ryoder 1,384 #26 June 3, 2009 Quoteyour poll is leading. The jumper wasn't a "novice." By every standard the media and our sport applies, he was an "experienced" jumper with jump numbers somewhere between 100 and 200 jumps. When I made my first jump (static line): - My instructor had ~100 jumps. - My jumpmaster had ~200 jumps. - The most experienced guy on the DZ had ~900."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #27 June 3, 2009 QuoteNope. But if US Airways told you to "watch your step" on exit, and then started taxiing while you were walking down the stairs, and you fell and broke your leg - perhaps a talk with the pilot would be in order, even if you were told to "watch your step." This analogy implies that the pilot did something that the person exiting the aircraft had no reason to expect. If what's been posted on here is at all accurate, that is inconsistent with the incident being discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mswallin13 0 #28 June 3, 2009 Preface: I hate the climate of litigation in this country that leads people to go looking for deep pockets whenever something bad happens them. In that regard, I wish this lawsuit were not happening and certainly believe that I would not file a suit if I were in the same position. However, I can't help but wonder what the tone of this discussion would be if the jumper had hurt himself on his first H&P. The general consensus absolving the pilot/DZO of any responsibility is "...everyone knows this is SOP at Lodi...he was warned multiple times after his first jump...". What happens if someone else with 100 jumps or so shows up and ends up hitting the stabilizer on their first H&P, before having a chance to learn SOP or be warned regarding proper exits? Ultimately, I hope that the waivers, warnings, and arguments of personal responsibility prevail in this case and it is thrown out. Additionally, there are no FAA regs/BSR's/or other rules preventing DZO's from making what choices they wish in this specific instance. But it seems to me that the meager efficiency benefits of a climbing pass aren't worth exposing yourself to greater liability from the sadly inevitable lawsuits when you've actively provided a riskier environment for jumpers.Matthew Wallin C-37899 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #29 June 3, 2009 >This analogy implies that the pilot did something that the person exiting >the aircraft had no reason to expect. He did have reason to expect it, and in fact was specifically told to "watch your step" which was a clear warning that it might be tricky. The fact that most pilots don't taxi isn't an issue - this one did. The fact that the passenger didn't notice the last time he got off the plane because the plane taxied after he left the bottom step also isn't an issue - he should have been paying more attention. At one of the WFFC's I was at, the pilot of the helicopter took off and, like every other takeoff that day, put the front edge of the rotor disk right over the grass. He did it on every other jump of the day. It was SOP. Anyone who had jumped the helicopter before knew it. On this particular takeoff, someone popped out of the grass to take a picture and was cut to pieces. Fortunately no one else was injured. He made a bad decision, and died because of it. The pilot left more room on later takeoffs. That was a good decision on his part. Everyone here is getting bent out of shape because they conflate "pilot should have done something different" with "pilot and DZ should be sued for millions." They are not the same thing. The ideal outcome of this incident should be that jumpers learn to not jump up on exit, pilots configure their aircraft for exit and no lawsuits result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #30 June 3, 2009 Quote>This analogy implies that the pilot did something that the person exiting >the aircraft had no reason to expect. He did have reason to expect it, and in fact was specifically told to "watch your step" which was a clear warning that it might be tricky. The fact that most pilots don't taxi isn't an issue - this one did. The fact that the passenger didn't notice the last time he got off the plane because the plane taxied after he left the bottom step also isn't an issue - he should have been paying more attention. your analogy still sucks. how 'bout this: he decides to leap/long jump out the door of the airliner expecting a jetway. He does this despite being told there was an airstair by crew and passengers before he boarded and before he exited the plane. Additionally he could see there was no jetway before he went for his long jump out the door. this first time he managed to land halfway down the stairs without falling and walked down. Then the next day with some of the same passengers, the same plane, on the same airline, @ the same airport, @ the same gate, the same crew telling him the same thing to expect, while he saw the same visual picture out door... he STILL does the exact opposite of what everyone told him, and what would be the logical decision to make while seeing no jetway. He goes for a long jump...again... clears the airstair this time and breaks himself. Meanwhile, everyone scratches their head trying to figure out why anyone would ignore every warning 2 days in a row and still try to long jump an airstair! Darwin is proven right again...So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #31 June 3, 2009 >how 'bout this: he decides to leap/long jump out the door . . . Your analogy might make sense if anyone actually did that. If people regularly did do that, and the airline knew it, and they left some sharp pointy stuff in the area they'd land in, then it would also be a problem - even if they warned people about it. The best solution there would be to not leave pointy stuff in the landing area, and for people to not long jump out the door. I cannot for the life of me imagine why some people are so dead set against a procedure that has been proven to increase the level of safety both for exiting jumpers and for the rest of the people in the aircraft. Configuring low-tail aircraft for exit saves lives. Pretending it doesn't, and that there's nothing anyone can do to prevent a bad exit from turning into a fatality, is the sort of thinking that results in dead skydivers, closed dropzones and more regulation. Does that mean that the pilot is "at fault" and should be sued for millions? No. But he damn well should think about whether or not his SOP is a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerd137 0 #32 June 3, 2009 QuoteThere was a piece on the UK News recently about the courts thinking of accepting posts written on YouTube by self confessed 'musicians' on the Satriani vs Coldplay case that's ongoing as 'Expert Testimony'. Were the posts actually allowed as evidence? Or did the court merely consider it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerd137 0 #33 June 3, 2009 QuoteI cannot for the life of me imagine why some people are so dead set against a procedure that has been proven to increase the level of safety both for exiting jumpers and for the rest of the people in the aircraft. Configuring low-tail aircraft for exit saves lives. Pretending it doesn't, and that there's nothing anyone can do to prevent a bad exit from turning into a fatality, is the sort of thinking that results in dead skydivers, closed dropzones and more regulation. Does that mean that the pilot is "at fault" and should be sued for millions? No. But he damn well should think about whether or not his SOP is a good one. Couldn't agree more with this statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VictorSuvorov 0 #34 June 3, 2009 Quote You left off the choice: "the jumper should pay for the new tail for the 99" well said. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #35 June 3, 2009 Quote>how 'bout this: he decides to leap/long jump out the door . . . Your analogy might make sense if anyone actually did that. If people regularly did do that, and the airline knew it, and they left some sharp pointy stuff in the area they'd land in, then it would also be a problem - even if they warned people about it. The best solution there would be to not leave pointy stuff in the landing area, and for people to not long jump out the door. WTF are you talking about? pointy stuff? a 20ft fall isnt enough to get hurt? No on ewent out of their way to hurt this guy bill, he did everythign possible to ignore advice, warnings, and obvious dangerous visual references. using your same validation process, your analogy might make sense if airlines taxied with passengers getting on and off... like i said, a ridiculous analogy to support your ridiculous position. which is more likely- airstairs or disembarking a moving jet? How many people deliberately jump up on a regular basis while exiting while skydiving bill? especially on low tail aircraft on low altitude jumps? no one, because it is stupid. OR they do it once and never do it again after a thorough chewing out, or hurting themselves. Hmmm, just like no one jumps to clear airstairs because it is STUPID. That's the point of my post. If you do stupid sh*t while jumping, you will hurt yourself.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #36 June 3, 2009 >WTF are you talking about? pointy stuff? a 20ft fall isnt enough to get hurt? The example you used was that this "long jump" was a common way of exiting an airplane. If its not, your example makes no sense. >How many people deliberately jump up on a regular basis while exiting while >skydiving bill? I do, whenever I am point. Our AFF students do with some regularity, despite our telling them not to. Some of our low-pass regulars do, which works out because we use Otters. (They get talked to, but with an Otter it's not nearly as big a deal.) > no one, because it is stupid. I think when you go to, say, Otter-only DZ's you'll see more of this. When those people go to low-tail DZ's, there's an increased risk. That risk can be mitigated by telling them the risks, showing them how to exit, and by configuring the aircraft for safer exits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 June 3, 2009 Quote...The pilot should have configured for exit. Whuffos who will be on the jury will probably respond much differently from skydivers, with a much greater percentage putting blame on the pilot. Since they're suing for 30 million dollars, even if they find the pilot only 25% responsible, that's still $7.5 million. Ouch! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #38 June 3, 2009 QuoteQuote...The pilot should have configured for exit. The pilot did configure the aircraft for exit and the jumper was informed of that configuration on a prior jump and before this particular jump. Not by just one person, but by several people. As a licensed jumper he is responsible for "jumpmastering" himself. He ignored all the information, instructions, and advice given to him by the pilot in command, other jumpers and instructors on the load. If the last person on the load climbs out the roof emergency exit on the otter and strikes the tail, is the pilot still responsible? Sets a dangerous precedent if this goes through, anyone doing anything exiting an aircraft can sue the dz and pilot. topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #39 June 3, 2009 Your points have been made, supported, rebutted, and sur-rebutted about 50 times now in three separate threads (and counting, I guess). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites topdocker 0 #40 June 3, 2009 Quote Your points have been made, supported, rebutted, and sur-rebutted about 50 times now in three separate threads (and counting, I guess). Really!?? I was asked my opinion for this thread. That was some of my opinion, I have much more but I hate long posts. I feel personally attacked by your comments......Maybe I can sue! topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #41 June 3, 2009 Quote Maybe I can sue! Maybe I can perform a root canal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites topdocker 0 #42 June 3, 2009 Quote Quote Maybe I can sue! Maybe I can perform a root canal. LOL!!!!!Jump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #43 June 3, 2009 >If the last person on the load climbs out the roof emergency exit on the >otter and strikes the tail, is the pilot still responsible? If that's a common exit, and can be done more safely if the aircraft is configured a certain way, and the pilot knows this - he may want to consider configuring the aircraft to minimize the risk to the jumper. Let's take another example. Let's say the pilot decides to throttle way back during a bigway to save fuel and engine wear and tear. Floaters get out, tail gets heavy, divers move back, the plane stalls, hits the trail plane, and several people are killed. Did the pilot have anything to do with what happened? After all, the jumpers should have known not to put all the weight in the tail, and the fact that they did it many other times and got away with it doesn't matter. Now, you could take the approach that some here take, which is that the pilot had nothing to do with it; it was all the jumper's fault, and there's no reason to reconsider how the pilot flies formation loads. But a good pilot, I think, would think about what he could have done differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #44 June 4, 2009 QuoteHowever, I can't help but wonder what the tone of this discussion would be if the jumper had hurt himself on his first H&P. My tone would be entirely different. If this jumper had been injured on his first low pass at that DZ, and not been briefed on the type of jump run flown, or the type of exit required, then I would hold the DZ (or pilot) responsible for the incident. I cannot see any reason for any jumper to be aware of the special circumstances surroudning a no-cut climbing jump run. Many planes can fly this type of jumprun without creating any problems whatsoever, and many DZs do provide a full cut and lowering of the nose for low passes. For these reasons, I would not consider the technique (or need for a technique) for dealing with a no-cut climbing jumprun to be common knowledge. Especially for a jumper with 100 jumps, or a short time in the sport, I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that they had never encountered such a jumprun, nor considered any special requirements for such a jumprun. In this case, however, the jumper did have prior knowledge of both the type of jumprun, and what was required to safely exit the aircraft during that jumprun. According to the reports, that information was shared with the jumper on the previous day, so it certainly should have been fresh in his mind. Skydiving is a dangerous sport. If you are advised of a safety concern, it should absolutely be first and foremost on your mind when making any subsequent jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LongWayToFall 0 #45 June 4, 2009 A more accurate version of that story would be, a line painted on the floor with lettering indicating only a certain number of people allowed to the rear of the line, people disobeying the rule and stalling the plane, the rest of the load yelling at people who broke the rule, and then on the very next load it happens again and people die. Its pretty simple, follow the rules. If the tail striker had never been told to not jump up, and it happened, then it would make more sense. The fact is, is that he was probably told before it happened the first time, and definitely before the second time. Analyze the risks, learn to avoid them. His failure to listen to instructions caused him to be injured. "You don't have an AAD on your rig. So make sure you pull, or you are gunna die!" Follow the fucking rules damnit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brettski74 0 #46 June 4, 2009 QuoteI cannot for the life of me imagine why some people are so dead set against a procedure that has been proven to increase the level of safety both for exiting jumpers and for the rest of the people in the aircraft. Configuring low-tail aircraft for exit saves lives. Pretending it doesn't, and that there's nothing anyone can do to prevent a bad exit from turning into a fatality, is the sort of thinking that results in dead skydivers, closed dropzones and more regulation. I can't speak for everybody, but the subject of the thread has been who is responsible, hence my posts addressed that. I've nothing against configuring the plane for exit. I agree with you that it's a good idea, is a better way to do things and enhances safety for everyone involved. I'm just not convinced that the pilot or dropzone is at fault for the injury in this specific case, based on the information that I've read and assuming that that information is accurate. QuoteDoes that mean that the pilot is "at fault" and should be sued for millions? This was a point that wasn't clear from your first posts in these threads. Some of your earlier posts seemed to imply that you believe that there was some degree of responsibility on the part of the pilot for the injury in this case. Thanks for clearing that up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yoink 321 #47 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere was a piece on the UK News recently about the courts thinking of accepting posts written on YouTube by self confessed 'musicians' on the Satriani vs Coldplay case that's ongoing as 'Expert Testimony'. Were the posts actually allowed as evidence? Or did the court merely consider it? I'd guess as the case is ongoing, it's meerely a consideration at this time. The lawyer who was interviewed thought it was possible. I didn't catch the whole interview, so I may have missed something, but I can well believe it will be tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 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
Andy9o8 0 #39 June 3, 2009 Your points have been made, supported, rebutted, and sur-rebutted about 50 times now in three separate threads (and counting, I guess). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #40 June 3, 2009 Quote Your points have been made, supported, rebutted, and sur-rebutted about 50 times now in three separate threads (and counting, I guess). Really!?? I was asked my opinion for this thread. That was some of my opinion, I have much more but I hate long posts. I feel personally attacked by your comments......Maybe I can sue! topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #41 June 3, 2009 Quote Maybe I can sue! Maybe I can perform a root canal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #42 June 3, 2009 Quote Quote Maybe I can sue! Maybe I can perform a root canal. LOL!!!!!Jump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #43 June 3, 2009 >If the last person on the load climbs out the roof emergency exit on the >otter and strikes the tail, is the pilot still responsible? If that's a common exit, and can be done more safely if the aircraft is configured a certain way, and the pilot knows this - he may want to consider configuring the aircraft to minimize the risk to the jumper. Let's take another example. Let's say the pilot decides to throttle way back during a bigway to save fuel and engine wear and tear. Floaters get out, tail gets heavy, divers move back, the plane stalls, hits the trail plane, and several people are killed. Did the pilot have anything to do with what happened? After all, the jumpers should have known not to put all the weight in the tail, and the fact that they did it many other times and got away with it doesn't matter. Now, you could take the approach that some here take, which is that the pilot had nothing to do with it; it was all the jumper's fault, and there's no reason to reconsider how the pilot flies formation loads. But a good pilot, I think, would think about what he could have done differently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #44 June 4, 2009 QuoteHowever, I can't help but wonder what the tone of this discussion would be if the jumper had hurt himself on his first H&P. My tone would be entirely different. If this jumper had been injured on his first low pass at that DZ, and not been briefed on the type of jump run flown, or the type of exit required, then I would hold the DZ (or pilot) responsible for the incident. I cannot see any reason for any jumper to be aware of the special circumstances surroudning a no-cut climbing jump run. Many planes can fly this type of jumprun without creating any problems whatsoever, and many DZs do provide a full cut and lowering of the nose for low passes. For these reasons, I would not consider the technique (or need for a technique) for dealing with a no-cut climbing jumprun to be common knowledge. Especially for a jumper with 100 jumps, or a short time in the sport, I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that they had never encountered such a jumprun, nor considered any special requirements for such a jumprun. In this case, however, the jumper did have prior knowledge of both the type of jumprun, and what was required to safely exit the aircraft during that jumprun. According to the reports, that information was shared with the jumper on the previous day, so it certainly should have been fresh in his mind. Skydiving is a dangerous sport. If you are advised of a safety concern, it should absolutely be first and foremost on your mind when making any subsequent jumps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #45 June 4, 2009 A more accurate version of that story would be, a line painted on the floor with lettering indicating only a certain number of people allowed to the rear of the line, people disobeying the rule and stalling the plane, the rest of the load yelling at people who broke the rule, and then on the very next load it happens again and people die. Its pretty simple, follow the rules. If the tail striker had never been told to not jump up, and it happened, then it would make more sense. The fact is, is that he was probably told before it happened the first time, and definitely before the second time. Analyze the risks, learn to avoid them. His failure to listen to instructions caused him to be injured. "You don't have an AAD on your rig. So make sure you pull, or you are gunna die!" Follow the fucking rules damnit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettski74 0 #46 June 4, 2009 QuoteI cannot for the life of me imagine why some people are so dead set against a procedure that has been proven to increase the level of safety both for exiting jumpers and for the rest of the people in the aircraft. Configuring low-tail aircraft for exit saves lives. Pretending it doesn't, and that there's nothing anyone can do to prevent a bad exit from turning into a fatality, is the sort of thinking that results in dead skydivers, closed dropzones and more regulation. I can't speak for everybody, but the subject of the thread has been who is responsible, hence my posts addressed that. I've nothing against configuring the plane for exit. I agree with you that it's a good idea, is a better way to do things and enhances safety for everyone involved. I'm just not convinced that the pilot or dropzone is at fault for the injury in this specific case, based on the information that I've read and assuming that that information is accurate. QuoteDoes that mean that the pilot is "at fault" and should be sued for millions? This was a point that wasn't clear from your first posts in these threads. Some of your earlier posts seemed to imply that you believe that there was some degree of responsibility on the part of the pilot for the injury in this case. Thanks for clearing that up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #47 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere was a piece on the UK News recently about the courts thinking of accepting posts written on YouTube by self confessed 'musicians' on the Satriani vs Coldplay case that's ongoing as 'Expert Testimony'. Were the posts actually allowed as evidence? Or did the court merely consider it? I'd guess as the case is ongoing, it's meerely a consideration at this time. The lawyer who was interviewed thought it was possible. I didn't catch the whole interview, so I may have missed something, but I can well believe it will be tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
