Airchway Skydiving Sued

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm both a skydiver and an experienced product liability lawyer, and I have to say that most of your discussion about the Cypres and Airtec are full of shit. Enough already.

Let's see now....two conflicting ideas on this liability stuff:
1. sacex250
2. Andy908

Hmmmm.....sace...Andy...sace...Andy...

Geez, I dunno.....I think I'll go with the one who knows what he is talking about. Sorry, sace.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Multiple things to check. Multiple pics, eh?

If you were going to mandate the photo thing, I would leave it up to the manufacturers to have in the packing instructions that are already specific to the rig tell you what to photograph (rough angle and field of view guidelines) and after which steps.

I'm not going to take that as you wanting to mandate pics.

You'd have every rigger in the country hunting you down.!

But! manufacturers doing something like pointing stuff out like that couldn't hurt, eh? In reality, they already do. Pics with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

You're correct, I don't think any policy or equipment design changes are appropriate as a result of this incident. I was just suggesting that if (and that's a big "if") you wanted things to be photographed that the best people to tell you what to photograph are the rig manufacturers.

Anyone who went off and assumed that I actually think this should be mandated after reading my above post needs to calm the hell down when using the internet.

[Ion01 1]

I’m just wondering when the US will be a free country again. If the DZ makes no guarantees and you accept the risks, what else is there? Its your own life and you are to, therefore take it upon yourself to determine what you do. No one can force you to pay money and jump out of a plane. If you are ignorant to the risk and reputation of the dropzone then its your fault for not taking the initiative to educate yourself.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I’m just wondering when the US will be a free country again. If the DZ makes no guarantees and you accept the risks, what else is there? Its your own life and you are to, therefore take it upon yourself to determine what you do. No one can force you to pay money and jump out of a plane. If you are ignorant to the risk and reputation of the dropzone then its your fault for not taking the initiative to educate yourself.

There IS something to that, however on the other hand...if you go to a DZ fully educated, and rent some equipment that from your research says should save your life, and it doesn't because of a riggers error...especially in a FREE country, there IS going to be some shared responsibility.

From what we currently know, the rigger in question didn't do what he was supposed to do...but then again neither did the jumper.

Again, ~this riggers mistake may have failed to prevent the fatality, but it certainly didn't cause it.

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

[mjosparky 3]

Hey Jim,

I think that’s a distinction that some are either unable or unwilling to accept.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[stayhigh 2]

Funny thing is that dead guy is not the one who is bitching about rule and regulation and what needs to be done,
The Dead guy is silent and silence means acceptance

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[skyflower_bloom 0]

Quote

Again, ~this riggers mistake may have failed to prevent the fatality, but it certainly didn't cause it.

I think this sums it up-- the rigger did not cause the fatality. That said, we do not know if the student was injured, unconscious, or otherwise able to pull or not, which does impact how I see this.

That said, I do believe that students, being more vulnerable and having additional safety requirements, for good reason (i.e. it is foreseeable that a student could freeze, fail to pull, etc.), we "should" be able to count on things being done right when newbies are concerned (in a perfect, idealistic world, that is, which I acknowledge this is not)...

Personally, if this were me (yeah I would be dead, but for the sake of argument) I would be pissed that a chance to save me failed due to a human error, but I certainly would not want anyone sued, nor would I hold it against the rigger. People are human. Humans make mistakes. No rigger I know would intentionally do this. So, while I can see and agree that the rigger is at fault in some ways, I also believe in personal responsibility, and the fact that I chose to chuck myself out of a plane at 14k negates any mishap that may result.

I guess I have conflicted feelings and can see multiple perspectives, but Jim's quote sums it up (that said, just cause it did not cause the death, doesn't mean the rigger doesn't bear responsibility. The problem is, riggers are human and we can't prevent all errors-- if we want to jump we HAVE to accept that these things will happen, and while we can try to reduce the risk, skydiving will never be "safe" or risk-free. I just struggle with the idea that students "don't know what they don't know" and may underestimate the risks..)
-----------------------
P.S. Jim-- Oshkosh AirVenture?? I missed you last year, I know you were busy and we crossed wires- PM me if the invite is still open, I would love to see the show, and meet you and buy you a beer...

...and try to talk you into letting me pack your canopy

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

doesn't mean the rigger doesn't bear responsibility.

Since the student failed to pull in time does that lay the responsibility on the instructor who taught the FJC?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

...and try to talk you into letting me pack your canopy

That's gonna happen.

Ya might get to pack it, but my money says the old man repacks it before the next jump! (makes me wonder how he can get his reserve repacked)

"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

[david3 0]

Quote

Quote

Again, ~this riggers mistake may have failed to prevent the fatality, but it certainly didn't cause it.

I also believe in personal responsibility, and the fact that I chose to chuck myself out of a plane at 14k negates any mishap that may result.

I think some people are forgetting that this student wasn’t forced out of the plane at gun point. I have to believe they were warned that skydiving is a dangerous activity and that they might die.

Airtec / SSK are in no way responsible.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

~this riggers mistake may have failed to prevent the fatality, but it certainly didn't cause it.

I think you make a key point with that statement. This is then no different than to sue a doctor because you are unhealthy and had a heart attack and died because the doctor couldn't save you after the heart attack. Even if the doctor did something wrong the heart attack caused the death not the doctor. Lawsuits like these result in the removal of preventive care/equipment. In other words, if AAD's aren't required (technically they are only required by the USPA) then your less likely to get sued if you don't have AAD's on student gear and they are informed of that fact therefore they are solely responsible, in the eyes of the lawyers and government, for their life. (I am not suggesting this is a good idea but this is why the healthcare industry is so messed up. My dog gets better care for far cheaper than I can because these kinds of lawsuits and government requirements don't exist.)

[billvon 2,400]

>Even if the doctor did something wrong the heart attack caused the
>death not the doctor.

Right. But what if a reason the heart attack happened was because the doctor was supposed to put in a stent, told you he DID put in a stent, then later it is discovered that he put it in the wrong place? Sure, you could argue that better diet and exercise could have prevented the heart attack, and that the doctor, at most, did not do anything additional to prevent your death.

But given that he was paid to do something to help you avoid that heart attack, and he told you he did, and he in fact did not - he does bear some of the responsibility.

[popsjumper 2]

Well, Bill, your argument fits the "rigger at fault" angle, not the "Artec at fault" angle.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DBCOOPER 1]

If the rigger was using shoe strings because it was cheaper than closing loops I would agree the wavier could be ruled out. There was no intent to do anything but the correct thing in this case. Skydiving in America exist because of the wavier and we sign them knowing that if something happens it happens. Rememember in America anybody can sue anybody for anything at anytime. I just hope the Judge in this case upholds the wavier.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[skyflower_bloom 0]

Quote

Quote

doesn't mean the rigger doesn't bear responsibility.

Since the student failed to pull in time does that lay the responsibility on the instructor who taught the FJC?

See, to me the difference is riggers are FAA certified to pack certain components (reserves/AADs/etc- I'm no expert there) and expected to know how- they are paid professionals. A student is almost expected to F up on occasion, and is PAYING for safe gear and instruction. There is a difference in your analogies (unless of course a FJC instructor actually failed to teach a student to pull, god forbid, in which case uh yep, they bear the blame there... but ridiculousness aside, this student had shown before they could pull (in my recollection this was NOT the first time they had to pull for themselves, yes?)

So-- The rigger bears "responsibility" in that they did not perform that job (to the best of our knowledge, someone did point out that, while unlikely, we cannot say for certain what happened when that rig was packed) in accordance with required procedures, as trained and paid to do-- hence, responsibility. They are thus "responsible" for not doing it, since their primary responsibility is TO do it, is my logic there.

Maybe I believe that "responsibility" and "blame" have subtle differences, and since we choose to skydive, and sign a waiver, part of that is accepting that we could do it right and die (or royally screw up and die) and even that someone else's error could do the same. Riggers are humans and this could and can and does happen and it's a fine line between the CYA waiver language, the FJC, and also not wanting to scare or overload students. But we have to accept we could die skydiving and accept our own personal responsibility- it's not perfect but it's reality.

So the fact is, we cannot claim a rigger -should- be 100% perfect, though in an ideal world they would be, it seems most take pride in their work and do their best, and most do FEEL responsible knowing that someone's life could come down to the work they did, from what i am hearing. I think many riggers would say they do feel "responsible" for their work, and take that very seriously. I trust my rigger to have this attitude and do her best, to not do things like rigging under the influence or sleep deprived, but beyond that I have to accept human error is possible. I can't expect perfection, from any human in any situation, the world doesn't work that way.

So do I think this rigger should be shunned, or jailed, or sued? Hell, no! It's part of the sport, and I am sure they feel awful enough. But, without getting too far into semantics, I do feel a rigger has a *responsibility* to pack a correct and operable reserve pack job, including reqs for a student rig, and failure to do so means that they failed in that basic responsibility. It's not a moral failure imo, and it is not the same as being responsible for the death itself, but yes, they failed to correctly pack the required components in an operable fashion, which to me is their job/responsibility.

I just meant they both failed in their respective responsibilities (rigger to pack right, student to pull), not that the rigger is necessarily responsible for the student death- the rigger's error failed to prevent it when having done the rigging correctly MAY have, as Twardo said. But part of me wavers because I think we can usually expect riggers to do it right, while we can usually expect students to mess up... they require AADs for a reason.

Hope that explains my thought process better.. overall, I lean towards Jim's summary of failing to prevent death, not causing it (but then the question becomes, is it really any rigger's responsibility to prevent death? In theory, it's the goal, but the reality is no. So how do we deal with newer students who don't fully have that understanding yet? Thoughts?)

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[mjosparky 3]

They are both “paid professionals”. And the fact is that instructors have a far greater effect on a student’s survivability than any other group in skydiving. As you said he had shown before that he could pull, but when the dive flow went south he didn’t pull in time to save his life. Could this be due to inadequate training? I don’t know.

I agree with Airtwardo, “this riggers mistake may have failed to prevent the fatality, but it certainly didn't cause it.” It is my feelings that this rigger should have his certification pulled and not be allowed to rig again. To some that may sound harsh but there are certain professions where “one strike and you are out”.

This sounds like a case of one person wearing too many hats, DZO, S&TA, DZ rigger and probably others that I am not aware of. Sound rigging is attention to detail. It is easy to let yourself get distracted. When I rig I allow for the time necessary to complete the task and then once started I don’t answer the phone or the door.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

So do I think this rigger should be shunned, or jailed, or sued? Hell, no! It's part of the sport, and I am sure they feel awful enough. But, without getting too far into semantics, I do feel a rigger has a *responsibility* to pack a correct and operable reserve pack job, including reqs for a student rig, and failure to do so means that they failed in that basic responsibility. It's not a moral failure imo, and it is not the same as being responsible for the death itself, but yes, they failed to correctly pack the required components in an operable fashion, which to me is their job/responsibility.

I haven't read anywhere that stated the packjob itself was flawed, the only thing I can find is that the closing loop was routed outside the AAD cutter.

I would feel different if the reserve came out with a serious mal.. which, is hard to pull off if you assemble/pack it correctly, but possible.

I do agree that he should not be held for the students death... and if he is, I will seriously evaluate my rigging for other people. Nobody and nothing is 100%, but a rigger worth their ticket tries like hell to be as close to perfect as they can, every time.


I would never EVER half ass someones last chance.

"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

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

I haven't read anywhere that stated the packjob itself was flawed, the only thing I can find is that the closing loop was routed outside the AAD cutter.

So you don't consider this a flaw?

I am sorry but if I paid for an AAD and I paid a rigger to install it for me I would not share your opinion that missing the closing loop and making the AAD totally redundant was a flawless packjob.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

I haven't read anywhere that stated the packjob itself was flawed, the only thing I can find is that the closing loop was routed outside the AAD cutter.

So you don't consider this a flaw?

I am sorry but if I paid for an AAD and I paid a rigger to install it for me I would not share your opinion that missing the closing loop and making the AAD totally redundant was a flawless packjob.

Packing is different from closing.

There is no word (that I have found) that the RESERVE was not PACKED properly, and would not have worked if it had been activated manually.

"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

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Packing is different from closing.

I would have to strongly disagree on this one.

The term "packing a parachute" is considered to be all tasks needed to place the parachute in service.

Also from Poynter's Volume I, page 492. 9.3.1.1, last paragraph.

"Parachute packing should be a continuous,
uninterrupted operation. The packer should not leave the table until the parachute is sealed and logged."

This was actually in a 1962 FAA Preamble also.

Cheers,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[billvon 2,400]

>Packing is different from closing.

So if a packer left a temp pin in a packjob that contributed to a fatality - you'd still consider them a good packer?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Packing is different from closing.

I would have to strongly disagree on this one.

The term "packing a parachute" is considered to be all tasks needed to place the parachute in service.

Also from Poynter's Volume I, page 492. 9.3.1.1, last paragraph.

"Parachute packing should be a continuous,
uninterrupted operation. The packer should not leave the table until the parachute is sealed and logged."

This was actually in a 1962 FAA Preamble also.

Cheers,
MEL

For the sake of discussion (don't take this as arguing or disagreeing, please. I'm just considering these questions in my own mind, and I'd like to get more input) -

Do you consider that reserve, with the loop not in the cutter, airworthy or not?

If the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?

If the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?

So, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy?

[DaVinciflies 0]

I believe (and I am not a rigger so correct me if I am wrong) that an AAD has to be functional (i.e in date and with enough "life" to last until the end of the packjob and with functioning batteries) for a rigger to be allowed to install it in a rig.

Missing the closing loop renders it unable to perform its function of cutting the closing loop so therefore a mis-routed closing loop would make that packjob unairworthy.

This is all opinion based on my understanding of the rules.

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

Do you consider that reserve, with the loop not in the cutter, airworthy or not?

Not airworthy...based on not packed as per the instructions...and the fact that the $1400 loop cutter AAD is a non-functional piece of junk that will not perform as designed.
Sure it will fire, but it's design is to cut the loop!

Quote

If the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?

The AAD is airworthy, but the owner elected not to use the option of the use of an AAD.

Quote

If the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not?

Same as above as the owner did not select the option of AAD use. Just another way of not selecting the use!!!

Quote

So, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy?

The first one. The rigger did not assemble the components as instructed by the manufacturer and the FAA. (requirement to follow Manufacturer's Instructions)

Also it (the reserve) is considered a assembly of componets, not just a reserve canopy, once assembled.

BS,
MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I believe (and I am not a rigger so correct me if I am wrong) that an AAD has to be functional (i.e in date and with enough "life" to last until the end of the packjob and with functioning batteries) for a rigger to be allowed to install it in a rig.

Missing the closing loop renders it unable to perform its function of cutting the closing loop so therefore a mis-routed closing loop would make that packjob unairworthy.

This is all opinion based on my understanding of the rules.

Regarding the first statement, that is not universally held to be true.

Regarding the second statement, okay, thanks. What about the other conditions?

Jumper CHOOSES to not turn it on?

Jumper FORGETS to turn it on?

If forgetting to put the closing loop through the cutter renders the rig unairworthy, would not also forgetting to turn the AAD on?

Both render the AAD useless.