Airchway Skydiving Sued

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Quote

Great post.


I hear crickets...

You hear crickets because it is difficult to compose a reply to such utter crap.

Can a rigger make a mistake? Yes.

Can't live with the responsibility of that? Quit jumping or become your own rigger.

Nothing this rigger did cause the man in this incident to die. The fact he was not cut out for skydiving cause him to die.

I'm flabbergasted that people in the sport as long as the two of you have such an attitude. Maybe if you spent more time working with the masses of ignorant people that see skydiving on TV and assume there is nothing to it, you might realize that by giving people a crutch and letting them all believe they can do it, is really just weakening the safety culture on a daily basis.

Guess what? There are consequences to actions we take. If you jump from an airplane and fail to open a parachute you will most assuredly die.

Perhaps your opinions would be different if you worked with more students. Perhaps I'm jaded since I have more instructional skydives than the two of you report combined. But I know one thing for sure. Every student of mine tandem or AFF knows what Can happen if they fail to open a parachute.

Let's clarify the definition of "back-up device." An installed AAD is a back-up device only as far as a skydiver's training is concerned. It's not the primary activation method, but that doesn't mean that it's excused from having to function properly. There is a reason why USPA requires AADs on student jumps and the FAA requires an installed AAD to be functional on each jump. The fact that this jumper unknowingly had a non-functional AAD is what makes this case so relevant.

Hindsight can't be used here to decide whether or not the AAD needed to be functional, it needed to be functional whether a student froze, had a heart attack, or collided with something during freefall and was knocked unconscious. If a jumper without an AAD no-pulls and dies then that is the risk that skydiver personally took.

A student jumper, or ANYONE, who is jumping with an AAD is entitled to a functional AAD that at least gives them a last chance at survival for whatever reason. To have an AAD malfunction, and then simply say in hindsight, "Well, he should have pulled, he got what he deserved," is ridiculous. He deserved a functional AAD. He rented a rig that both the FAA and USPA say was supposed to have a functional AAD. It didn't, period! And, that applies to anyone else who may have used this rig since its last repack. The likelihood that this jumper would still be alive if the AAD was installed correctly is pretty good, definitely better than even, even if he'd been unconscious.

The jumper didn't pull but that doesn't excuse the AAD from having to be functional. It's not a coincidence that there's a dead jumper and a non-functional AAD, there's a pretty strong connection between the two.

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

[david3 0]

The AAD Malfunctioned? I hadn't read that. I thought it fired just like it was supposed to.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

The AAD Malfunctioned? I hadn't read that. I thought it fired just like it was supposed to.

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out.

The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this AAD was functional as installed? Doubtful.

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

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The AAD Malfunctioned? I hadn't read that. I thought it fired just like it was supposed to.

It fired as per programed parameters.

My question again to sacex220 is what affiliation he has to this case?

And why does he want to seemingly keep stating incorrect or incomplete opinion as factional information...

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

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

The AAD Malfunctioned? I hadn't read that. I thought it fired just like it was supposed to.

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out.

The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this AAD was functional as installed? Doubtful.

Yup, if there would have been a loop to cut it sure would have cut it. Of course that doesn't mean the container would have opened or the parachute would deploy...but you know that right? You've 'researched' that too?

Why again exactly are you trying to show that the company with the most a$$ets is at fault here?

Is it a coincidence that you joined this site shortly following this incident, and 90+ % of your posts are in regard to blaming a corporation for thi$ fatality?

Quack Quack?







...crickets

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

To have an AAD malfunction, and then simply say in hindsight, "Well, he should have pulled, he got what he deserved," is ridiculous.

As stated, the AAD didn't malfunction. It appears to have done it's job just as designed.

FJCs teach students that they must initiate the deployment of a parachute. Must initiate the deployment of a parachute. Not maybe initiate the deployment of deployment of a parachute. Must

FJC students are told that they are the only person responsible for deploying a parachute. They're given pages and pages of waivers to sign that explain that jumping is very dangerous. They're told that they absolutely don't have to get on the airplane if they aren't willing to take the risk.

They're told that they can't count on the AAD.

The AAD is there to increase the odds of survival if the student is incapable of pulling and also if they simply fuck up and fail to pull. The instructors are there to attempt to help deploy a main for the student if they have a difficult time with that, and to attempt to help deploy a reserve if necessary. Neither the AAD or the instructors are presented as a guarantee that a parachute will be deployed. They're there to increase the odds of survival, not eliminate the odds of fatality.

I don't think this student "deserved" to die, but I betchya he was warned that if he didn't make every possible effort to deploy, he might die.

I do think that his backup reserve initiation system was improperly rigged. That backup system includes parts of the primary initiation system. The reserve pin worked properly, the closing loop worked properly, and the AAD worked properly.

Unfortunately, they weren't connected together properly. Blaming the AAD for that is like suing the closing loop manufacturer because the closing loop didn't have a sensor to warn the jumper that an AAD was present but not connected to the loop.

The rigger who improperly rigged the closing loop eliminated some of the "added" protection that an AAD affords, he didn't increase the odds of a fatality or cause a fatality.

Quote

The jumper didn't pull but that doesn't excuse the AAD from having to be functional

Unless the jumper was told that he had an AAD that was guaranteed to save him if he didn't pull, I disagree.

Owned by Remi #?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

The AAD Malfunctioned? I hadn't read that. I thought it fired just like it was supposed to.

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out.

Ok then... do you call Sony up and bitch at them when the cable is out?

No, because they supply the product, it's up to an independent company to hook it up... right? Exactly.

Quote

The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this AAD was functional as installed? Doubtful.

Well... I don't recall the FAA saying ANYTHING about the AAD being functional for a jump. I would be in serious trouble if it was a FAR that I violated when I jump a rig with the AAD turned off!

The FAA says (FAR 105.43c) it must be 'maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions' so... legally I am falling within the FAR so long as the Cypres gets its 4 & 8 year checks, because that is MAINTAINING it IAW the mfgr's instructions.

Try that on for size.

"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

[labrys 0]

Quote

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop

A properly installed (ETA complete backup system including an AAD and closing loop) should result in a cut closing loop.

A functional AAD fires within it's advertised parameters.

Owned by Remi #?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop

A properly installed AAD should cut a closing loop.

A functional AAD fires within it's advertised parameters.

That was a quote from another poster (sacex250), just FYI.

"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

[labrys 0]

Quote

That was a quote from another poster (sacex250), just FYI.

Yes, sorry about that.

Owned by Remi #?

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Yup, if there would have been a loop to cut it sure would have cut it. Of course that doesn't mean the container would have opened or the parachute would deploy...but you know that right? You've 'researched' that too?

Why again exactly are you trying to show that the company with the most assets is at fault here?

Is it a coincidence that you joined this site shortly following this incident, and 90% of your posts are in regard to blaming a corporation for this fatality?

Quack Quack?

Could you really be so dense as to think that the possibility that the reserve might not open would excuse the AAD from having to cut the closing loop?

By that logic, we could excuse the jumper for not pulling silver because it wouldn't have guaranteed that the reserve would have deployed either.

If you honestly think that there is any alterior motive to my posting here other than what I post here then you are seriously mistaken. I've gotten more than one private message from people who have thanked me for making the argument because it's an unpopular argument that skydivers don't want to hear. Just because you hate lawyers or think that the lawsuit is a threat to the sport doesn't change the fact that a skydiver most likely didn't have to die in this case, and that this is something that could have happened to any skydiver who uses an AAD for whatever reason, especially any one of the people who used this specific rig.

Here's my opinion summed up:

Yes, the jumper failed at his duty to open a parachute which what was determined by the investigation to result in an "accident." If he didn't have an AAD or the AAD had "functioned" correctly by cutting the closing loop and the jumper died anyway then I wouldn't be saying that it was anything but a tragic, unfortunate accident for the sport.

The fact that the AAD was rigged in such a way that it couldn't have possibly functioned correctly which made the unit completely useless makes the rigger and DZO ultimately responsible for the jumper's death. It doesn't matter what the "odds" were of the reserve deploying and saving the jumper's life had the AAD functioned correctly; the rigger's negligence absolutely deprived the jumper of any chance that the AAD may have given him.

I do not hold Airtec responsible for this particular fatality. The question is purely legal, had there been a secondary means of confirming that the closing loop was properly routed would the unit have functioned correctly? This is the question that will likely be put in front of the jury, and the answer is most likely yes. Airtec has, knowingly, put itself in the position of relying solely on a rigger to ensure that the device functions as designed and as advertised; and in this case, Airtec's decision to do that resulted in a failure because the rigger that Airtec has put the responsibility on - failed. Airtec can't just pass the buck like that. Airtec bears some responsibility for the installation of the product, just like it bears responsibility for jumpers turning it on beforehand. How many Cypres ads have you seen with the reminder to "Turn It On"? That's an example of Airtec's responsibility.

Remember, Airtec requires that the unit be shipped to a service center every four years for required service and has even guaranteed that the batteries won't need to be replaced between service intervals. And yet, Airtec has done nothing to give anyone, even the unit itself, the ability to do a pre-jump check to ensure that the closing loop is properly routed and has enough tension on it.

Even diablopilot who is holding the jumper 100% responsible claims that no one other than the jumper is responsible for doing a pre-jump inspection of the rig. Okay, if that's the case then why hasn't Airtec given jumpers a way to do that? Would you buy a car that didn't have a dipstick to check the engine oil?

Now if skydivers want to bet their lives on the integrity of their rigger then that's their choice, but should Airtec get to bet the lives of skydivers solely on the integrity of a rigger? That's what it has done, and it didn't work out in this case.

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

[NovaTTT 1]

I guess we'll have to disagree, Jim.

But I don't use an AAD either - never have except for those 15 or so student jumps with an FXC12000.

But that's the balance point: students should be equipped with fully-functioning AADs. If the JM fails to arm it and the student goes in the JM should answer for the screw up.

Same thing for the mis-rig. IMO that rigger should hang his head in shame as he surrenders his tick to the FAA. He screwed up and somebody died. It just doesn't get any worse than that.

Students are under another's care and whether or not they pass the program, they get the added benefit of BSRs that specifically protect them.

Doesn't mean they won't bounce, but it means they have another weight on their side.

Had the closing loop been properly routed and the reserve simply didn't inflate in time to save this guys life, well that's BSBD.

The rigging error puts the rigger right in the bullseye of the shitstorm that follows a fatality. Right where he ought to be.

As a rigger I know I'm not infallable so I take as much care as the next rigger to make sure my shit is straight, my work is good, tools counted, etc. Like 99% of the riggers I know I follow the rules and regs and don't expose myself by rigging on the wild side.

God forbid I am ever connected to a fatality so I rig with the thought in mind that another's life is dependent on my work.

If it happens and I'm in the causative chain, that'll be the day I surrender my ticket. That's where the personal responsibility rests, IMO.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Yup, if there would have been a loop to cut it sure would have cut it. Of course that doesn't mean the container would have opened or the parachute would deploy...but you know that right? You've 'researched' that too?

Why again exactly are you trying to show that the company with the most assets is at fault here?

Is it a coincidence that you joined this site shortly following this incident, and 90% of your posts are in regard to blaming a corporation for this fatality?

Quack Quack?

Could you really be so dense as to think that the possibility that the reserve might not open would excuse the AAD from having to cut the closing loop?

By that logic, we could excuse the jumper for not pulling silver because it wouldn't have guaranteed that the reserve would have deployed either. now THAT's dense

If you honestly think that there is any alterior motive to my posting here other than what I post here then you are seriously mistaken. I've gotten more than one private message from people who have thanked me for making the argument because it's an unpopular argument that skydivers don't want to hear. Just because you hate lawyers or think that the lawsuit is a threat to the sport doesn't change the fact that a skydiver most likely didn't have to die in this case, and that this is something that could have happened to any skydiver who uses an AAD for whatever reason, especially any one of the people who used this specific rig.

Here's my opinion summed up:

Yes, the jumper failed at his duty to open a parachute which what was determined by the investigation to result in an "accident." that's fact, not your opinion If he didn't have an AAD or the AAD had "functioned" correctly by cutting the closing loop and the jumper died anyway then I wouldn't be saying that it was anything but a tragic, unfortunate accident for the sport.

The fact that the AAD was rigged in such a way that it couldn't have possibly functioned correctly which made the unit completely useless makes the rigger and DZO ultimately responsible for the jumper's death. It doesn't matter what the "odds" were of the reserve deploying and saving the jumper's life had the AAD functioned correctly; the rigger's negligence absolutely deprived the jumper of any chance that the AAD may have given him.

I do not hold Airtec responsible for this particular fatality. who are you to hold anyone responsible for anything? The question is purely legal, had there been a secondary means of confirming that the closing loop was properly routed would the unit have functioned correctly? This is the question that will likely be put in front of the jury, and the answer is most likely yes. Airtec has, knowingly, put itself in the position of relying solely on a rigger to ensure that the device functions as designed and as advertised; and in this case, Airtec's decision to do that resulted in a failure because the rigger that Airtec has put the responsibility on - failed. the FAA licensed rigger that was not trained or certified by Airtec? Would not the federal government be at fault then? oh yeah, can't sue them huh... Airtec can't just pass the buck like that. Airtec bears some responsibility for the installation of the product, just like it bears responsibility for jumpers turning it on beforehand. How many Cypres ads have you seen with the reminder to "Turn It On"? That's an example of Airtec's responsibility.

Remember, Airtec requires that the unit be shipped to a service center every four years for required service and has even guaranteed that the batteries won't need to be replaced between service intervals. And yet, Airtec has done nothing to give anyone, even the unit itself, the ability to do a pre-jump check to ensure that the closing loop is properly routed and has enough tension on it.

Even diablopilot who is holding the jumper 100% responsible claims that no one other than the jumper is responsible for doing a pre-jump inspection of the rig. Okay, if that's the case then why hasn't Airtec given jumpers a way to do that? Would you buy a car that didn't have a dipstick to check the engine oil?

Now if skydivers want to bet their lives on the integrity of their rigger then that's their choice, but should Airtec get to bet the lives of skydivers solely on the integrity of a rigger? That's what it has done, and it didn't work out in this case.

Again I ask~ Is it coincidence you joined this site shortly following this incident and that nearly all your posted questions and comments are in threads directly related to it?



You sig line says you are not a lawyer, this I know...please answer my direct question Mr. Vizzard, do you have any connection to this case?

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

Could you really be so dense as to think that the possibility that the reserve might not open would excuse the AAD from having to cut the closing loop?

I kinda doubt it. What seems to be much more likely is that you're actually dense enough to think that an AAD should be able to cut a non-existent closing loop.

Quote

By that logic, we could excuse the jumper for not pulling silver because it wouldn't have guaranteed that the reserve would have deployed either.

Nope, students are taught that even if they do try to deploy, something might go wrong. They're aware that although it's very rare, sometimes parachutes don't deploy.

They're also taught that their odds of surviving increase in a hugely exponential way if they initiate a parachute deployment.

Owned by Remi #?

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out.

The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this AAD was functional as installed? Doubtful.

Malfunction and nonfuntion are as different as night and day.

Nonfunctional: Not able to perform its regular function

Malfunction: Faulty or abnormal functioning

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[labrys 0]

Quote

Would you buy a car that didn't have a dipstick to check the engine oil?

Nope, nor would I buy an AAD that didn't have some sort of user interface to display a POST and on/off status.

Would I buy a car that didn't have sensors that display the current condition of my head gasket?

Can I get that off the lot?

I dunno... is it reasonable to add a head gasket health display gauge to my dashboard?

I think it would be really excellent if the Federal government required me to have a head gasket health display gauge embedded directly into my skull. That way I won't have to worry about the manufacturer doing it.

Owned by Remi #?

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi labrys,

This post is not in reply to your post; you are just the latest in the chain.

For those who might be interested in this whole thing of liability, etc; there is an excellent program this coming Monday evening on HBO regarding tort claims.

http://www.hbo.com/#/documentaries/hot-coffee

I listened to a discussion of it today on NPR; it might lead to some greater understanding of both sides in these types of matters.

JerryBaumchen

[sacex250 0]

Quote

Again I ask~ Is it coincidence you joined this site shortly following this incident and that nearly all your posted questions and comments are in threads directly related to it?

This will be my 95th post on this site. You have posted 25,010 times. The majority of my posts have been on a single subject because I am part of a very small minority of posters who aren't going with the flow.

My posting here has nothing to do with any connection to the case. I hadn't even heard of this case until this thread was posted. I don't know any of the people involved and have never been to Archway Skydiving.

I'm posting here simply to state my opinion on the law and the subject of the thread. For someone who's made 25,000 posts on this site I'm sure you'd understand the attraction of doing so.

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

[dks13827 2]

Hates lawsuits ?? Everyone hates 'frivolous' lawsuits. The Skydive AZ case is not that, IMO.

I rate this incident as 99 percent the jumper's fault and 1 percent the rigger, just my view. Zero to the AAD maker.
Too bad the jumper's family, when they smell the MONEY, will see things the way they want to see it.

I recall from my one Law class I took there is a phrase, Last Clear Chance.
If a kids runs in front of your car and you are shown to have not been paying attention, you are partially responsible for the incident. But not totally, the rigger is in no way totally responsible for this incident.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Again I ask~ Is it coincidence you joined this site shortly following this incident and that nearly all your posted questions and comments are in threads directly related to it?

This will be my 95th post on this site. You have posted 25,010 times. The majority of my posts have been on a single subject because I am part of a very small minority of posters who aren't going with the flow.

~~~What does THAT tell ya?!

My posting here has nothing to do with any connection to the case. I hadn't even heard of this case until this thread was posted. I don't know any of the people involved and have never been to Archway Skydiving.

~~~My apologies then...

I'm posting here simply to state my opinion on the law and the subject of the thread. For someone who's made 25,000 posts on this site I'm sure you'd understand the attraction of doing so.

~~~No not really, after 25,000+ posts it's embarrassingly obvious that i'm nothing more than a lonely skydiver wanna-be with WAY to much time on my hands! ...what's YOUR excuse?

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

[billvon 2,384]

>A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition.

That's like saying a smoke detector is supposed to warn you of a fire, then suing the smoke detector company when it fails to detect smoke because you forgot to install it and it's still in your car.

>The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this
>AAD was functional as installed?

Nope, since it was not properly installed.

[labrys 0]

My guess is that he's planning to sue you over the next fatality that involves absolutely nothing you've ever posted about in 25,000 posts.

Seriously, Jim. The only reason you haven't posted about something you didn't know about is that you're totally negligent or trying to mislead us into thinking that if you haven't posted about it, it doesn't matter.

Owned by Remi #?

[lopullterri 0]

I've been watching this and here is a new line of thinking for you to go off on...This DZO doesn't just need to be sued...he needs to be charged with negligent homicide.

I am also against Airtec and SSK being sued. Just how much to we have to dumb things down? How expensive does a Cypres have to become, in adding more 'sensors' to it and possibly making it too expensive for some people to justify the purchase? Instead of 'updating' the Cypres, maybe we need to make it harder to get a riggers ticket...and easier to lose it? As far as I have been able to find, the FAA still has not pulled this guys ticket!! Just what does it take or how high does the body count need to be to lose a riggers ticket?

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

[sacex250 0]

Quote

That's like saying a smoke detector is supposed to warn you of a fire, then suing the smoke detector company when it fails to detect smoke because you forgot to install it and it's still in your car.

You really need to work on your analogies, Bill.

This AAD wasn't in the jumper's car. It was in the jumper's container, turned on, and, due to not being installed and maintained per the manufacturer's instructions, it was non-functional.

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

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I've been watching this and here is a new line of thinking for you to go off on...This DZO doesn't just need to be sued...he needs to be charged with negligent homicide.

Think of it this way 'lo-pull'...

Say you're a bike mechanic & shop owner~ "Rent One Today @ Terri's Pedal Your Butt"
...someone with 12 miles of riding experience rents from you a bike with the radar operated 'backup' emergency brakes, like a new Mercedes has.

You show the renter how to stop and go with the manual brakes, he shows you he can do it.

You also tell the guy you're not sure the radar brakes will work and that they should not depend on them.

They even sign a paper saying you told them that...that it's their responsibility to ride safe.
They then ride head long into a brick-wall killing them-self.

It's later determined that you put the brakes on backwards and they couldn't have worked...the primary existing manual operated brakes worked fine, but the bike rider chose not to use them. They had used them before, just not this time.

Are you guilty of negligent homicide or was this an easily avoidable tragic accident?


What would be an honest estimate of YOUR liability in a case such as this...do you believe you are 100% at fault for causing the death of this bike rider?

~If you had installed those brakes right, he 'might' still be alive.

'Might' is close enough 'would', so hey it can't be his fault the bike hit the wall and he died...obviously it's YOURS!

So you should lose your house, your business, your savings...and from what you're saying, you believe you should do a double-dime in the pokey too!

Really?


*Is the manufacturer of the radar brakes at fault because YOU installed them backwards?

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