jumpsalot-2 2 #51 June 21, 2011 If we found out tomorrow, that this reserve had actually been packed by an apprentice to the rigger in question, this mis-rigging would begin to make a lot of sense. Even though the rigger is overseeing the pack job and is ultimately liable. It would not suprise me to find out this was what happened.Life is short ... jump often. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinjin 0 #52 June 21, 2011 airtec doesnt have to show any such thing. The student died casue he didnt pull his main.. the student died because he didnt pull his reserve. it is a shame in this country that anyone thinks someone is responsible other than the person who didnt pull. shame on the money grubbing lawyers. shame on the parents for filing this suit. the US legal system sucks to entertain this garbage. i hope you and everyone who thinks like you would get their head out of their ass and wake the F@%#@ up. you are responsible for you.. some little computer 5 seconds from impact isnt going to save you. shame on you if you think it will. nice if it does. and dont whine when it doesnt. dont ruin our amazing life in the sky us cause some fuck up didnt pull. yes i hope the parents read this. i hope the jurors read this. your son died cause he didnt save himself. period. all that is happening here is everyone will pay in some form except the lawyers.dont let life pass you by Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #53 June 21, 2011 Quotesome little computer 5 seconds from impact isnt going to save you. Sorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Reserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Even though skydivers are told not to depend on a Cypres to save their lives, never the less, that is the exact reason why Airtec manufactures them, why people purchase them, and why lawyers are going to come calling when somebody dies while using one. I'm sure Airtec will be the first to admit they missed out on a "SAVE" here. The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime?It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinjin 0 #54 June 21, 2011 it did exactly what it was supposed to do. it fired the cutter. the student failed to pull and died. cypress didnt fail him, the dz didnt fail him. the skydiver failed himself. #@$%#$ . if you want to live without living, try bowling.dont let life pass you by Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #55 June 21, 2011 QuoteI'm sure Airtec will be the first to admit they missed out on a "SAVE" here. The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime? You have GOT to be kidding me. So, maybe you think that the manufacturers should be the only one that does anything to do with the gear. I could send my harness/container to UPT and let them do a factory inspection, then send the H/C with an unattached reserve to PD and have them do the full inspection on the canopy, assemble it to the container, pack it to the point of flaking and laying the canopy down, then send the whole assembly (while keeping the packjob pretty and tension on the lines) BACK to UPT and have them fold and bag the reserve, then send it to Airtec-US and have them verify that the Cypres is installed and operational, and the closing loop is properly routed through the cutter (the closing loop that UPT had to special order from Airtec, then trim/install in the container). Once the closing loop is thru the cutter (which, btw is on the bottom flap on my container, so it would have to be a joint effort by Airtec and UPT to get the bag in the container with the closing loop properly routed) THEN send it BACK to UPT for final closing. That is WAY more dangerous of an idea, and that's having all of the components checked by the companies that made them! You're barking up the wrong tree here. If you think that everyone is trying to kill you, you're right... go get your riggers ticket and let me know how much fun it is. We ALL make mistakes, the trick is learning and not doing it again. Student died because they failed to pull their handles which would've eliminated the need for an AAD. I don't know about you, but I like to open my main every time. Even with a hard opening, it's still softer than the ground."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #56 June 21, 2011 QuoteOn the other hand, if forgetting to route the closing loop through the cutter is foreseeable then Airtec is going to have to show what steps they've taken to account for that. An obvious complication here is that there is no way to check the placement of the closing loop Airtec has taken the only step it can, and that is include the step of routuing the loop through the cutter in the instruction manual. You keep missing the obvious point that there is a way to check if the loop is through the cutter, and that's the rigger looking at the loop during the pack job. Routing the loop through the cutter is the riggers job, not Airtecs. Every country has a regulatory body that certifies riggers, and as such these devices are only intented to be set-up by qualified professionals. The Cypres's design as a lopp-cutting AAD is not new in the marketplace, nor is the design unique. A Cypres, in terms of installation and set-up is not a 'consumer' product in that it's not intended for use by the 'public at large'. It's use in that capacity is limited to rated, qualified professionals, and as such, including the step of routing the loop through the cutter in the manual is sufficient notice to the installers that this obvious step must be performed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrigger1 2 #57 June 21, 2011 Quote It truth, the federal government, more specifically the FAA, should be held responsible becasue they are ones who certified the rigger in question as being capable of maintaining parachute equipment in accordance with the FARs, which state that all equipment must be assembled and maintainted to the standard set forth by the manufacturer. Airtec set an acceptable standard, and the FAA certified rigger failed to maintain the rig in question to that standard. Dave, There are a couple of problems with that theory. Airtec is not a manufacturer of "acceptable" standards in the FAA's eyes as they are not affiliated with the FAA. AirTec holds no FAA certificates or TSOs that I am aware of. The "standards" that you speak of should be coming from the TSO holder (H/C manufacturer) that the AAD is installed in, as they are responsible for the approval of the AAD. Which brings use to another point, some H/C manufacturers have included approvals in their paperwork: others have not, but simply given a verbal approval which is not completely legal. But you are right about the FAA being held accountable. BS, MELSkyworks Parachute Service, LLC www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #58 June 21, 2011 QuoteDave, There are a couple of problems with that theory More than a couple. The theory is in reposnse to the other guy who was pushing his equally odd theory that Airtec had responsibility because it didn't include a 'loop confirmer' in it's design, so the jumper has no way to confirm the loop is through the cutter. If you give me two minutes, I could probably come up with 3 other angles both pro and con Airtec in this instance and they would all seem off kilter to a jumper, but could make sense to a wuffo juror. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #59 June 21, 2011 QuoteSo, maybe you think that the manufacturers should be the only one that does anything to do with the gear. First of all, that's not what I meant. Secondly, I'm just trying to discuss the issue, not change the world. [WARNING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE BELOW, DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS!] Thirdly, what if you were a rigger, you were having a bad day, and you were having a bitch of a time getting the closing loop, the cutter, and the pilot chute to cooperate while closing up the rig; and, you finally get ticked off enough to say, "the hell with it, if he needs a stupid AAD to open his reserve he deserves to die anyway." So, you simply close up the container without the complication of that stupid cutter because no one would ever know. And then, the jumper gets knocked unconscious by a funnel crasher, and falls to his death because of your attitude towards AADs. Lastly, I'm only saying that I'm not arguing with the premise that it's the jumper's responsibility to open his chute, just that there is a legitimate reason that the AAD is there. And there is a legitimate reason that the AAD is required for students, it's called the "No Pull". The AAD in this case apparently worked properly, but since the rigger made a mistake, and there was no possible way that anyone else could ever know about it until it was too late, then why shouldn't some sort of solution to that single-point failure possibility be considered?It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsreznor 0 #60 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteReserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Wrong again. Reserve parachutes are classified as the only "life-saving device" in your rig. That's why a certified rigger has to inspect and pack it. Your main parachute is not considered life-saving by the FAA, and that's why (basically) anyone can pack it. Try reading the FARs sometime. You might learn something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #61 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteReserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Wrong again. Reserve parachutes are classified as the only "life-saving device" in your rig. That's why a certified rigger has to inspect and pack it. Your main parachute is not considered life-saving by the FAA, and that's why (basically) anyone can pack it. Try reading the FARs sometime. You might learn something. 'Basically' anyone under the direct supervision of a rigger, person making the next jump, or a certificated rigger. That's not anyone. [FAR 105.43(a)]"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #62 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuotesome little computer 5 seconds from impact isnt going to save you. Sorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Reserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Even though skydivers are told not to depend on a Cypres to save their lives, never the less, that is the exact reason why Airtec manufactures them, why people purchase them, and why lawyers are going to come calling when somebody dies while using one. I'm sure Airtec will be the first to admit they missed out on a "SAVE" here. The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime? See FAR Part 105.43(c) (previously cited).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #63 June 21, 2011 QuoteThirdly, what if you were a rigger, CHECK you were having a bad day, CHECK and you were having a bitch of a time getting the closing loop, the cutter, and the pilot chute to cooperate while closing up the rig CHECK; and, you finally get ticked off enough to say, "the hell with it, if he needs a stupid AAD to open his reserve he deserves to die anyway." So, you simply close up the container without the complication of that stupid cutter because no one would ever know. And then, the jumper gets knocked unconscious by a funnel crasher, and falls to his death because of your attitude towards AADs. I've never had any more issue closing a rig that had a cutter mounted properly than closing one without it. I don't care HOW shitty of a day/time I'm having if the rig is kicking my ass, I take a break, relax a few mins or leave it till the morning to finish closing. I don't know of ANY rigger that would intentionally do anything even close to just 'making it easy'. ETA: According to the incident thread, it looks like it was a Wings container, which has a bottom of the pack tray mounted cutter, not threading it thru the cutter would make no difference as far as closing goes (minus a possible having to adjust the closing loop 1/4" which is a SMALL possibility of having to do)"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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #64 June 21, 2011 QuoteYou are stating things like they are a fact but you have very little historical information and understanding of skydiving since in October you were saying you've never made a jump before... Perhaps, I just prefer anonymity? Would it make a difference if I had 1262 jumps and a D-license? It's one thing to be anonymous, it's another to lie. Which is it with you? Were you just pretending to be inexperienced in your earlier posts?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #65 June 21, 2011 Quoteairtec doesnt have to show any such thing. The student died casue he didnt pull his main.. You can teach that to your students, you can say that around the bonfire - but if you ever try to explain that to a judge or jury you will find yourself in a lot of trouble, and paying out a lot of money. Nope, this case is about negligence, and a non-functional Cypres in a student rig will have some very costly ramifications. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #66 June 21, 2011 QuoteSorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Reserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Even though skydivers are told not to depend on a Cypres to save their lives, never the less, that is the exact reason why Airtec manufactures them, why people purchase them, and why lawyers are going to come calling when somebody dies while using one. I'm sure Airtec will be the first to admit they missed out on a "SAVE" here. The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime? See FAR Part 105.43(c) (previously cited). Only a fool would predict with any certainty on how this will turnout, but if I were Airtec's attorney, I certainly wouldn't want to hang my hat on one line of FAR that says something must be maintained properly. One line of FAR does not answer the question "why didn't they put a sensor in the cutter". That said, I agree with previous posts, I don't think Airtec holds much blame here. They're only there for the deep pockets, or to testify against the rigger. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #67 June 21, 2011 Quote That said, I agree with previous posts, I don't think Airtec holds much blame here. They're only there for the deep pockets, or to testify against the rigger. _Am I'm still with sinjin. The student died because he didn't pull his reserve. It sickens me that this is about the money, but it is how we live these days. Someone fucks up, everyone else must be responsible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #68 June 21, 2011 QuoteSorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Really? That is a statement of opinion. Where in the FAR's does it say any of that? Where in the FAR's are any standards of certification or operational requirements noted? Where are there any laws period about the use, certification, or requirements of AAD's in general noted? You haven't got a leg to stand on. According to LAW, the AAD doesn't have to do a thing.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #69 June 21, 2011 Unfortunately the justice system and common sense parted ways a long time ago. AirTec might have a problem with this one. I don't think FAR's have much to do with this. It's a product liability issue. It's possible for the AAD to inform the user that everything is OK when in fact it's not. I'm just sayin'. I don't agree with it.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #70 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThirdly, what if you were a rigger, CHECK you were having a bad day, CHECK and you were having a bitch of a time getting the closing loop, the cutter, and the pilot chute to cooperate while closing up the rig CHECK; and, you finally get ticked off enough to say, "the hell with it, if he needs a stupid AAD to open his reserve he deserves to die anyway." So, you simply close up the container without the complication of that stupid cutter because no one would ever know. And then, the jumper gets knocked unconscious by a funnel crasher, and falls to his death because of your attitude towards AADs. I've never had any more issue closing a rig that had a cutter mounted properly than closing one without it. I don't care HOW shitty of a day/time I'm having if the rig is kicking my ass, I take a break, relax a few mins or leave it till the morning to finish closing. I don't know of ANY rigger that would intentionally do anything even close to just 'making it easy'. ETA: According to the incident thread, it looks like it was a Wings container, which has a bottom of the pack tray mounted cutter, not threading it thru the cutter would make no difference as far as closing goes (minus a possible having to adjust the closing loop 1/4" which is a SMALL possibility of having to do) [WARNING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE BELOW, DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS!] It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #71 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteReserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Wrong again. Reserve parachutes are classified as the only "life-saving device" in your rig. That's why a certified rigger has to inspect and pack it. Your main parachute is not considered life-saving by the FAA, and that's why (basically) anyone can pack it. Try reading the FARs sometime. You might learn something. Which was the point I thought I made!It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #72 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteThirdly, what if you were a rigger, CHECK you were having a bad day, CHECK and you were having a bitch of a time getting the closing loop, the cutter, and the pilot chute to cooperate while closing up the rig CHECK; and, you finally get ticked off enough to say, "the hell with it, if he needs a stupid AAD to open his reserve he deserves to die anyway." So, you simply close up the container without the complication of that stupid cutter because no one would ever know. And then, the jumper gets knocked unconscious by a funnel crasher, and falls to his death because of your attitude towards AADs. I've never had any more issue closing a rig that had a cutter mounted properly than closing one without it. I don't care HOW shitty of a day/time I'm having if the rig is kicking my ass, I take a break, relax a few mins or leave it till the morning to finish closing. I don't know of ANY rigger that would intentionally do anything even close to just 'making it easy'. ETA: According to the incident thread, it looks like it was a Wings container, which has a bottom of the pack tray mounted cutter, not threading it thru the cutter would make no difference as far as closing goes (minus a possible having to adjust the closing loop 1/4" which is a SMALL possibility of having to do) [WARNING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE BELOW, DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS!] I didn't... but it's a good story to tell the jury, since it seems you're interested in everyone from the rigger, the dz and even Airtec getting their wallets out and handing over some cash. I really wish the defense would hire just about any rigger with a good head on their shoulders, it would be a simple demonstration to show that it wasn't intentional for those reasons you listed. Your 'hypothetical example' is flawed, the design of the container and installation of the AAD cutter at the bottom of the pack tray on that container preclude your idea that it could've been someone just bypassing it to get the container shut. Realistically, once the freebag is in the container, you wouldn't notice a single difference between closing a Wings with and without an AAD. The harder parts (compressing the spring and closing the last two flaps with the spring trying to push out) are what gets ya."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #73 June 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteSorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Really? That is a statement of opinion. Where in the FAR's does it say any of that? Where in the FAR's are any standards of certification or operational requirements noted? Where are there any laws period about the use, certification, or requirements of AAD's in general noted? You haven't got a leg to stand on. According to LAW, the AAD doesn't have to do a thing. We're dealing with product liability tort law here. The manufacturer of any product is liable for any damages/injuries that the product may cause. It doesn't matter if it's a step ladder, fingernail clippers, or pajamas. It it's designed/manufactured by somebody then they are going to be held responsible for it if it causes injury or damage through its use, foreseeable misuse, or defects. In this case, there is a product that claims it will cut the closing loop of a reserve parachute container under certain conditions, with the subsequent intent of allowing the reserve parachute to deploy as a life-saving measure. It failed to cut the closing loop, even though the device properly activated, apparently as a result of improper installation/set-up of the device. This is not a frivolous lawsuit. We may well debate who should be held more accountable, but arguing the validity of the lawsuit itself is futile. Here's one for you that's in the news right now: Is it reasonably foreseeable that a tsunami could disable emergency diesel generators at a nuclear power plant causing the nuclear reactors to lose their cooling water flow and subsequently have their cores melt down? How do you think that one will turn out? My money's on "Yeah, they probably should have seen that one as a possibility."It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #74 June 21, 2011 Who are you again? Are you affiliated with this case?? And why do I have the feeling we met under a different user-name before? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #75 June 21, 2011 QuoteIn this case, there is a product that claims it will cut the closing loop of a reserve parachute container under certain conditions, with the subsequent intent of allowing the reserve parachute to deploy as a life-saving measure. It failed to cut the closing loop, even though the device properly activated, apparently as a result of improper installation/set-up of the device. What then, do you make of this: QuoteCYPRES is strictly a backup device, and is not intended to replace proper training or timely execution of appropriate emergency procedures. Even with the best training and the best equipment, skydiving is a high-speed, hazardous recreational activity that can severly injure or kill you. Statistics indicate that the use of CYPRES tends to reduce the risk of serious injury or death, but it does NOT eliminate it, and in certain circumstances it may even increase the risk. If you or your family are not willing to accept these facts, please discontinue the use of CYPRES, and seriously consider taking up a safer sport. "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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
