Archway Skydiving Sued

[billvon 2,391]

>The people who think that the Waiver should protect any moron . . .

You cannot protect morons from anything. In skydiving, they just plain don't make it.

>The people who think that only the perfect performers in this sport deserve
>the right to live and skydive . . .

That's quite literally true, if you define "perfect performers" as the people who can ensure they get an open parachute over their heads by the time they get to the ground.

>and I challenge you all to say that you never screwed up badly enough in your
>skydiving career that it could have killed you, but you lived...

I can think of 2-3 times that happened to me. Fortunately I was "perfect" enough to not make the final mistake in the chain that led to my death. (Of course, most people would not call that perfect - more like a combination of half a brain and luck.)

>we should all be so perfect

Everyone who survives in this sport is perfect enough. Unfortunately the converse is not true - even if you are 100% perfect, you can still die.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

if you define "perfect performers" as the people who can ensure they get an open parachute over their heads by the time they get to the ground.

That's a pretty crazy statement, IMO.

I'd say that was the bare minimum performance level, wouldn't you?

It takes a hell of a lot more than that to be anywhere near perfect.

Quote

Everyone who survives in this sport is perfect enough. Unfortunately the converse is not true - even if you are 100% perfect, you can still die.

Again - WTF?

Are you saying that the people with permanent brain or spinal injuries as a result of jumping were "perfect enough"?

I think I could find a few people in that category to disagree with you.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

No, really the problem is people like you. The people who are concerned with only the cost to the industry. The people who think that the Waiver should protect any moron from a truly inexcusable and negligent action. The people who think that only the perfect performers in this sport deserve the right to live and skydive (and I challenge you all to say that you never screwed up badly enough in your skydiving career that it could have killed you, but you lived...we should all be so perfect). Your line of thinking is part of the problem, but I can't fix that...

I expect that you think that I am one of "those people who think that the waiver...".

That is not the case.

The problem I am having right now is that we have tried this case in the court of public opinion, and it is not clear to me that we have all the facts.

I am happy to let the courts wade through this regarding the actions of the rigger.

Some posts have used some very harsh language to describe people who are not so sure as you are about what happened.

Things like the student "deserved to die" or "got what he deserved" and stuff like that is not a accurate characterization of the things people have expressed. Comments like that serve only to incite strong emotional responses that stop people from thinking about and learning about what actually may have happened.

Rigging errors happen. Some errors turn out not to be so serious, and others turn out, very sadly, to be deadly.

It is not right or fair or just to simply pass judgment without a full and complete understanding of what went into the error.

Since the principals of this matter are not speaking here, we only have one side of the story. Speaking here is not a required of the accused, and in point of fact, could very well damage the abilities of the accused to defend themselves in court.

It is all too easy to say "This should never have happened". But it DID happen, and WHY and HOW it happened are important to the process of assigning blame.

I am not at all trying to hold that rigger blameless.

But I admit to myself that since I do not know the whole story, I am not the one to pass judgment at this time.

Carrying the thought further, none of us are.

Attacking 'twardo as "concerned with only the cost to the industry" is terribly unfair. Because the true cost to comply with your position might simply end the sport altogether. In the tandem video everybody sees, Bill Booth tells us that there will never be a perfect parachute, airplane, instructor,, or student. There will never be a perfect rigger either.

If you want only riggers who will say they can never make a mistake, you may soon find yourself with no rigger at all, and, if not that, then certainly with a shortage that is not good for anyone. If we require gear that is perfect, you might find few manufacturers who are willing to make gear. The additional money it costs for an AAD that tells us when the loop is not through the cutter is only the tip of the iceberg of what it could really cost. It could mean that people won't even try to make AADs because the business is like walking through a minefield.

Costs come in more flavors than just cash.

Me? I'm thinking I might give up rigging. I know, you'll be glad because you think I am a moron for even thinking that there is a possibility that this error was some sort of honest mistake. I am sure you'll be fine with it if I leave. But there are a lot of people who think I am, in fact, a very good rigger, and the person that they want to be watching their back. Do you think I've just been fooling them all along? Do you think I am just "going through the motions"? I assure you, that is not the case. But I still cannot and will not guarantee that I would never make a mistake. If that is the price of entry, then I cannot pay it.

[airtwardo 6]

No, really the problem is people like you. The people who are concerned with only the cost to the industry. The people who think that the Waiver should protect any moron from a truly inexcusable and negligent action. The people who think that only the perfect performers in this sport deserve the right to live and skydive (and I challenge you all to say that you never screwed up badly enough in your skydiving career that it could have killed you, but you lived...we should all be so perfect). Your line of thinking is part of the problem, but I can't fix that...

Quote

You get all that about 'people like ME', from my asking how YOU would fix the problems YOU are complaining about?

Where in ANY of my posts did I allude to anything you've said about me and people like me??

Kinda jumping to uninformed conclusions if you ask 'me'.


All I am asking those who make these complaints, you included...to analyze the problem, come up with a workable solution and lets discuss it.

If you honestly believe economics don't play into that you're not in touch with reality.

What exactly are you asking to be done?

Would having a 3 master rigger team at each and every dropzone in the country completely pull apart every rig of every jumper prior to manifesting for every jump to make sure the reserve is packed correctly?

Well...that's gonna cost a little money.

So will most any other changes to any system in use in any other business.
It's called a cost/benefit analysis and it's done hundreds of times a day.

When you decide if driving across town to save 2 cents a gallon is worth it you are doing one, are you 'one of those people' that only worries about the cost?

If you've done something in regard to taking care of some of the problems you're describing...why the 'secret squirrel' stuff? Maybe being open about and discussing your concerns & rectifying measures may give someone else an idea, that may save a life?

I'm not trying to stop open discussion, I'm trying to get 'people like you' to take the complaining and finger pointing one step further and offer up some intelligent options to consider that will alleviate these concerns...so far nothing but crickets.




No...I'm not the 'problem' here.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[d100965 0]

I voted that the rigger is 100% responsible.
They were paid to do a job and they did it wrong.
They removed someones last hope of survival.
That someone was a student.

Taking into consideration that:-
1. The student failed to open a functioning parachute in time.
2. No one should rely on an AAD.
3. Had the loop been routed correctly then the cutter firing MAY have resulted in a functioning reserve in time. Also taking into consideration that the AAD is not fool proof and loops may not cut correctly, container flaps may lock and reserve pilot chutes may hesitate etc, etc.
4. The rigger may have routed the loop correctly through the cutter initially but some set of unforeseen circumstances meant that this then ended up misrouted.

I still believe the rigger is 100% responsible.

If the the student had lost consciousness (maybe due to a tailstrike) and was thus unable to pull, then we would all be looking at this very differently.

The rigger is 100% responsible...

The amount of blame apportioned and their subsequent punishment is mitigated by the above 4 points but their responsibility remains the same.

[billvon 2,391]

>I'd say that was the bare minimum performance level, wouldn't you?

Yes. I don't think it's the definition of "perfect." But if you define "perfect performers" as people who can save their own lives (which lowpullterri seems to be doing) then people who can pull on their own meet that definition.

>Are you saying that the people with permanent brain or spinal injuries as
>a result of jumping were "perfect enough"?

To survive? (which is what we were talking about) Yes. To do well in this sport? No, it's nowhere close to "perfect enough."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Good god don't muddy the waters here.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

I voted that the rigger is 100% responsible.

If the student's actions were different during the skydive, then the student's survival would not have even been a function of the rigger's mistake. Therefore it does not follow that the rigger is 100% responsible for the student's death. I simply can't see your viewpoint as being defensible. My reserve closing loop could have been misrouted on all 2600 or so jumps I've made with a cypres in my rig for all I know and I'm sitting here, alive, writing this.

So here's a thought exercise which is me being an engineer and not a lawyer... Given that this was a rig used by students and other low-timers and assuming this was a one time rigging mistake, what is the probability that this mistake would actually result in a fatality? For the sake of simplicity let's make the liberal assumption that if the loop was routed correctly and there was a cypres fire that it would definitely result in survival.

To answer you'd need to know or estimate 1) total number of student jumps made for some period of time 2) total number of student jumps resulting in a cypres fire (or that would have if there was no cypres and there was a fatality) during that time period and 3) total number of jumps made on a repack cycle of the rig in question.

Do you think you're going to calculate a probability anywhere near 1?

[sacex250 0]

Although a lot of the conversation on these threads has been about "No Pulls," one detail of this incident that seems to have gotten lost at some point is that the student had deployed his main parachute but it apparently malfunctioned causing him to spin out of control with a descent rate high enough to activate the CYPRES. This wasn't a student who just froze and didn't pull, he had some kind of main malfunction and for any number of reasons didn't cutaway and get a reserve. Maybe he lost altitude awareness, maybe he panicked and froze, maybe he couldn't find the cutaway, maybe he thought he could save it, maybe he thought "this can't really be happening," or maybe he really did lose consciousness. I'm sure more information will come out at trial.

The primary design feature of a Student CYPRES that distinguishes it from other CYPRES models is that it is designed to cut to the closing loop at a much lower rate of descent in a case like this where a student is under a malfunctioning main parachute, which it apparently attempted to do in this case.

But due to a rigging error, all functionality of the AAD was lost. As far as the AAD is concerned, that is 100% the rigger's responsibility unless Airtec can also be found liable for the AAD's failure detection ability and/or inadequate instruction materials provided to riggers.

The overall cause of the accident, and death of the student, may be shared between the student, DZO (instruction, rental), rigger, and Airtec but the malfunction of the AAD cannot be blamed on the student if there was negligence involved that deprived him of a safety device that may have prevented his death.

Quote

If the student's actions were different during the skydive, then the student's survival would not have even been a function of the rigger's mistake.

Yeah, the student was in a situation where it's concievable that he could have/should have taken action himself, but he didn't, and even the AAD's programming decided the student needed help and tried to cut the closing loop but it didn't work. This case isn't about accidents that didn't happen. This case is about this accident in which activation parameters for a safety device were reached and the device failed to function as intended.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[airtwardo 6]

So I guess now you're saying the main packer is liable too huh?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 2,391]

>So I guess now you're saying the main packer is liable too huh?

And the main parachute manufacturer.

[champu 1]

Your reply to my post doesn't make sense given what I wrote and what it was in response to. But hopefully I can clarify...

The student is dead. That is the end-all-be-all undesired result of this incident. No one cares in any direct sense that the closing loop wasn't cut; a cut closing loop isn't some fundamental goal of any given skydive. This isn't a "wrongful closing loop not cut case" it's a "wrongful death" case.

Saying that "X party is 100% responsible for the closing loop not being cut" may or may not be true, but in either event it's a dishonest representation of the case.

[skybeergodd 0]

Wrong....the student pulled too low for the main to inflate enough to save his life. The main had bearly left the bag before impact. I have avoided commenting on this topic of threads since they were generated by someone with an axe to grind (got kicked off that DZ as well and several others).
Just setting a fact straight and now I'll leave the rest of the bashing and slamming to the rest of you.

[lopullterri 0]

Well now Kelly, I do have an axe to grind and have never hidden that fact, but if you want to use that to take the discussion into another direction, I'm not biting. I stayed silent about this guys poor rigging and malice for 6 years and look what happened. If you feel good about about that and can sleep at night...good for you, but keep in mind that there are a lot of facts here (and in the past) that you know NOTHING about. If you continue, you will just make yourself look like the lemming you have always been.

~"I am not afraid. I was born to do this"~

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

...the malfunction of the AAD...

It didn't malfunction. It functioned, but the rigging of the closing loop rendered its functioning irrelevant.

I told you in the other thread, and now I'm telling you in this one: you really need to stop pulling twisted facts out of your ass in an attempt to implicate Airtec. After reading all of your posts in this incident, I don't believe you're simply being dense or obtuse, I think you're deliberately mischaracterizing facts. If you tried that shit in a courtroom the judge would hand you your ass.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The rigger is 100% responsible...

The amount of blame apportioned and their subsequent punishment is mitigated by the above 4 points but their responsibility remains the same.

So you're also saying that the jumper had no responsibility to open their own parachute?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[skybeergodd 0]

You so arrogant I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Anyone that knows me, knows I will call a spade a spade and friends or not I'll call out safety violations. Now the lemming is you. You blindly flow any DZ that will have you until you shoot off your mouth and get kicked off. Then you start your public smear campaign without ever disclosing your great DZ resume. How many are you up to now, I've lost count, 5 or 6 is it. If you thought Archway was so bad why did you wait to scream safety until you got kicked off.
My point is if you want to start a public bashing campaign, put all the facts on the table and let people decide if your credible enough to believe. I eagerly await your rambling tirade response.

[docjohn 0]

We assume students are going to make mistakes, otherwise they wouldn't be students. Maybe we should train them on the ground, let them jump without instructors and say its their fault when they die.

This is the rigger's fault. Mis-rigging the AAD is just as bad as leaving a temporary pin in the reserve.

Doc
http://www.manifestmaster.com/video

[kallend 1,622]

I am not a rigger nor do I play one on TV. I am curious about how obvious it is to a rigger during the reserve repack that the closing loop is misrouted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

...the malfunction of the AAD...

It didn't malfunction. It functioned, but the rigging of the closing loop rendered its functioning irrelevant.

I told you in the other thread, and now I'm telling you in this one: you really need to stop pulling twisted facts out of your ass in an attempt to implicate Airtec. After reading all of your posts in this incident, I don't believe you're simply being dense or obtuse, I think you're deliberately mischaracterizing facts. If you tried that shit in a courtroom the judge would hand you your ass.

For a "product liability attorney" you sure haven't read much case law. If you're just going to come here as the leader of the Coalition of the Ignorant and launch personal attacks on me then what you say will simply be disregarded. Now, if you'd actually like to participate in the discussion by using your vast knowledge of product liability law to actually give an opinion, beginning with what you think the legal interpretation of the phrase "but for" means, then that would be a different matter, otherwise get off my ass.

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[billvon 2,391]

Both of you cut it out,

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

I am not a rigger nor do I play one on TV. I am curious about how obvious it is to a rigger during the reserve repack that the closing loop is misrouted.

If you looked at it at the right angles, it could look like it was threaded properly... However, looking straight down at it (as it would be laying on the ground and getting the freebag placed inside of it... it should be fairly obvious (still quite possible to miss though)

ETA: This is how I feel about the backpad mounted cutter locations (wings, javelin). I do like the cutter located on the backpad more than the flaps, but I'm no container engineer.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

what you think the legal interpretation of the phrase "but for" means,

OK. "But for" the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the cutter, the Cypres would still have functioned as it was supposed to. Oh, wait - it did.

I've already told you I'm not getting sucked into your little game.

[champu 1]

Quote

We assume students are going to make mistakes, otherwise they wouldn't be students. Maybe we should train them on the ground, let them jump without instructors and say its their fault when they die.

This is the rigger's fault. Mis-rigging the AAD is just as bad as leaving a temporary pin in the reserve.

It's bad, but it's not "just as bad as leaving a temp pin in the reserve." Good grief, what is it with the crappy analogies surrounding this incident? As I said before, I've made about 2600 jumps where there was a cypres in the rig, and it could have been misrouted on every single one and I'm still here. I've also had four malfunctions, if there was a temp pin in my reserve on each of them, I'd be dead. End of discussion.

The reason people are against 100% blame on the rigger is because such a decision sends a clear message: "don't be a rigger."

The reason people are against any blame on Airtec/SSK is because such a decision sends a clear message: "don't try and make the sport safer."

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

The reason people are against 100% blame on the rigger is because such a decision sends a clear message: "don't be a rigger."

I, like Paul, cannot promise with 100% certianty that I will not ever make a mistake. Does this mean I'm a shitty rigger? Not at all... Does it make me not want to work on many peoples gear? A little.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message