Recommended Posts
~"I am not afraid. I was born to do this"~
~"I am not afraid. I was born to do this"~
I honestly don't know what good points your last two posts show other than seeming like you really do have an axe to grind. You make it sound like there is some conspiracy theory to hide something by Mr. Mark. Personally, being a rigger, if someone died, the first thing I would do after calling EMS and trying to help the person if not killed on impact would be to check the reserve data packing card. Trust me, if you were a rigger and there was any question of equipment failure, so would you. I am not sure that is conclusive of "tampering with gear" as you suggest.
Second, as someone completely objective in this matter, you do sound like you have a serious axe to grind with this DZ. You are a little too excited to divulge your "evidence" which doesn't amount to much. I do believe Mr. Mark's question about not allowing him to inspect the gear in the presence of Airtech SSK is a valid one especially when his reputation and business were at stake. I do see a conflict of interest there when having SSK inspect the alleged faulty CYPRES considering they are the manufacturer of the device. I am not stating in any way that they are or should be liable but if my ass was on the line, I would insist on a 3rd party evaluation.
Third, my answer to this question in the poll is 100% the student's fault and partial responsibility of the rigger. I do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive but if the jumper waited until 800-1000 feet AGL to pull anything, that is no one's responsibility or fault but his own. That right there is a suicide wish no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, every single First Jump Course I have taught and that has been taught should emphasize the fact that the AADs are a BACK UP SAFETY DEVICE, not a life saving device.
I hate to sound so cruel but if you skydive by waiting for your AAD to fire, then Skydiving is NOT for you! It is very sad and unfortunate that this happened but that is called survival of the fittest/natural selection. If you aren't fit to pull your handles, in order then you are not fit to skydive, plain and simple and that can result in mental, emotional or physical fitness.
With respect to Mr. Mark, the rigger. Yes, he "allegedly" misrouted the loop. Yes, that is an issue. Yes, I am sure Mr. Mark has paid dearly for this mistake and no there is no excuse for it. It is his responsibility to insure that the loop goes through the cutter every single time. That is why I assess partial responsibility to him.
However, the fact the jumper died was a result of his own actions or lack thereof. Every jumper knows not to rely on their AAD to save their life. I also do not believe Airtec is responsible unless it can be proven that their device failed and even if it did fail, I believe the manual of the AAD specifically states that it is a back up device.
Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL or he was relying on his BACK UP device to save his life. Either way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life. Nothing can be done to bring him back. I don't think Mr. Mark or Archway should be sued. His reserve parachute which is not a back up device did not fail him, his CYPRES which is did. Therefore, I think the rigger should have his rating taken away and that should be it. No law suits, nothing else. JMHO
Second, as someone completely objective in this matter, you do sound like you have a serious axe to grind with this DZ. You are a little too excited to divulge your "evidence" which doesn't amount to much. I do believe Mr. Mark's question about not allowing him to inspect the gear in the presence of Airtech SSK is a valid one especially when his reputation and business were at stake. I do see a conflict of interest there when having SSK inspect the alleged faulty CYPRES considering they are the manufacturer of the device. I am not stating in any way that they are or should be liable but if my ass was on the line, I would insist on a 3rd party evaluation.
Third, my answer to this question in the poll is 100% the student's fault and partial responsibility of the rigger. I do not believe the two to be mutually exclusive but if the jumper waited until 800-1000 feet AGL to pull anything, that is no one's responsibility or fault but his own. That right there is a suicide wish no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, every single First Jump Course I have taught and that has been taught should emphasize the fact that the AADs are a BACK UP SAFETY DEVICE, not a life saving device.
I hate to sound so cruel but if you skydive by waiting for your AAD to fire, then Skydiving is NOT for you! It is very sad and unfortunate that this happened but that is called survival of the fittest/natural selection. If you aren't fit to pull your handles, in order then you are not fit to skydive, plain and simple and that can result in mental, emotional or physical fitness.
With respect to Mr. Mark, the rigger. Yes, he "allegedly" misrouted the loop. Yes, that is an issue. Yes, I am sure Mr. Mark has paid dearly for this mistake and no there is no excuse for it. It is his responsibility to insure that the loop goes through the cutter every single time. That is why I assess partial responsibility to him.
However, the fact the jumper died was a result of his own actions or lack thereof. Every jumper knows not to rely on their AAD to save their life. I also do not believe Airtec is responsible unless it can be proven that their device failed and even if it did fail, I believe the manual of the AAD specifically states that it is a back up device.
Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL or he was relying on his BACK UP device to save his life. Either way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life. Nothing can be done to bring him back. I don't think Mr. Mark or Archway should be sued. His reserve parachute which is not a back up device did not fail him, his CYPRES which is did. Therefore, I think the rigger should have his rating taken away and that should be it. No law suits, nothing else. JMHO
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
QuoteClearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL or he was relying on his BACK UP device to save his life.
Are you sure those are the only two possibilities?
QuoteEither way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life.
No argument there except for your use of 'decision'. We don't have any clue as to what the jumper decided. We do know what his action was and it was a critical mistake.
QuoteI don't think Mr. Mark or Archway should be sued. His reserve parachute which is not a back up device did not fail him, his CYPRES which is did. Therefore, I think the rigger should have his rating taken away and that should be it. No law suits, nothing else. JMHO
This is confusing. If the CYPRES was what failed him, why do anything to the rigger?
I disagree entirely with your contention that the CYPRES failed him. It operated. It operated within spec as far as we know. Airtec had nothing to do with the rigger's installation.
IMO, somewhere along the line, riggers need to take responsibility for their work. This is one case in point.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteEither way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life.
I don’t he made a decision and contributed to his death. There was a problem and he and failed to decide what if any action to take.
QuoteI don't think Mr. Mark or Archway should be sued. His reserve parachute which is not a back up device did not fail him, his CYPRES which is did.
From what I understand the Cypres functioned as advertised. Its sole function is to cut the reserve closing loop. If the loop does pass through the cutter this is not a failure of the AAD.
It is not my place to decide if Mr. Mark and/or Archway should be sued. But I would say that the rigger who packed the reserve in question bears some degree of responsibility in this fatality.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
These are both good points MJO Sparky and PopsJumper. Let me clarify. First, you both are right, I should not assume he had a death wish from not pulling higher. Maybe he could not find his handle, maybe he had a hard pull on both, I was not there so I should not assume anything. I just think it is odd to have waited so long and not pulled anything? The first thing that came to mind was that he maybe had a death wish and then realized he did not and changed his mind. Usually pulling something at a reasonable altitude would negate that but I am sure there is "some" reason.
I did not mean to say that I thought Airtech is responsible. Whether the error was made by the rigger or something was wrong with the unit, the student still waited too long to pull and no one should rely on anything but pulling their handles in order at the proper altitude and airworthy gear to save their life. I believe the rigger is partially responsible because it was on his watch and he should have caught the problem if it was misrouted. With that being said, the student is still 100% responsible for saving his own life and neither Airtech nor Mr. Mark should need to be sued or have to close their business doors as a result. I think something should be done and as a rigger, if I misrouted something and it could have saved a fatality from occuring, those are the kinds of mistakes that cannot be overlooked. Take away the rigger's ticket which will solve the problem of it ever happening again and in this case, call it a day. I am sure the emotional burden and everything else surrounding an incident like this one is plenty, there is no need to drag someone through the mud, sue them upside down and backwards, put them out of business for a situation like this one. If the rigger caused the fatality and their actions were 100% the cause of the fatality like leaving a molar strap on the reserve, my feelings would be entirely different.
My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts.
This is one of those unlucky fatalities when there are multiple causes contributing and snowballing into an uncontrollable mess. If it is found that Mr. Mark did misroute the loop which caused the AAD to fail, Cypres it is not a necessary component to make a safe skydive. It may be required to be on and activated for every student jump, just like an RSL but RSLs can break or malfunction as well and if that happened and a fatality was the result because a student did not pull, I still think the student is 100% responsible and the rigger is partially responsible simultaneously. Unlike the main canopy with a well packed reserve canopy, AADs are not necessary for survival. The reserve is the only real back up device.
Because I don't feel the rigger or the AAD "caused" the problem and played a small roil in the overall picture, I don't think it is necessary to prosecute and ask for monetary compensation or cause a business to close it's doors. I am not saying that the problem need not be addressed, just not in a Court of law that is money and punishment driven to determine blame, fault, negligence and having the supreme power to criminally prosecute, impose heavy punitive damages and determine the fate of someone's business. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit.
I did not mean to say that I thought Airtech is responsible. Whether the error was made by the rigger or something was wrong with the unit, the student still waited too long to pull and no one should rely on anything but pulling their handles in order at the proper altitude and airworthy gear to save their life. I believe the rigger is partially responsible because it was on his watch and he should have caught the problem if it was misrouted. With that being said, the student is still 100% responsible for saving his own life and neither Airtech nor Mr. Mark should need to be sued or have to close their business doors as a result. I think something should be done and as a rigger, if I misrouted something and it could have saved a fatality from occuring, those are the kinds of mistakes that cannot be overlooked. Take away the rigger's ticket which will solve the problem of it ever happening again and in this case, call it a day. I am sure the emotional burden and everything else surrounding an incident like this one is plenty, there is no need to drag someone through the mud, sue them upside down and backwards, put them out of business for a situation like this one. If the rigger caused the fatality and their actions were 100% the cause of the fatality like leaving a molar strap on the reserve, my feelings would be entirely different.
My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts.
This is one of those unlucky fatalities when there are multiple causes contributing and snowballing into an uncontrollable mess. If it is found that Mr. Mark did misroute the loop which caused the AAD to fail, Cypres it is not a necessary component to make a safe skydive. It may be required to be on and activated for every student jump, just like an RSL but RSLs can break or malfunction as well and if that happened and a fatality was the result because a student did not pull, I still think the student is 100% responsible and the rigger is partially responsible simultaneously. Unlike the main canopy with a well packed reserve canopy, AADs are not necessary for survival. The reserve is the only real back up device.
Because I don't feel the rigger or the AAD "caused" the problem and played a small roil in the overall picture, I don't think it is necessary to prosecute and ask for monetary compensation or cause a business to close it's doors. I am not saying that the problem need not be addressed, just not in a Court of law that is money and punishment driven to determine blame, fault, negligence and having the supreme power to criminally prosecute, impose heavy punitive damages and determine the fate of someone's business. Hopefully that clarifies a little bit.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
piisfish 135
if you had a car accident and were not saved by your seatbelt, because you had first bucled said belt and then sat on top of it (so the seatbelt sign was OFF, but misrouted), how much should the seatbelt manufacturer be sued ?Quote
My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM
QuoteIf it is found that Mr. Mark did misroute the loop which caused the AAD to fail, Cypres it is not a necessary component to make a safe skydive. It may be required to be on and activated for every student jump, just like an RSL but RSLs can break or malfunction
You seem to understand that an AAD is a required component for a student jump, but why can't you understand that the rigger who mis-routed the loop is responsible sending a student up without the required equipment. By succeeding in installing the AAD and control unit, and then failing to properly install the cutter in the container, he created a rig that appeared to be properly equipped, but was functionally not able to meet the requirements of a student rig.
Furthermore, when said rigger is also the DZO and well aware that the rig he's working on is a student rig intended for student use, the proper installation of the AAD becomes even more important. As mentioned several times, it's required for student jumps, not optional as when it's installed in a licensed jumpers rig.
We tell students it's a back-up device, but we also have an AAD as required equipment for students becasue students are an unproven quantity. Nobody knows how they will react to given situations, or how well they will retain or execute their training. That's why they're students, that's why they have lower wind limits, higher pull altitudes, and increased requirements for the equipment (and supervision) they need to conduct a skydive.
Quoteif you had a car accident and were not saved by your seatbelt, because you had first bucled said belt and then sat on top of it (so the seatbelt sign was OFF, but misrouted), how much should the seatbelt manufacturer be sued ?Quote
My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts.
I see your point but again, I would revert back to saying that a Cypres is not analagous with a seat belt. Your reserve canopy is. Your seat belt is not only the primary way to save your life (like a main canopy) but it is also perhaps the only thing to save you from being ejected from the car and killed (reserve). When I put my seat belt on, I know that and make sure I am wearing it and my passengers are too. I see your point and it is notable but in my opinion, doesn't quite fit this situation.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
QuoteYour seat belt is not only the primary way to save your life (like a main canopy) but it is also perhaps the only thing to save you from being ejected from the car and killed (reserve). When I put my seat belt on, I know that and make sure I am wearing it and my passengers are too. I see your point and it is notable but in my opinion, doesn't quite fit this situation.
Ok, so let's say your seatbelt wasn't properly attached to the door pillar of your car, maybe the factory didn't use a structural bolt and the only thing holding the belt in place is the spring-loaded retractor. It appears to work properly, and you can put it on and take it off with no problems, but in the event of an accident, the belt pulls free from the retraction mechanism and doesn't restrain you in any way.
Is the manufacturer at fault?
No driver is supposed to get into an accident. You're not supposed to crash into a brick wall to stop your car, you're supposed to use the brakes. The seat belt is a back-up device, and in 'normal' driving serves no purpose other than to wrinkle your shirt.
The seat belt would appear to be working properly, and you could fasten and wear it as per the laws in (I think) all 50 states, but when push comes to shove, the seat belt is useless.
You don't think the manufacturer, the one who assembled the car (and seat belt system) would hold some responsibility?
QuoteQuoteIf it is found that Mr. Mark did misroute the loop which caused the AAD to fail, Cypres it is not a necessary component to make a safe skydive. It may be required to be on and activated for every student jump, just like an RSL but RSLs can break or malfunction
You seem to understand that an AAD is a required component for a student jump, but why can't you understand that the rigger who mis-routed the loop is responsible sending a student up without the required equipment. By succeeding in installing the AAD and control unit, and then failing to properly install the cutter in the container, he created a rig that appeared to be properly equipped, but was functionally not able to meet the requirements of a student rig.
Furthermore, when said rigger is also the DZO and well aware that the rig he's working on is a student rig intended for student use, the proper installation of the AAD becomes even more important. As mentioned several times, it's required for student jumps, not optional as when it's installed in a licensed jumpers rig.
We tell students it's a back-up device, but we also have an AAD as required equipment for students becasue students are an unproven quantity. Nobody knows how they will react to given situations, or how well they will retain or execute their training. That's why they're students, that's why they have lower wind limits, higher pull altitudes, and increased requirements for the equipment (and supervision) they need to conduct a skydive.
Very good. Again, no one is disputing anything you said. I have said that in my own words if you go back and read it. Why can't you read and see that I agree with you.
My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE. If the jumper did what he was trained to do, he would have survived. Unless Mr. Mark did something to the reserve canopy which prevented the jumper from opening his reserve (meaning by pulling the handle) such as causing a hard pull on the reserve or leaving a molar strap on to prevent it's inflation, primary responsibility still lies with the jumper. Didn't this guy have like 20 some odd jumps? We are not talking about a Level 1 AFF. He was jumping solo so he obviously had gotten through his AFF training and was well aware that if you don't pull anything you are going to hit the ground hard and die.
Because Mr. Mark allegedly misrouted the loop on a tertiary back up device (not primary or secondary), IN MY OPINION, makes his liability minimal compared to the jumper.
You have not one, but 2 canopies and x amount of altitude and time before you hit the ground. All you need to do is pull one and you should live. Don't pull anything and you are leaving your fate up to chance and dumb luck. If your Cypres fires and saves your life because you did not pull anything, lucky you. Quit the sport and take up bowling or golf, Skydiving is NOT for you.
If you die because there is something going on with the Cypres whether it was misrouted or failed for some other reason, unlucky you and shame on you for relying on a tertiary computerized back up device to save your life. And it is tertiary considering you have the Main first to save you, the Reserve as a secondary device to save you and the Cypres or AAD third. Condolences to the family.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Quoteif you had a car accident and were not saved by your seatbelt, because you had first bucled said belt and then sat on top of it (so the seatbelt sign was OFF, but misrouted), how much should the seatbelt manufacturer be sued ?Quote
My point being, Mr. Mark or Airtech are only partly responsible and this never would have happened at all if the student had acted in accordance with the cardinal rules of skydiving safety. I see the Cypres issue as being a 10-15% portion of the cause of death. Why not call a spade a spade and leave it at that. It always comes down to money and the Courts.
In response to the seat belt analogy and I see where you two are going with this but here is my answer: If I knew that wearing my seatbelt would save my life by preventing me from being ejected from my car and I did not bother to put it on, I would not rely on my windshield to save my life nor would I sue the windshield manufacturer or the windshield installer for not saving my life when I chose not to put my seat belt on.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
I understand what you are saying and I agree that the jumper is ultimately responsible for their safety. No argument there.
I just think that since the accident was indeed a culmination of events involving multiple parties, that those other parties should share in the responsibility....and I understand that is what you are saying too.
And since the responsibility is shared, the accountability should be shared also....hence the valid inclusion of the rigger in the suit.
It's even more relevant when we are dealing with students.
What I don't agree with about this lawsuit business is that Airtec in named...based on what we think we know about it's operation. I do understand the 'shotgun' approach that lawyers use to rake in the dough. It's their job, yes. It's just suck-ass that the world operates that way.
Geez....I think those thoughts have been posted so many times they've become a cliche'. Beating a dead horse, really. 
Personally, I would not argue against third-party testing on the unit....not only this one but all of them when a problem occurs.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
And again, I am in complete agreement with you except for the fact that I do not believe a lawsuit should be filed against anyone here. In my opinion, the students shared responsibility for his death is 100% and the rigger 15% max. The student is dead. Nothing can bring him back. I understand the family is probably devastated and wants to blame someone. That is generally what happens when people die and we are suffering in pain. However, when the jumper is still 100% responsible for saving his life, and in this case did not, 100%, that is equivocal to committing suicide. When a person commits suicide, you can try to lay blame on other people... So and so was mean to that person and made them want to commit suicide. Well, that may be the case but the person who committed suicide made the choice. In this case, neither Airtech nor Mr. Mark made the choice to kill this individual. He did it to himself. Why does that entitle the family to sue? Is that going to bring the person back? Is that going to solve the problem? Is it going to fix the problem? I don't think so. The only thing that could have fixed this problem was if the jumper pulled one of the two handles to save his life and the rigger had his ticket taken away.
I am sorry but I just don't feel that litigation in any sense of the action is suitable here. No party named as a defendant is the cause of this death, that lies 100% with the jumper. If they want to sue someone, they should go after their deceased first. Since he is not here to defend his actions which were 100% the issue, no one else should be named period. Again, JMHO.
I am sorry but I just don't feel that litigation in any sense of the action is suitable here. No party named as a defendant is the cause of this death, that lies 100% with the jumper. If they want to sue someone, they should go after their deceased first. Since he is not here to defend his actions which were 100% the issue, no one else should be named period. Again, JMHO.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
QuoteQuoteEither way HE made a critical decision which cost him his life.
I don’t he made a decision and contributed to his death. There was a problem and he and failed to decide what if any action to take.QuoteSparky, I hate to break this to you and PopsJumper but here it is: When you fail to decide what if any action to take, you are making a decision. The decision to do nothing is still a decision.
Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."
Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."
Because Mr. Mark allegedly misrouted the loop on a tertiary back up device (not primary or secondary), IN MY OPINION, makes his liability minimal compared to the jumper.
Quote
I don't think you'll find too many experienced skydivers that would disagree with you regarding THAT statement...unfortunately that's not usually who make the decisions in court cases like this.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
skypuppy 1
it's called negligence.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone
Quoteit's called negligence.
I presume the student waived negligence, however. Not sure if that will hold up or not, depends on the local law and the facts (whether this would be gross negligence or ordinary negligence).
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
There were two pages written by the FAA Investigator and the last page is what is interesting. You be the judge: 'During our conversation, Mr. Bowen mentioned that Jason Mark, the owner of Archway Parachute Center, approached him when he arrived on the scene and handed him the data cards from the parachute. Mr. Mark then advised Mr. Bowen that the CYPRES device in the parachute worn by Mr. Bullar was actually the device from Archway Rental Parachute number 10. Mr. Bowen was perplexed as to why Mr. Mark would be telling him this information and why Mr. Mark removed the data tags from Mr. Bullar's parachute.'
The third is a letter to the FAA from Mr. Mark, in which Mr. Mark seems to be pointing a finger at SSK and/or Airtech. Direct quote from Mr. Mark. 'The Cypress AAD was sent to SSK to determine whether or not it fired. SSK is the company who performed the 8 year inspection on the cypres in August 2010, just just two months prior to the accident. At this time, they deemed the AAD to be airworthy. Why was the cypres not sent to an independent third party for inspection? SSK and AIRTEC have a potential conflict of interest in this matter. If they were to say that the Cypres did not fire, they might as well close the doors to their businesses. They continuously advertise that their equipment has never failed to activate, which is a convenient statement if they are the ones who test the equipment. I also question why my request to simply view the equipment in your presence was denied while SSK and AIREC was given complete and sole access to the device.'
First of all, I believe that Mr. Mark had complete and sole access while he was digging around the accident scene to remove the data card from the body. The attack on SSK and AIRTEC is a cowardly move, at the least, and his accusations bear no weight since the loop wasn't even through the cutter.
This type of statement by him and this type pf defense could be VERY damaging to an area of the industry that is a necessity, especially for student gear...and one that has a very small profit margin. This type of defense could be damaging to skydiving as a whole. I have also seen a photo that SHOWS an intact loop, next to a fired cutter. I have been told that Mr. Mark has spoken of chain of custody. Is he stating that the coroner, sheriff or FAA investigator made a new loop and placed it in the rig? Or is he speaking of the Cypres testing? Either way, it is smoke and mirrors.
Just my two cents worth...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites