airdvr 197 #301 July 1, 2011 We were screwed once we allowed the idea that a piece of electronics would save us if we fucked up.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #302 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuote 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 Thanks. One final question. I once heard a story that a jumper was required to have an AAD to jump somewhere. Apparently, he told the rigger to put the AAD in the rig, but instructed him not to put the loop through the cutter. Airworthy or not? Is the rigger even allowed to comply with the customer's instruction? Thanks again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinciflies 0 #303 July 1, 2011 Quote 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. My thoughts are that, for a licensed jumper, choosing not to turn on an AAD is a perfectly acceptable choice (if not necessarily wise) and does not render the rig unairworthy. That same up-jumper forgetting to turn the AAD on is the same until the day that having a functioning AAD is mandatory for all jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #304 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote 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 Thanks. One final question. I once heard a story that a jumper was required to have an AAD to jump somewhere. Apparently, he told the rigger to put the AAD in the rig, but instructed him not to put the loop through the cutter. Airworthy or not? Is the rigger even allowed to comply with the customer's instruction? Thanks again! I was wondering about that myself...would the reserve be airworthy if it were to be packed 'on purpose' with the loop not through the cutter? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #305 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuote 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. My thoughts are that, for a licensed jumper, choosing not to turn on an AAD is a perfectly acceptable choice (if not necessarily wise) and does not render the rig unairworthy. That same up-jumper forgetting to turn the AAD on is the same until the day that having a functioning AAD is mandatory for all jumpers. So, who forgets what is part of determining airworthiness. Mistakes happen. If the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not? As an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA. If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinciflies 0 #306 July 1, 2011 QuoteIf the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not? IMO it is not airworthy for that (or any other student) jumper in the USA. QuoteAs an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA. If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? IMO Yes (in the USA). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #307 July 1, 2011 QuoteFor 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? Overall Legally: - Not Airworthy per FAA regulations. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless by the rigger. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteIf the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not? Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless intentionally by the jumper. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteIf the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not? Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless unintentionally by the jumper, et al. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteSo, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy? The misrigging of the AAD makes the entire rig unairworthy per FAA regulations. Proper rigging of the AAD is a required element of a repack; failure to do so makes the rig illegal to jump just as if the rigger had failed to fill out the data card. However, a data card can be checked, unfortunately, the closing loop/cutter cannot.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #308 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not? IMO it is not airworthy for that (or any other student) jumper in the USA. QuoteAs an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA. If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? IMO Yes (in the USA). Here's another question~ How about the pilot? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #309 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteFor 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? Overall Legally: - Not Airworthy per FAA regulations. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless by the rigger. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteIf the jumper DECIDES not to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not? Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless intentionally by the jumper. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteIf the jumper FORGETS to turn on the AAD - airworthy or not? Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless unintentionally by the jumper, et al. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. QuoteSo, which and whose mistakes make the reserve unairworthy? The misrigging of the AAD makes the entire rig unairworthy per FAA regulations. Proper rigging of the AAD is a required element of a repack; failure to do so makes the rig illegal to jump just as if the rigger had failed to fill out the data card. However, a data card can be checked, unfortunately, the closing loop/cutter cannot. The rigger is bound by the manufacturer's instruction to put the loop through the cutter. Why is the jumper not bound by the manufacturer's instruction to turn the device on before jumping? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinciflies 0 #310 July 1, 2011 QuoteHere's another question~ How about the pilot? As I understand it, if the rig is not airworthy and somebody jumps it, then the pilot will be the one the FAA go after. Any other thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #311 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteHere's another question~ How about the pilot? As I understand it, if the rig is not airworthy and somebody jumps it, then the pilot will be the one the FAA go after. Any other thoughts? The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal. There was nothing in the Archway case that would lead a pilot to question the airworthiness of the rig. Now, if the repack was out of date then that would be another story. The fact that this rig appeared to be airworthy even though it wasn't will fall back on the rigger/DZO, not the pilot.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #312 July 1, 2011 The pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinciflies 0 #313 July 1, 2011 Quote The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal. There was nothing in the Archway case that would lead a pilot to question the airworthiness of the rig. Now, if the repack was out of date then that would be another story. The fact that this rig appeared to be airworthy even though it wasn't will fall back on the rigger/DZO, not the pilot. Is "out of sight out of mind" a legal principle? I am not sure you're right on this one. I am not saying it is right, merely that I believe that the buck stops with the PIC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #314 July 1, 2011 Quote So, who forgets what is part of determining airworthiness. Mistakes happen. If the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not? As an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA. If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? Just my novice opinion but I believe the requirement for student jumpers (not tandem) to have an AAD is a requirement for the USPA but I don't believe it is required by the FAA. I believe that means the rig would be airworthy according to the FAA. It has yet to be determined if the rigger in the Archway case has any liability. Similarly in the hypothetical case you speculate it would depend what the courts decided. Industry standard would certainly play a part and the industry standard per USPA is that students should have working AADs and Instructors should be doing thorough gear checks. Civil liabilty is a separate standard than airworthiness, although there is some rather obvious correlation."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sacex250 0 #315 July 1, 2011 QuoteThe rigger is bound by the manufacturer's instruction to put the loop through the cutter. Why is the jumper not bound by the manufacturer's instruction to turn the device on before jumping? 1) The AAD is not required equipment, and the FAA only requires that it maintained properly if it's installed. Whether or not to use the device is up to the jumper. 2) The manufacturer does not require that the jumper use the device if it's installed. Use of the device is completely voluntary by the jumper.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sacex250 0 #316 July 1, 2011 QuoteThe pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? Man, you're getting picky! Quote§ 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems. No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows: (a) The main parachute must have been packed within 180 days before the date of its use by a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger. (b) The reserve parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger— (1) Within 180 days before the date of its use, if its canopy, shroud, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or similar synthetic fiber or material that is substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, and other fungi, and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or (2) Within 60 days before the date of its use, if it is composed of any amount of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or material not specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device. Quote§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting. (a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger— (1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or (2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. As far as parachutes go, the pilot is only responsible for making sure that it's the correct type of parachute and is within its repack cycle, per the rigger. The pilot can't be held responsible for the rigger's mistakes if he's unaware of them.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites strop45 0 #317 July 1, 2011 So if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence.The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #318 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. If you had signed a waiver where that mechanic said he might make a mistake and you might be killed, no. If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. But, if it was a simple mistake, with no special circumstances, like his being drunk or stoned or hating you and wanting you dead to get your spouse, no. The main parachute was built by professionals, and yet, you do not hold them liable when it does not work as advertised, do you? Nope. If the parachute split down the middle on your first jump, and you break your legs, you'd be happy if they replaced the parachute, or refunded your money. If you want the cost of the repack back, I'll go along with that all day. You are already swimming in products that have liabilities restricted to direct costs of the product, clearly denying any liability for consequential damage. That's pretty much the way this needs to be. Rigger's work was bad? Get a refund for the work. Again, prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE, and we are talking about a whole different thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #319 July 1, 2011 >If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. And there's the rub. If the mechanic replaced the calipers and one cracked, it could be argued that he did his job and just missed something. If the mechanic just plain neglected to reconnect the brake hoses, that becomes pretty egregious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites strop45 0 #320 July 1, 2011 QuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ?The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #321 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? It is my understanding that GROSS NEGLIGENCE is not about the particular error that was made, but about the circumstances surrounding the error. I'd surely hate to have made this mistake. But I am a very careful rigger, and if I made that mistake, it was purely an accident, and NOT gross negligence (as I understand it). I would feel worse than you can imagine, and I'd surely never rig again. I don't know if the case at Archway meets the legal tests for gross negligence. Maybe it does. In which case, sure, go after the rigger for it. But if it does not meet the legal tests for gross negligence, then while it is very sad, it is also part of the way things can sometimes happen in this sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #322 July 1, 2011 Chances are, most trial judges would probably let the jury be the ones to decide whether something like that, if it's negligence at all, is either simple or gross negligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #323 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? And in my opinion this is definitely negligence but does not meet the legal definition of Gross negligence. Sparky Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care Negligence Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #324 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. I am not sure what you point is but we are not discussing cars. If you don’t apply the brakes they won’t stop the car. The loop being miss routed did nothing to prevent the main or reserve from stopping the skydive had they been deployed in time. At no time have I said the rigger should not be held accountable for his poor rigging. But I stand by the statement that the rigger error did not cause this fatlity. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #325 July 2, 2011 QuoteThe pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? Most of what he posts is just his opinion. His referenced FAA Parts do not support his postings. A good example is “The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal.” That’s not the way the FAA looks at it. Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 13 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
DaVinciflies 0 #313 July 1, 2011 Quote The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal. There was nothing in the Archway case that would lead a pilot to question the airworthiness of the rig. Now, if the repack was out of date then that would be another story. The fact that this rig appeared to be airworthy even though it wasn't will fall back on the rigger/DZO, not the pilot. Is "out of sight out of mind" a legal principle? I am not sure you're right on this one. I am not saying it is right, merely that I believe that the buck stops with the PIC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #314 July 1, 2011 Quote So, who forgets what is part of determining airworthiness. Mistakes happen. If the novice, unlicensed, jumper forgets to turn on his AAD, and a jumpmaster fails to find it, is the rig airworthy or not? As an unlicensed jumper, that novice is required to have an AAD, at least here in the USA. If the jumper dies, did the jumpmaster(s) have the same liability as the rigger in the Archway case? Just my novice opinion but I believe the requirement for student jumpers (not tandem) to have an AAD is a requirement for the USPA but I don't believe it is required by the FAA. I believe that means the rig would be airworthy according to the FAA. It has yet to be determined if the rigger in the Archway case has any liability. Similarly in the hypothetical case you speculate it would depend what the courts decided. Industry standard would certainly play a part and the industry standard per USPA is that students should have working AADs and Instructors should be doing thorough gear checks. Civil liabilty is a separate standard than airworthiness, although there is some rather obvious correlation."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #315 July 1, 2011 QuoteThe rigger is bound by the manufacturer's instruction to put the loop through the cutter. Why is the jumper not bound by the manufacturer's instruction to turn the device on before jumping? 1) The AAD is not required equipment, and the FAA only requires that it maintained properly if it's installed. Whether or not to use the device is up to the jumper. 2) The manufacturer does not require that the jumper use the device if it's installed. Use of the device is completely voluntary by the jumper.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sacex250 0 #316 July 1, 2011 QuoteThe pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? Man, you're getting picky! Quote§ 105.43 Use of single-harness, dual-parachute systems. No person may conduct a parachute operation using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a single-harness, dual-parachute system, unless that system has at least one main parachute, one approved reserve parachute, and one approved single person harness and container that are packed as follows: (a) The main parachute must have been packed within 180 days before the date of its use by a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certificated parachute rigger. (b) The reserve parachute must have been packed by a certificated parachute rigger— (1) Within 180 days before the date of its use, if its canopy, shroud, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or similar synthetic fiber or material that is substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, and other fungi, and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or (2) Within 60 days before the date of its use, if it is composed of any amount of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or material not specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device. Quote§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting. (a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger— (1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or (2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. As far as parachutes go, the pilot is only responsible for making sure that it's the correct type of parachute and is within its repack cycle, per the rigger. The pilot can't be held responsible for the rigger's mistakes if he's unaware of them.It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites strop45 0 #317 July 1, 2011 So if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence.The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #318 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. If you had signed a waiver where that mechanic said he might make a mistake and you might be killed, no. If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. But, if it was a simple mistake, with no special circumstances, like his being drunk or stoned or hating you and wanting you dead to get your spouse, no. The main parachute was built by professionals, and yet, you do not hold them liable when it does not work as advertised, do you? Nope. If the parachute split down the middle on your first jump, and you break your legs, you'd be happy if they replaced the parachute, or refunded your money. If you want the cost of the repack back, I'll go along with that all day. You are already swimming in products that have liabilities restricted to direct costs of the product, clearly denying any liability for consequential damage. That's pretty much the way this needs to be. Rigger's work was bad? Get a refund for the work. Again, prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE, and we are talking about a whole different thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #319 July 1, 2011 >If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. And there's the rub. If the mechanic replaced the calipers and one cracked, it could be argued that he did his job and just missed something. If the mechanic just plain neglected to reconnect the brake hoses, that becomes pretty egregious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites strop45 0 #320 July 1, 2011 QuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ?The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerpaul 1 #321 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? It is my understanding that GROSS NEGLIGENCE is not about the particular error that was made, but about the circumstances surrounding the error. I'd surely hate to have made this mistake. But I am a very careful rigger, and if I made that mistake, it was purely an accident, and NOT gross negligence (as I understand it). I would feel worse than you can imagine, and I'd surely never rig again. I don't know if the case at Archway meets the legal tests for gross negligence. Maybe it does. In which case, sure, go after the rigger for it. But if it does not meet the legal tests for gross negligence, then while it is very sad, it is also part of the way things can sometimes happen in this sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #322 July 1, 2011 Chances are, most trial judges would probably let the jury be the ones to decide whether something like that, if it's negligence at all, is either simple or gross negligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #323 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? And in my opinion this is definitely negligence but does not meet the legal definition of Gross negligence. Sparky Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care Negligence Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #324 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. I am not sure what you point is but we are not discussing cars. If you don’t apply the brakes they won’t stop the car. The loop being miss routed did nothing to prevent the main or reserve from stopping the skydive had they been deployed in time. At no time have I said the rigger should not be held accountable for his poor rigging. But I stand by the statement that the rigger error did not cause this fatlity. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #325 July 2, 2011 QuoteThe pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? Most of what he posts is just his opinion. His referenced FAA Parts do not support his postings. A good example is “The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal.” That’s not the way the FAA looks at it. Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 13 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
strop45 0 #317 July 1, 2011 So if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence.The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #318 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. If you had signed a waiver where that mechanic said he might make a mistake and you might be killed, no. If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. But, if it was a simple mistake, with no special circumstances, like his being drunk or stoned or hating you and wanting you dead to get your spouse, no. The main parachute was built by professionals, and yet, you do not hold them liable when it does not work as advertised, do you? Nope. If the parachute split down the middle on your first jump, and you break your legs, you'd be happy if they replaced the parachute, or refunded your money. If you want the cost of the repack back, I'll go along with that all day. You are already swimming in products that have liabilities restricted to direct costs of the product, clearly denying any liability for consequential damage. That's pretty much the way this needs to be. Rigger's work was bad? Get a refund for the work. Again, prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE, and we are talking about a whole different thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #319 July 1, 2011 >If might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be proved. And there's the rub. If the mechanic replaced the calipers and one cracked, it could be argued that he did his job and just missed something. If the mechanic just plain neglected to reconnect the brake hoses, that becomes pretty egregious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strop45 0 #320 July 1, 2011 QuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ?The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #321 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? It is my understanding that GROSS NEGLIGENCE is not about the particular error that was made, but about the circumstances surrounding the error. I'd surely hate to have made this mistake. But I am a very careful rigger, and if I made that mistake, it was purely an accident, and NOT gross negligence (as I understand it). I would feel worse than you can imagine, and I'd surely never rig again. I don't know if the case at Archway meets the legal tests for gross negligence. Maybe it does. In which case, sure, go after the rigger for it. But if it does not meet the legal tests for gross negligence, then while it is very sad, it is also part of the way things can sometimes happen in this sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #322 July 1, 2011 Chances are, most trial judges would probably let the jury be the ones to decide whether something like that, if it's negligence at all, is either simple or gross negligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #323 July 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf might be different if GROSS NEGLIGENCE could be provedI'm not a lawyer, but IMO, not putting the closing loop through the Cutter is gross negligence. It's a simple action, clearly understood by everyone, and doesn't particularly depend on a level of skill or expertise. I would reasonably expect every rigger to do this. Perhaps my expectations of service and your differ? And in my opinion this is definitely negligence but does not meet the legal definition of Gross negligence. Sparky Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care Negligence Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #324 July 1, 2011 QuoteSo if you were in a car accident where the brakes failed, you would assign no liability whatsoever to the mechanic who had just serviced them. After all if you hadn't of driven the car, or if you had used the handbrake or turned the key off the car wouldn't have crashed. It seems to me that a student (or any skydiver hiring equipment) can reasonably expect that the it was put together by an expert and that if there's an AAD, it is functional. Of course if they had pulled silver or hadn't jumped we wouldn't be tapping away on our keyboards, but in my view that doesn't excuse the rigger's failure to route the closing loop through the AAD, nor should a waiver excuse gross negligence. I am not sure what you point is but we are not discussing cars. If you don’t apply the brakes they won’t stop the car. The loop being miss routed did nothing to prevent the main or reserve from stopping the skydive had they been deployed in time. At no time have I said the rigger should not be held accountable for his poor rigging. But I stand by the statement that the rigger error did not cause this fatlity. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #325 July 2, 2011 QuoteThe pilot would have to knowingly permit Quote Is that citable fact or your opinion? Most of what he posts is just his opinion. His referenced FAA Parts do not support his postings. A good example is “The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal.” That’s not the way the FAA looks at it. Pilot in command means the person who: (1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the flight; SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 13 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
