shropshire 0 #76 September 4, 2010 Actually, I'm sure you're right ..sorry (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #77 September 4, 2010 Hi mpohl, Thanks; that was interesting reading. We live & learn, JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #78 September 4, 2010 De nada. You are welcome. The age of "American Exceptionalism" ended many moons ago. Get in line w/ all the other third world countries, and behind the EU, Russia, India, Brasil, etc. Suffice it to say that a frivolous lawsuit against Airtec would never fly in any of those countries! Only in the US can you be sued for not putting a sticker on your main/reserve that skydiving is dangerous. RIDICULOUS!!!! QuoteHi mpohl, Thanks; that was interesting reading. We live & learn, JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #79 September 6, 2010 FXC engineers told me that when they were testing Astra prototypes, they tried a variety of pressure sensor locations and anywhere around the yoke produced almost the same readings. Airtec's motive for hiding the pressure sensor in the reserve container was part of a campaign to make the Cypres invisible to casual observers, because back then (circa 1991) only students and cowards wore AADs. Different design strategies produced different results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #80 September 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteDoes anyone know if the DZ, gear mfgr, pilot, etc I've heard it called a "blanket lawsuit". Sue everyone even remotely involved, hope for a settlement. .................................................................................... I have also heard it referred to as a "shotgun" style lawsuit. The first round mentions anyone vaguely connected with the accident and the list gradually gets whittled down as lawyers for the prosecution determine who has money and who does not. Eventually it becomes a search for the defendant with the deepest pockets. For example, rigger "Iron Mike" got sued in the aftermath of James Martin's death. Iron Mike was dropped from proceedings after he wasted $10,000 in legal fees and it became clear that he had no financial resources worth seizing. It is a pity that that good a rigger got drummed out of the parachute industry by an ugly, replusive, low-life, scum-sucking lawyer. Or would you like to hear my real opinion of the legal profession? Hah! Hah! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #81 September 6, 2010 QuoteWell it's actually on one side of the main lift web. I don't have numbers on it but I'd be interested to see how badly it would be compermised by the burble when you're on your back. If I wanted to make a point of it I'd mount it low on the lift web of an older rig with short latterals so it's mostly on the side. It would be easy to record data for both and I'd bet the diffrence would be strikeing enough to make a damning argument against cypres. Remember we're not talking about reallity we're talking about something that could be spun infront of a judge. The Vigil 2 manual lists the error due to burble effects to be equivalent to as much as +260 feet. I only quickly skimmed through the CYPRES 2 manual, but I saw no similar statements about body position effects. The point of the Vigil statement is to point out that the activation altitude is actually set to 1100 feet AGL, rather than 840 so as to ensure an activation no lower than 840 feet regardless of body position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #82 September 7, 2010 QuoteI recall reading that accident report.... Where would one find such a report? I read the incident thread on here, but didn't see any official findings, just lots of speculation and wait for the official report posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpohl 1 #83 September 7, 2010 Just invite 10-20 Cypres survivors to testify as expert witnesses!! That should do the job nicely. Quote"Quote... Another question: What skydivers are going to step forward and testify against Cypres?" ................................................................... Not me! I have inspected parachutes - involved in accidents - twice in the past and both times I found "no major flaws with the equipment." Rob Warner FAA Master Rigger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wonder2006 0 #84 October 12, 2010 I didn't know the deceased personally, but knew who she was and know people who were her friends and loved her dearly. What I find so incredibly sad is that it is this case that most people in the community she was apart of and loved, and who loved her dearly, are going to associate her parting with. I hope throughout this, those in the community remember a lost friend to many, rather than "the one who's mother decided to sue companies close to all of us". Don't let these actions, whatever the outcome, taint memories of Brooke, I am sure she would not have chosen this course of action to be followed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Programmer 0 #85 October 12, 2010 One of the main reasons for that is that in the U.S. the defendant has to pay his own legal fees regardless of who wins the lawsuit. Go to a loser pays system and you'll see a great reduction in low-merit lawsuits; but that won't happen because most members of congress and state legislatures are lawyers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #86 October 13, 2010 Quote For what it's worth, I do sympathize with the mother. If she was under the impression that an AAD made death virtually impossible, then I can understand her reaction. Her daughter assumed the risks, but perhaps she didn't. A bit of empathy applies here, even if I disagree with her case. I only sympathize with her for the death of the daughter. She has had a year and a half to realize that the lawsuit she is contemplating is only harmful. It's about money in her pocket, not about anything else. At least the father had the good sense to opt out of this lawsuit (toward the end of the link: http://www.skycentre.net/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=5510 Oh, and the mother isn't above spending $600 to curtail the rights of others, and her lawyer donated $5000. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RNRdiVbTgzwJ:fighttherightwingnuts.blogspot.com/2009/03/pro-h8-bigots-who-donated-in-corona-del.html+%22Jude+Lipps%22&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #87 October 13, 2010 Quote Another question: What skydivers are going to step forward and testify against Cypres? I imagine Mike Turroff would. He seems to be available for purchase. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
erdnarob 1 #88 October 16, 2010 I just wonder if we are not in a case of a pilot chute hesitation here. Downloading the data will tell us if the AAD was well set up and fired at the right altitude. IMO this case also tells me that jumping with an AAD should be a personal choice (not for students) and that no entities should make it compulsory.Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #89 October 17, 2010 Your post is either purely speculative or silly non-sequitur on at least 3 levels. I don't approve of skydiving lawsuits, because as a skydiver who understands the facts, and as a lawyer who understands the law, I see that they're usually factually and legally unfounded. This one certainly is unfounded, IMO. But I also don't approve of the way many in the skydiving publicly react adolescently about them, either. Beyond that, as is my policy, I'm not willing to get into "the usual" argument about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bucketlistpilot 1 #90 November 15, 2010 Quote The interesting thing here is that with almost as little information as we have here on the Cypres the Australian Parachute Federation restricted the use of the Argus AAD to B Certificate and higher, ie not for Students or Novices this year 12 months after the Polish incident. I guess now they will have to do the same with Cypres and only allow them to be used with B certificate and higher as there has been 'speculation' that the AAD has not done its job....... As of today they've directed that nobody, at any licence level is to use an Argus. Ian Purvis http://www.loadupsoftware.com LoadUp DZ Management App [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #91 November 15, 2010 I'm not a legal beagle but I see sooo many problems with this lawsuit that I can't imagine that it will be successful. It should be thrown out and the plaintiff made to pay all expenses. - Page 1 Line 23-24 ...sole purpose and reason for existence... Wrong! -Page 2 Line 6-7 ...which is all that is required to deploy the reserve chute. Wrong! - Page 2 Line 8 ...split second... define that, please. - Page 2 Line 9 ...no purpose or use other than to deploy... Wrong! - Page 2 Line 16-17 ...remained for almost two years primed and ready... Wrong! - Page 2 Line 27-28 ...has it done so, Brooke Baums' reserve chute would have been deployed... Wrong! - Page 12 Line 8-9 I did notice later down the complaint that it conveniently ignores a jumper's responsibility to manually deploy a reserve damn...I'm tired of typing...carry on with YOUR analysis.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #92 November 15, 2010 >It's about money in her pocket, not about anything else. I suspect that isn't true. I have a feeling someone has convinced her that she has to "take a stand" to prevent other deaths like Brooke's. >Oh, and the mother isn't above spending $600 to curtail the rights of others . . . I think you just contradicted yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaero 0 #93 February 22, 2011 Does anyone know the results of the lawsuit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggermick 6 #94 February 23, 2011 QuoteDoes anyone know the results of the lawsuit? Having been sued for the same thing in the Riverside Superior court, my guess would be that it's still grinding slowly along. My guess it will go all the way to the appelate court, which means that it will be a few years away. Mick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #95 February 24, 2011 QuoteIMO this case also tells me that jumping with an AAD should be a personal choice (not for students) and that no entities should make it compulsory. I strongly disagree. Can we count the number of students who have been saved by AAD activations?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
