The trouble is that there is a difference between the perceived or assumed standard of old gear and old gear that has been tested.
Exposure to sunlight, oil, abrasions etc all mean that gear which looks ok is noticeably damaged when seen under the microscope, tested for strength against new samples and so on.
Helmets for example get bashed and suffer micro cracking and delaminations in composites, you can see visors that are scratched and crazed and are still in use (because you cannot get replacements for that style any more). If the best testing available, on aviation products, show enormous problems in maintaining plastics and composites even in new construction, then what is the actual condition of a 10 year old helmet that looks OK because it has been repainted. (not that you have repainted yours, but some people have done.)
I still get aviation engineering reports and a common cause of failure in gear not necessarily under major stress is imperfections such as a corrosion pit one fortieth the diameter of a human hair. Apply the same sort of standards to your PPE and it is reasonable to require that gear is replaced on a regular basis, since you aren't going to pay for it to be properly analysed, costing more than the gear is worth.
It isn't done for your benefit, but for the other guy whose kit is worn and needs replacement but has convinced himself that it is still good.
|
|