jeremyneas 0 #151 January 7, 2004 Quotereally thought all skydivers were different On no no no, skydivers are first and foremost...human! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #152 January 7, 2004 Quote>Nor do I expect the gear to work 100% of the time, but I do expect it >to hold together when within the operating limitations. Sometimes they don't. I've seen 'perfect' reserves with broken lines that simply opened brutally hard. I'd expect them to tweak the design if this happened more than once, but I also don't think you will ever get a parachute that is 100% reliable or can never open hard enough to damage itself. If a good design fails, well that is the risk we take. If the design is flawed, then that isn't fair to jumpers. To, me that is a big difference. A good design can fail, but I shouldn;t have to fear that I have a reserve with a design flaw on my back. Quote>I also expect a manufacturer that finds a problem with their product > to recall them and fix them. I think many manufacturers do not do that because they fear a reaction like yours - "If they admit to a problem I'm gonna be really pissed." I don't care if a manufacturer admits there is a problem with their product, issue a recall and fix it. I admire them when they do, as RWS recently did withtheir Skyhook. They stood up, issued the SB and offered to pay for the inspection and, if necesary, the fix. This is not what happened in this case. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #153 January 7, 2004 >A good design can fail, but I shouldn;t have to fear that I have a > reserve with a design flaw on my back. I'd argue that every reserve out there has "flaws." We have both seen reserves - reserves that may well prove very reliable - with things that we could call inherent flaws. Every single reserve out there has something I could take issue with. For example, no reserve is built like a Mojo or a Fox, and therefore isn't as strong as it could be. Is it strong _enough_? Your answer will depend on which table in the courtroom you're sitting at. Defense: Our canopies passed all TSO testing, to limits that far exceed the loads in this case. No parachute is 100% reliable; this is common knowledge and accepted by everyone in the sport. Prosecution: The reserve in question did NOT use techniques used by other ram-air parachute manufacturers to strengthen the center cell of the canopy, even though that cell takes more load than any other part of the canopy; they intentionally and deliberately omitted design features in order to increase their profits. And those arguments can be used whether you're suing PD or Precision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #154 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuotereally thought all skydivers were different On no no no, skydivers are first and foremost...human! So are the people that make our skydiving equipment - every last piece of it. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Joyner 0 #155 January 7, 2004 Quote*** If we are using our reserve within those operating limits and the canopy still fails then that is a whole different ball game. In England we have a principal where a product sold must do what it says on the box, I assume you have the same pricipal - manufacturers cannot just lie to you, right? The "box" (be that the hand book or the TSO) to a reserve says it will work when opened at a certain speed and loaded up to wing loading. You are entitled to rely on what that "box" says. Actually the label states that "Even when properly, assembled, packed and operated, you risk serious injury and death each time you use the system". They NEVER state that it WILL work. They tell you how you can increase the chances that it will. But they actually tell you that they will not guarantee that it will work. I'm quoting PD's reserv manuall here "......It's sold with all fault and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose..... ". The TSO only states that it HAS worked under the parameters of the required test. The TSO never states that it will do it again! They even offer you your money back in full, if you do not want to play by the rules that they state! It's like loosing a football game, and filing a lawsuit against the winning team for playing by the rules you both agreed on before the game. The fact that equipment fails even when packed..... and so on has to be part of every skydivers calculated risk taking in skydiving. If you don't take that into account, it's a poorly calculated risk, and should the manufacturer be responsible for your bad math skills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #156 January 7, 2004 Aren't we supposed to accept that a skydiver can do everything right and still die?There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeremyneas 0 #157 January 7, 2004 When I as an aircraft mechanic in the Air Force we had a simple effective rule. If the pilot dies, it was pilot error. If the pilot lives, it was mechanical failure. Unfortunatly, skydiver take the same approach. And since this skydiver lived, it was a manufacturing defect. Two years ago, during a hook turn, my finger got stuck in the front riser stitching. If I would have died in that monstrosity of a landing, everyone would have just stated that I hooked it in without flare. So there could be a good bit of truth to the above statement. Did this skydiver do everything right? I don't think we will ever know. Could this skydiver have done something to prevent this mishap...maybe... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arlo 0 #158 January 7, 2004 Quote>this is like suing firestone because all the faulty tires fucking blew > out on your SUV while you were on a sunday drive thru the > mountains and caused you to careen down the cliff. In that example, why were you driving in such a manner that a tire blowout (which is a common problem) caused you to lose control of the vehicle? More care in choosing and operating the vehicle could have prevented the accident. Tires fail; if you bet your life on them not failing, you're going to lose that bet once in a while. > but i also expect my gear to work at least up to the bare f-ing > minimums of the TSOs that have been set forth. Even a properly assembled, maintained and operated parachute can fail - whether main or reserve. That failure can cripple or kill you. If you wish to avoid that risk, you can avoid jumping - but there's no practical way to do it if you do jump. i knew this would be nit-picked. that will teach me to post something when i come home really late from the tunnel. btw, i have had tires blow out going in excess of 90mph with no problems (other than having to buy a new tire). good car - bad road hazard. (here come the flames about driving fast) and i'm not gonna quit skydiving. i simply stated an expectation that i have about things that i buy. i do expect it to work. if it doesn't, then i deal with the problem in whatever manner i deem necessary to save my life at the time. i think that covers it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #159 January 7, 2004 The -M on the Raven stands for the 14th revision of the canopy. A lot of the previous versions never get released or maybe even tested, but if I remember correctly the version with the binding tape in question passed its TSO. So its not a design flaw, its an implementation issue correct? If something passes every test for certification and its design is proven solid by repeated useage over time... but suddenly there is a reported case of it breaking is it a design flaw? Or could it be one of a hundred other things?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #160 January 7, 2004 Why don't we clear up another thing here. Just because something is legal and approved does not mean it is safe. We can point to, most recently, ephedra and Fen-Phen (however it is spelled). Or asbestos, which was used in all kinds of things. Thalidomide? All kinds of things cause people harm and yet are approved for use. The BOAC deHavilland Comet was the first jet. Unfortunately, the window design defect was not figured out until a few crashes occurred. The plane was certified by the government, but it did not mean that it would ultimately be safe. Of course, if something violates minimum safety laws or regulations, the law typically makes a presumption of negligence if a code is broken. Violating safety standards just makes it easier to prove negligence. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #161 January 7, 2004 Let me explain myself better. If I buy a car I expect the brakes to work in case I need them, if I get into an accident because of a poorly design car you’re damn right I’ll sue the hell out that company. My sister in law is cripple and blind for life because of a car accident that happened 5 years ago, I took a while for my girlfriends family to prove that the company (a big auto brand) poorly design that SUV they got a settlement does that pay for a young life to live with limitations? I think not. I had a sister that was born with mental damage retardation because the doctor was playing golf at the time of my mother delivery my parents never sued or anything just deal with my sister doing operations after operations all over the world. If, (which by the way I also have a RAVEN reserve) I have something on my back design to save my life in the event of anything that could happened and have to use it (hope I don’t have to) respecting the standards (which I do) and fails yes I’ll sue. I bought the reserve canopy after a reseach of wich canopy will be the best in case I need it, in case s**t happens. We could apply the s**t factor to pretty much anything, that’s why the minimum standards exist. Why anybody has to absorbed or take responsibility for other person or company s**t. Let them think “ Oh we poorly design or built this product and now we have this law suit, oh well s**t happens!!!! I’m sure this is one in a million incident, At least hope so. I agree with SkydiveNFlorida ------------------------------------------------------ (“But, that is not the point i'm arguing here. The point i'm arguing is that until that is YOU layed up with 50 broken bones, a life that is forever changed, and a pile of bills that flood your mailbox everyday... don't tell me that you are sure you wouldn't sue. Because, until you are in said situation, you cannot be sure.”) ________________________________________________ And… I also pay for the extra money so companies can test and re-test and test another 100 times the product that in the event will save my life. Like a country singer says: I won’t break my back for a million bucks, I can’t take to my grave…http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #162 January 7, 2004 Boy, I sure opened a can of worms with this thread. I'm really starting to question PA's motives for not attempting some sort of defence, for not even showing up in court. I'm ever the curious cat (Leo). ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #163 January 7, 2004 >if I get into an accident because of a poorly design car you’re damn >right I’ll sue the hell out that company. I've heard a lot of people suing SUV companies because they can roll more easily than a regular car. A better solution - if you don't want head and neck injuries from a rollover, DON'T BUY A TOPHEAVY VEHICLE! If the brakes do not meet federally mandated minimums, I'd agree you have a case. If you wanted a cheap car, and bought a cheap car, and you get in an accident because it has a cheap suspension and cheap brakes, it's your own fault. You are responsible for buying an adequately safe car/reserve/rig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #164 January 7, 2004 Quote If, (which by the way I also have a RAVEN reserve) I have something on my back design to save my life in the event of anything that could happened and have to use it (hope I don’t have to) respecting the standards (which I do) and fails yes I’ll sue. I bought the reserve canopy after a reseach of wich canopy will be the best in case I need it, in case s**t happens. My point is that shit happens to reserve canopies also. There is a risk of shit happening to my reserve when I need it most; that's one of the risks I accept for myself when I choose to put my rig on and jump out of an airplane. I don't expect any piece of my gear to operate as it was designed and tested at any time. I choose to jump out of airplanes. If I die or am seriously injured while skydiving - regardless of the circumstances - it was my fault because I made the choice to jump. That's being 100% responsible for the risks I am knowingly undertaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #165 January 7, 2004 By the way, what if this had resulted in people's deaths? This is clearly a defect in the manufacture or designs of these pins. And I'll bet they were TSO'd. Wouldn't it be the same discussion? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #166 January 7, 2004 QuoteAnd… I also pay for the extra money so companies can test and re-test and test another 100 times the product that in the event will save my life. Like a country singer says: I won’t break my back for a million bucks, I can’t take to my grave… That's great you will pay for the extra testing. Now we could go and sue you because you only paid to have it tested 100 times and on that 101st jump something happened that NO ONE would have even thought to happen. The equipment we use skydiving is tested. You can test it a millon times and it may never malfunction until a million and 1, then what. Lawsuits in skydiving will NEVER be beneficial to our sport. All it does is over regulate it and make equipment so expensive most people will have to quit. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #167 January 7, 2004 QuoteI had a sister that was born with mental damage retardation because the doctor was playing golf at the time of my mother delivery my parents never sued or anything just deal with my sister doing operations after operations all over the world. I feel for you, your parents and especially your sister, My son has problems. This is not a attack. Did the Doc do some thing wrong by going out and playing golf, was he supposed to be on duty at the hospital, was he supposed to know when your mom was going to go into labor, were there no other Docs available????? Its sad that your sister had complications and is impaired but is this the doc's fault because he was playing golf? Your folks never sued, why? why not? Was there negligence, was there malpractice? Or was the poor doc just out playing golf? ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeremyneas 0 #168 January 7, 2004 I wonder about the posted disclaimer tag, and it's viability in court With the flexibility of the law, the question you have to ask is "Would a reasonable person expect the parachute to work properly in the conditions set?" I would say yes. Assuming that the person was stable, falling flat, and within the limits of the parachute parameters, a resonable person should expect a good parachute to open. The disclaimer on the parachute, is on all parachutes, so while you have a choice in manufacturers, you can't escape the disclaimer that is photocopied to all equipment. A skydiver has absolutely no choice in picking a manufacturer that does not put the disclaimer on. So how effective is the disclaimer when the only choice is 'not to jump'. How much time and money was invested before you realized that this was the case? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #169 January 7, 2004 QuoteThat's great you will pay for the extra testing. Now we could go and sue you because you only paid to have it tested 100 times and on that 101st jump something happened that NO ONE would have even thought to happen. And if NO ONE would even think it to happen, it is unforeseeable, and therefore, had they chosen to defend it, would likely have a good defense. Freak incidents or failures are not foreseeable, and therefore there is no duty to guard against them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeremyneas 0 #170 January 7, 2004 What about the rigger? Was he a drunk? History problems? Decided not to stow any lines? The rigger wasn't questioned in the entire thread. He would have made an interesting witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #171 January 7, 2004 You've given me an idea for a good topic to write about providing an explanation of this disclaimer and waiver stuff here in the States. Short answer: you can choose to jump or not. It is a recreational sport recognized as having little benefit to society. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #172 January 7, 2004 It did not happened in this country, doctors let my sister inside for too long and the brain didn't get oxigen at some point which cause brain damage, long story. [Your folks never sued, why? why not? Was there negligence, was there malpractice? Or was the poor doc just out playing golf? ] All of the above. Long story Thanks for your concerned she pass away 12 yrs ago, she was the closes to an angel I ever known.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #173 January 7, 2004 Yes I guess you could sue but I don’t think I’ll be negligence because it was not test or properly assembly, right ………http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #174 January 7, 2004 [My point is that shit happens to reserve canopies also. There is a risk of shit happening to my reserve when I need it most; that's one of the risks I accept for myself when I choose to put my rig on and jump out of an airplane.] ________________________________________________ I Agree, the same as drive a car or anything else. ---------------------------------------------------------- I don't expect any piece of my gear to operate as it was designed and tested at any time. I choose to jump out of airplanes. If I die or am seriously injured while skydiving - regardless of the circumstances - it was my fault because I made the choice to jump. --------------------------------------------------------- I don’t agree. I do expect a minimum performance of the product that may lead into save my life sometime down the road.http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #175 January 7, 2004 QuoteYes I guess you could sue but I don’t think I’ll be negligence because it was not test or properly assembly, right ……… In this country people sue for every thing. Because this guy is suing because he said they knew something was wrong, he should have filed criminal charges instead of a civil suit, but here in the USA its all about the money. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
