Would it be ok for up to 4 days.

...by answering the question he asked without forcing the guy to dehydrate. You want to take another crack at it?

OTOH, here's some info if we want to waste his time with a debate:

Today I downloaded a game (Grand theft auto Vice City) from a trusted site for free, when I downloaded it, I pressed on the installer, I was watching it install, because I had nothing else to do. When the install finished random sites started popping up on my browser, I instantly restarted my computer..when my computer restarted, I saw 3 new files on my desktop all named "Grand theft auto Vice City....." I instantly deleted them before anything could happen again, because I was scared. My next thought was to download a malware software that can detect things like this. Once I scanned my pc, it detected like 8 files and 3 of them had "Trojan" in their name, I instantly quarantined the files and deleted them afterwards. Then I ran adwcleaner (maybe it could detect something else), it didn't detect anything. Now in this position, I don't know if I am actually safe or if there could be something hidden.

There's probably not a bigger fan of the 'chute than I. But I also fear MIF (maintenance induced failures). :unsure: If it ain't broke leave it alone. :mad: My plane is flown weekly, cleaned and visually inspected after flight, and kept in an enclosed locked hangar. Not sure I see why the 'chute is any less likely to work as advertised in year 5 any better than in year 8.

And FWIW, I live in NC, where prescription drugs are dispensed with an EXPIRATION date 1 YEAR from the date the prescription is filled. That has nothing to do with the expiration date of the medicine which appears on the bottle from which the pharamist dispenses it. That may be 2 or 3 or more year later. If you ask the pharmacist will include that date on the label too - but only if you ask. Talk about a waste of money! And I'm told anecdotally that the U.S. govt uses some medicines up to 3 years beyond that date!

There is a legal requirement. The FAA only requires that you follow the directions in the Aircraft Operations Manual from FD for an S-LSA which in turn states that you must follow the requirments in the manauls from Rotax for the engine and BRS for the chute, Neuform for the prop, etc. So because BRS does explicitly mandate a 6yr repack in their official manual then there is a direct regulatory requirement per 91.327

FAR 91.327 (b.1): The aircraft is maintained ... in accordance with the applicable provisions of part 43 of this chapter and maintenance and inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA;

and (d) Each person operating an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must operate the aircraft in accordance with the aircraft's operating instructions, including any provisions for necessary operating equipment specified in the aircraft's equipment list.

Referring to the FLIGHT DESIGN CTLS "Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Manual" as of 14 Sep 2008 there is only 1 reference made to the BRS system that I can find. That is on Page 1-12: "During all service and repair work beware of activating the Ballistic Parachute System rocket!"

The FLIGHT DESIGN "Aircraft Operating Instructions" for the CT dated 29 Apr 2008 refer to "Parachute recovery system maintenance" on Page 8-2: "The parachute recovery system requires no maintenance, except observance of the pack intervals for the the parachute and the exchange intervals for the rocket."

Let's go next to the BRS "Owner's Manual and General Installation Guide BRS-6... Rev A" (our model). Only 1 of 3 references to FAA are made in the 96 pages are relevant. On Page 7 it says "In addition, there are FAA certified systems currently installed on every Cirrus...(mentions other specific aircraft but NOT CTs or any LSAs) ... as an aftermarket STC product."

Paragraph 1.3 "This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use."

That' what I've been able to track down. I do not believe anything above requires the CT owner to repack the BRS 'chute every 6 years. Am I missing something? :unsure: Help appreciated

Funnily, I'm usually on the other side of these arguments since there has to be a clear path from the FARs to external, official documents they point to in order to establish a legal imperative. But that is pretty clearly the case here.

clearly aims you at the BRS manual. Page 71 of that manual clearly calls out a mandatory repack at 6 years as also marked on the canister. The ASTMs do not directly establish a legal mandate regardless of their contents. FD needs to worry about complying with ASTMs. If that calls for some new action on the part of owners, then they need to create a Service Directive, but the FAA does not have to approve this (the big difference between SDs and ADs). The FAQ on the BRS site does contradict their manual but it also is not a regulatory document so you would not do well trying to defend a hypothetical FAA enforcement action for failing to do a repack with that as the defense.

I take it partially back. There is no legal requirement to do a repack on the CTLS, like there is on the CTSW. After a detailed offline discussion, and reading the CTLS docs, it turns out that nothing in the CTLS AOI points you to the BRS website. Section 2 of the CTSW AOI absolutely requires you to defer to the maintenance requirements and manuals on the BRS site. No such verbiage appears in the CTLS manual and no explicit repack schedule is outlined in the FD maintenance manual.

My bad, but I presumed the CTLS AOI had the same language as the CTSW. I'm fairly certain CT didn't mean for it to be left out. Their understanding of FARs seems about on par with their grasp of EE issues like proper grounding. So for instance, on their site they put important sounding things in documentation titled Airworthiness Documents. Sounds alot like an AD, but legally means nothing. With a Service Bulletin, at least the mechanic is required to read and consider, but not necessarily follow it. These things they don't even have to read.

Originally, Part 91.327 of the regulations required owners or operators to comply with safety directives, but there was no provision in place for recording and tracking compliance. Be advised that recording of the safety directives was revised and instituted in March 2010. This change now requires the status of all safety directives be recorded and to require aircraft owners or operators to retain a record of the current status of applicable safety directives for special light-sport aircraft.

If chute repack is not mandated by Safety Directive, Airworthiness Directive, or Airworthiness limitation, then legally speaking, it is not required. Same goes for all of the other stuff like TBO's, and mandatory parts replacements.

Nothing in 14 CFR part 91.327 requires one to follow every word of the manufacturer's maintenance document, only to use the maintenance and inspection procedures contained within it. This also means that any references to task specific training, or required certification levels as stated throughout the manual, are FD requirements, and not law. These FD requirements may in fact at times be contradictory to the relevent maintenance rules (specifically 14 CFR parts 43 and 65).

An interesting side note related to the BRS. I cannot find any reference in the CT AIRCRAFT inspection checklist for inspecting this system. Maybe I just missed it. However, if it is not addressed in the checklist, that is a major problem that FD needs to resolve.

That's right. They could have put it in the checklist linked to the maintenance manual and that would have made it required. This thing _directives/ is really out of line, BTW. FD may not redefine terms that the FARs aleady have assigned specific definitions for. In this case they redefine 3 established terms and then declare them to be equivalent to another already defined term. Not only does the FAA not permit such slippery language; they are legally not allowed to accept this even if they wanted to. It amounts to allowing a manufacturer modify the FARs which is expressly forbidden for all code of federal regulations.

I'm going to get a little off topic again....... When one performs a condition inspection on an SLSA, he/she alone is responsible for that inspection. Not FD, not Rotax, not BRS. This is evident in the required sign off (which is found in the aircraft operating limitations item 15). The aircraft (the entire aircraft) is certified by the inspector (not FD not Rotax, not BRS) to be in a condition for safe operation. This condition inspection on SLSA has to be performed IAW the aircraft manufacturer's inspection procedures, not FAR 43 app. D. In the case of the CT, the BRS is NOT addressed in their inspection procedures. This is illegal, and potentially leaves a mechanic hung out to dry. FD should immediately issue a Saftey Directive with instructions to inspect this system for condition, and if they feel it is necessary to insure safe condition, they should include chute inspection/re-pack, and component replacements as required. Subsequently, their inspection procedure should be ammended in their manual to include the BRS inspection, even if they only refer you to BRS' own ICA document.

3a8082e126