Ethics and safety question re manufacturer placard

[jpriestley 0]

I have a situation and I'm interested in hearing both the ethical and safety angles from some of the more seasoned riggers here.

I purchased a main on DZ.com which was sold as a Triathlon 160. I had OBSCENELY painful openings and contacted Aerodyne to ask about sending it in for them to check. They reviewed the serial number and informed me that the main is a CRW wing and may not be taken to terminal velocity as it may cause severe injury noting that a jumper recently was "broken" as a result.

Nothing on the canopy designates it is CRW. It does not have red lines, only states that the model number is TR-160 and the placard states that the maximum deployment speed is 130 knots (translating to 150MPH). Aerodyne was very helpful in communicating until I pointed this out then stopped talking to me.

When I check their webpage, the description of the Tri CRW states: "It is important to note that he Triathlon Competition CRW Series is designed for sub-terminal competition exits. It cannot be comfortably deployed at free-fall speeds--and may cause serious injury if used for traditional free-fall purposes."

So here's the question - Should they mark these somehow differently? Should the maximum deployment speed be correctly documented on the placard? I spent a few days in bed with a compressed back on the last opening prior to contacting the manufacturer and if another jumper was "Broken", I'm concerned that someone is going to get hurt or the manufacturer will be sued out of business. When I brought this up to the Aerodyne, the communication ceased. Isn't this type of response why container manufacturers banned Argus?
I know, buyer beware and the seller omitted some important information in order to dump a main but am I wrong here in assuming the manufacturer has an obligation to correctly document something that may cause serious injury as stated by their own product description?

Thanks for any feedback or helping me to see the other side of this!

[angle228 0]

Is it one of their "CRW" models or is it a standard Tri that someone had them do a ton of modifications to? I doubt they put the wong placard on it (Although not impossible. Side questions does the CRW placard specifiy it as such." They have a certain responsibility to let you know what you had, but, you also have they same responsibility. Did you call them prior to jumping it to ask them about it? Or did you just assume it was going to be fine? Assumptions usually are not good in skydiving. I know when i bought my frist rig (peiced together all used parts) I call each manufacturer just to ask if there was anything i should know about that product befor buying.

Not to mention you never know what crazy line shit someone did to it before you ( and didnt tell you about) . I have a buddy who recently got rid of his Tri after several hard openings.

I am fucking your mom right now

[pchapman 261]

Someone's gonna tell you there are no guarantees in skydiving, tough luck, you know the risks, don't be a whiner, the sport is OK as it is. (An argument I think I'm just getting into in another thread.)

But you have a good point, even if there's no magical legally binding regulation that they've broken. Even though line sets can be changed, it would make some sense that a non-freefall Competition Triathlon would be identified as such on the label.

(If is is the original line set, were any rules broken? Maybe PIA data panel standards? It's a voluntary organization, but I don't know if member groups have pledged to follow their standards in any way.)

As you said the data panel says it is good to 130 kts, right there, in writing from the manufacturer. Or maybe that means the CANOPY is good to 130, not your spine.

Usually a non-terminal CRW canopy would be assembled with a mesh or spider slider or whatever they are using, etc. If it has a regular sail slider, someone has been changing things before it got to you. That's an important link in the chain of events -- one particular thing that would make people think it was being used at terminal and OK for that.

Now that you've checked with Aerodyne by canopy serial number, you know. But how else would this have been caught?

Depending on other details of the canopy, I could see plenty of riggers missing this. "Looks like it has some CRW mods, plenty of Hybrid Tri's are like that, but it has a sail slider, looks like you are good to go to use it like a normal canopy." Certainly if a rigger were unsure, there's always that serial # and phone call to the manufacturer thing.

Is there some particular feature that a CRW expert would know identifies it as a Comp Tri in particular, rather than just a freefall capable Hybrid Tri with all the mods? (E.g., tailpocket?)

While there are all sorts of issues, and things we don't know about the canopy, on the face of it, Aerodyne may have done a poor job of labelling the canopy.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Nothing on the canopy designates it is CRW

I take it the lineset is regular microline? While Dacron is preferred for CRW, CRW these days is sometimes done with microline too. However I'd have expected red center lines and preferably non-cascaded A lines too on a CRW canopy.

Does it have rings up top, aside from the one on the centre cell?

Does it have a reinforced nose (more tape on the edge than usual)?

Does it have whitish fabric on top of the centre cell?

Either of these would mark it as at least a hybrid tri, and should make you go "hmmmm" if you expected a regular freefall tri.

A CRW or hybrid Tri will pack up bigger than a regular freefall tri too.

I know, I bought a tri 120 of dz.com that way too, as a freefall tri. Turned out to be a hybrid tri though say that as soon as I opened the package. It came complete with CRW bridle, a bag and some seriously pink CRW risers It had the red center lines too. Can't remember if it was marked differently from freefall tri's, and can't remember if the CRW tris we used to have at our DZ are marked as such

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[councilman24 36]

Not only did they not placard them but back when they first came out they didn't tell anyone in their literature that their CRW models shouldn't be taken to terminal. Four local guys bought the CRW versions for doing demos and one got hurt taking them to terminal. Aerodyne said they should have known even though nowhere in their literature or order forms did they say not to take them to terminal.

The guys sent them back.

It isn't necessarily obvious that they are non-terminal CRW canopies. Especially since they have the hybrid that is CRW modified but terminal capable.

I take it this was a used canopy. If it was older it doesn't surprise me. I don't have any recent experience with they to know if they still label them the same.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[RiggerLee 61]

The compitition AR-7 were bought by and sold to only the most hard core rotation teams. They were brutal. Not only were they sensitive to opening speed but altitude. I've seen people refuse to leave the plane because the jump run was too high. The openings could be ungodly and the landing were not much better. You would tippically flare it with the front risers. I'm surprised you made it down alive. No one would have ever jumped them if they haddent bee the abolute shit for rotation. I don't know how any one could mistake one for a triatholon. Not even vagely the same canopy. Construction was totaly diffrent. No lip. Three inch wide tape around the nose. Span wise retract. Short lines. A lot of them did use spector lines though. He thought it burned less in wraps then dracron, less friction. I don't share that view but still no resemballence.

I don't know how this might have fallen into the unsuspecting hands of some one like you. You thought you were buying a nice little king snake when in fact the pet store sold you a venimus coral snake. Bad analogy, more like a black momba.

Unless you're headed to nationals:
Do not jump.
Do not sell.
Return to seller.
Kick sellers ass.
Keep in box, tape closed, Mark with warning lables, curses, and protective seals.
Treat it as a loaded gun. One with bad habbits of missfireing.

I hope you did not suffer permanent injuries.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[iowa 0]

This thread made me dig out my old Hybrid Tri.

The label only says Triathalon 175. Nothing about hybrid or CRW. But it was made for freefall and casual CRW.

It does have the retract rings and bridle and I switched the lines to a dacron CRW set years ago.

Keith

''Always do sober what you said you would do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.'' - Ernest Hemingway

[dragon2 0]

This canopy isn't likely to be an AR7 though, it's probably a comp Tri if it isn't a hybrid Tri.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Andy9o8 0]

None of this is legal advice. Consult your own attorney in your own jurisdiction.

First, I agree with Lee that the seller done you dirty by not disclosing the true nature of the canopy, and should take it back and refund your dough. Good luck with that. But if he balks, maybe threatening to publicly out him by name might bring him back to Jesus.

Yeah, you could sue him. If you did, and he defended, he might assert a "buyer beware" defense; but you may have a stronger case than his defense, as long as you can prove that he knew or should have known the true nature of the canopy, but failed to disclose it to you, and that the logistics of the transaction did not give you the opportunity to test-jump the canopy before completing the transaction.

Re: You vs. Aerodyne: Your attorney might advise you to take a "product liability" approach: generally speaking, with any product, a manufacturer has a duty to reasonably anticipate the various ways any consumer anywhere along the "stream of commerce" (which means not just the original owner, but anyone who subsequently buys or jumps the canopy any time in the future) would likely use its product, and either design safety features into the product to take that into consideration, or to issue ADEQUATE warnings as to its proper usage AND especially potential hazards, i.e., how it should not be used. Many recent court decisions have ruled that merely putting warnings in a manual (i.e., "RTFM") may not be adequate, and that therefore adequate warning labels should be prominently posted on the product itself.

In other words, the argument would be that Aerodyne should have anticipated that an unsuspecting jumper might think it's ok to take the canopy to terminal, and that therefore there should have been a prominent label on the canopy itself to clearly warn the consumer not to do so or risk serious injury. In your instance, this may be all the more so, as it could be argued that the label it did have was misleading: by saying it had a maximum deployment speed of 130 kts, without more information, that reasonably (mis-)led the consumer to believe that it was safe for terminal velocity openings.

Aerodyne may have some arguments against this, but they might be reading this, so let them pay their lawyers for their services.

[554 0]

Sounds like legal advise. Lawyers: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Maybe the OP should just contact the guy he bought it from instead of clogging the already inept, so called justice system more than it already is.

[Andy9o8 0]

I started out by telling the OP to contact the seller directly.
I also put some time and effort into answering his questions, and giving him useful information. I'm not going to waste my time defending myself any further to you.
Lawyer-bashing is easy. Any random asshole can do it.

[554 0]

The reason lawyer bashing is so easy is because everything negative said about them is true. Shame shame, lawyer man. Personal attacks are a no no here.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like legal advise. Lawyers: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Maybe the OP should just contact the guy he bought it from instead of clogging the already inept, so called justice system more than it already is.

I would think the manufacturer may be more inclined to make sure this never happens again in the future if they had to pay a few bucks. It seems that some else could die as a result of them turning a blind eye.

[dorbie 0]

The seller should have warned you. This could have caused serious injury, some people act like sociopaths when it comes to money.

You should not have to call the manufacturer to learn that the canopy cannot be taken to terminal velocity without an abnormally high risk of serious injury. I dunno what the rules are but you want this to be evident from the placard, if it has been modified whoever modified it should make it clear on the placard.