Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next page Last page  View All

theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 4:37 AM
Post #351 of 397 (1755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"The coroner said regulations require that reserve chutes be packed by a master parachute rigger, the highest of three certification levels."

Sounds like he did his homework but very halfassedly. Just curious what the third certification level is, and why it HAS to be a master rigger?Crazy

Coroners shouldn't be talking about gear, unless they're also riggers, who saw the configuration of the gear at the site, without being touched after the incident.Unimpressed


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Jun 20, 2011, 4:45 AM)


AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 20, 2011, 8:00 AM
Post #352 of 397 (1637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Coroners shouldn't be talking about gear, unless they're also riggers, who saw the configuration of the gear at the site, without being touched after the incident.

Huh? That's their job. They're supposed to investigate and report. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't inspect the gear. But they should also be smart enough to seek guidance from someone who is qualified to assist and help understand.

It sounds like this coroner did seek guidance, as while there are definite factual problems, he's also "in the ballpark".

That said, the factual problems are a HUGE problem, and do paint a picture that is very wrong. We should keep in mind that we are still reading a newspaper report, so the factual problems could be with the reporter, too.

One thing to keep in mind - there has been a lot of secrecy about this accident, even with a gun being pulled on a rigger at one point in time. It's clear there were a lot of people acting badly after the fact. It may be that this hostility made it difficult for the coroner to do a full investigation. Obviously, this is pure speculation.

_Am


sacex250

Jun 20, 2011, 9:06 AM
Post #353 of 397 (1550 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
"It also claims the CYPRES device is unreasonably dangerous because it does not detect whether the reserve cord has been properly routed through the cutter and because its display indicates successful activation even when it has not deployed the reserve chute."

More uneducated disease.

For the life of me, I cannot see how a jury would fall for that crap given even a halfway decent defense attorney.
Because someone [needlessly] died because a [negligent] rigger did his job incorrectly causing a [purpose-built] safety device that worked [perfectly] as designed except for one [incomprehensible] rigging error that rendered the entire unit worthless, and there was no way anyone could ever spot the error before the next [six month] repack making the container a [ticking-time bomb] accident waiting to happen.

How could a jury not fall for that?


airtwardo  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 9:19 AM
Post #354 of 397 (1520 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
"It also claims the CYPRES device is unreasonably dangerous because it does not detect whether the reserve cord has been properly routed through the cutter and because its display indicates successful activation even when it has not deployed the reserve chute."

More uneducated disease.

For the life of me, I cannot see how a jury would fall for that crap given even a halfway decent defense attorney.
Because someone [needlessly] died because a [negligent] rigger did his job incorrectly causing a [purpose-built] safety device that worked [perfectly] as designed except for one [incomprehensible] rigging error that rendered the entire unit worthless, and there was no way anyone could ever spot the error before the next [six month] repack making the container a [ticking-time bomb] accident waiting to happen.

How could a jury not fall for that?


Well...when ya put it THAT way. Angelic


~I wonder how well worded the waiver is, and if it will have any bearing.

This is an unfortunate and tragic illustration on how much weight people put on a BACK UP devise.

Yes they save lives, but obviously 'depending' on one can cost lives as well. Not saying this jumper was waiting for the battery box to fire, but there have been instances where others HAVE, and that's just wrong.


-ftp-

Jun 20, 2011, 9:49 AM
Post #355 of 397 (1489 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
"It also claims the CYPRES device is unreasonably dangerous because it does not detect whether the reserve cord has been properly routed through the cutter and because its display indicates successful activation even when it has not deployed the reserve chute."

More uneducated disease.

For the life of me, I cannot see how a jury would fall for that crap given even a halfway decent defense attorney.
Because someone [needlessly] died because a [negligent] rigger did his job incorrectly causing a [purpose-built] safety device that worked [perfectly] as designed except for one [incomprehensible] rigging error that rendered the entire unit worthless, and there was no way anyone could ever spot the error before the next [six month] repack making the container a [ticking-time bomb] accident waiting to happen.

How could a jury not fall for that?


Well...when ya put it THAT way. Angelic


~I wonder how well worded the waiver is, and if it will have any bearing.

This is an unfortunate and tragic illustration on how much weight people put on a BACK UP devise.

Yes they save lives, but obviously 'depending' on one can cost lives as well. Not saying this jumper was waiting for the battery box to fire, but there have been instances where others HAVE, and that's just wrong.

I agree 100%. The number of jumpers that have literally "waited" for the AAD to fire is just sickening.

However, had the CYPRES been rigged properly, this may have been just another "save."

I don't blame the rigger for the death ultimately, but the fact remains he/she did not do the most crucial part of the installation. I am sure they have a super heavy heart about the mistake, its just so unfotunate.


(This post was edited by -ftp- on Jun 20, 2011, 9:50 AM)


Bolas  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 10:10 AM
Post #356 of 397 (1463 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

Speaking of lawyers and legalese. I found this interesting.

Tandems are the only type of jump where AADs are FAA required, they are not required for student jumps.

Requiring AADs for students is BSRs only.

Quote:
Sec. 105.45 Use of tandem parachute systems
3) The tandem parachute system contains an operational automatic activation device for the reserve parachute, approved by the manufacturer of that tandem parachute system. The device must--

(i) Have been maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions, and

(ii) Be armed during each tandem parachute operation.


Quote:
FAR Sec. 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems

(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Quote:
BSR

2. All students are to be equipped with the following equipment until they have obtained a USPA A license:

d. a functional automatic activation device that meets the manufacturer's recommended service schedule [FB]

Is making sure the loop is through the cutter an installation or maintenance issue? If it's determined installation, the rigger did not actually break any FARs only a BSR and "functional" and "service" could be interpreted many ways.

Perhaps this might limit the blast from this shotgun type lawsuit.


(This post was edited by Bolas on Jun 20, 2011, 10:13 AM)


jacketsdb23  (D 29802)

Jun 20, 2011, 12:14 PM
Post #357 of 397 (1409 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Because someone [needlessly] died, because a [negligent] rigger did his job incorrectly causing a [purpose-built] safety device that worked [perfectly] as designed except for one [incomprehensible] rigging error that rendered the entire unit worthless, and there was no way anyone could ever spot the error before the next [six month] repack making the container a [ticking-time bomb] accident waiting to happen because the skydiver did not properly perform the most basic emergency procedures taught in the first jump course. A backup device, taught not to be depended on, did not cut the reserve closing loop when the skydiver failed to act.

Thats more like it.






sacex250

Jun 20, 2011, 6:33 PM
Post #360 of 397 (1235 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Requiring AADs for students is BSRs only.

Quote:
FAR Sec. 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems

(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Quote:
BSR

2. All students are to be equipped with the following equipment until they have obtained a USPA A license:

d. a functional automatic activation device that meets the manufacturer's recommended service schedule [FB]
The AAD was required per USPA.

There was an AAD installed, so the FAA says it has to be functional and maintained per the manufacturer's instructions.

I'm pretty sure that that the manufacturer has specific instructions on how to put the closing loop through the cutter, since Airtec manufactures specific parts for the purpose, and that failing to put the closing loop through the cutter would make an AAD non-functional.




Bolas  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 7:32 PM
Post #362 of 397 (1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Requiring AADs for students is BSRs only.

Quote:
FAR Sec. 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems

(c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.

Quote:
BSR

2. All students are to be equipped with the following equipment until they have obtained a USPA A license:

d. a functional automatic activation device that meets the manufacturer's recommended service schedule [FB]
The AAD was required per USPA.

The rig had an AAD.

In reply to:
There was an AAD installed, so the FAA says it has to be functional and maintained per the manufacturer's instructions.

I'm pretty sure that that the manufacturer has specific instructions on how to put the closing loop through the cutter, since Airtec manufactures specific parts for the purpose, and that failing to put the closing loop through the cutter would make an AAD non-functional.

The rig had an AAD and the AAD fired the cutter when the firing parameters were reached, which is all it's designed to do: AKA functional.

The FAR says nothing about it being functional, just maintained if installed.

So it comes down to is putting the closing loop through the cutter installation or maintenance? If installation, the student BSR was broken, but not the FAR.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jun 20, 2011, 8:13 PM
Post #363 of 397 (1194 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm pretty sure that that the manufacturer has specific instructions on how to put the closing loop through the cutter, since Airtec manufactures specific parts for the purpose, and that failing to put the closing loop through the cutter would make an AAD non-functional.

Where are these 'specific instructions on how to put the closing loop through the cutter'?

Also, I don't believe that Airtec manufactures all of the components that go into the Cypres.


(This post was edited by theonlyski on Jun 20, 2011, 8:15 PM)


kuai43  (C License)

Jun 21, 2011, 3:13 AM
Post #364 of 397 (1131 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The rig had an AAD and the AAD fired the cutter when the firing parameters were reached, which is all it's designed to do: AKA functional.

The FAR says nothing about it being functional, just maintained if installed.

So it comes down to is putting the closing loop through the cutter installation or maintenance? If installation, the student BSR was broken, but not the FAR.

Airtech's responsibility ends when the cutter is fired at the specified parameters with the specified amount of force.
If the unit that pertains to this incident operated as reported, they do not merit being a party to defending any suit.












AndyMan  (D 25698)

Jun 21, 2011, 6:50 AM
Post #370 of 397 (987 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bolas] Fatality at Archway Skydiving Center 10-9-2010 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The rig had an AAD and the AAD fired the cutter when the firing parameters were reached, which is all it's designed to do: AKA functional.

Huh? Seriously? Airtec has clearly hung its hat on the idea that the purpose of an AAD is to cut the loop. In this case, it didn't cut the loop. The AAD was nonfunctional because it was misrigged.

Now how that's Airtec's fault is another story, but it's clear that AAD was non-functional.

_Am












First page Previous page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)