obelixtim 100 #26 March 9, 2005 Ummmm....I think that was my point....the cops normally show up after a fatal.....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
linestretch 0 #27 March 9, 2005 Quotemeekerseeker, is a rigger. "so he states" wich i would have a hard time believing he wasnt, seems honest to me. um, me thinks 'he' is a 'she'.....my pics & stuff! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kjarv 0 #28 March 9, 2005 Zoiks---someone don't like Karma--- I'm with ya, but unfortunately we as a country have lost the art of a good ass whoopin'--giving it up to laws, lawyers and...karma. Nice rant Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kjarv 0 #29 March 9, 2005 I stand corrected--- couldn't tell meekerseeker was a rigger. canopy tis unworthy then---if this guy did what was said, then it sure seems he's committed a crime! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #30 March 9, 2005 I didn't say anything about consideration or fair play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites marks 0 #31 March 9, 2005 QuoteQuotemeekerseeker, is a rigger. "so he states" wich i would have a hard time believing he wasnt, seems honest to me. um, me thinks 'he' is a 'she'..... well i couldnt tell, no name in profile. so i took a guess... the odds were in my favor at least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #32 March 9, 2005 QuoteI stand corrected--- couldn't tell meekerseeker was a rigger. canopy tis un[air]worthy then... There is nothing in rigger training or testing that qualifies a rigger to determine the airworthiness of a main canopy based on its landing characteristics. Meekerseeker is entitled to use her experience as a skydiver as a basis for her opinions of its performance, but her rigger ticket doesn't give her any special privileges in that regard. Before I condemn this canopy as a lemon, I'd like to know if Meekerseeker jumped any other Sabre 107s for comparison, and I'd like to know what other jumpers encountered when they jumped that canopy. And I'd like to know what the PD test jumpers had to say. We agree on this: if Kenny Ruetsch is misrepresenting the age or condition of the canopy, that's a crime. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 100 #33 March 9, 2005 I'm aware of that.....my point was simply that he doesn't deserve any consideration or fairness, and not calling in the law is actually doing him a favour..... The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the identity of the person he sold it to, as he seems to be a little reluctant to do so. In fact, he can thumb his nose at the skydiving community and there's sweet F*** all we can do about it......and thats exactly what he's doing....... Unless luck is involved, this canopy timebomb could stay hidden for months and reappear down the line when we've long forgotten about it ......... I think its an issue for the law to deal with.....at least it'll get the canopy out of circulation.....and thats the immediate priority..... Let the courts sort out the rights and wrongs of it all later..............My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kolla 0 #34 March 9, 2005 Quote Perhaps it is a good idea to modify unairworthy canopies to be sold on e-bay for decoration purposes in a way that they cannot be immediately attached to the rig and jumped by inexperienced people. - very good idea indeed! PD has on occasion given away canopies deemed unairworthy, and in those cases we make sure that the canopy can not be easily hooked up. Usually we remove several line tabs (leaving holes in the bottom of the canopy). In addition we cut a few inches off the bottom of the lines so that the canopy can't be hooked up. Also - should you at any point have a problem with your PD canopy, please don't hesitate to contact our maintenance department. We will do our best to help you with determining the cause of the problem and see what can be done to fix it. If the canopy is beyond repair, we will let you know that too. It really isn't very expensive - $15 for a complete inspection, and the ladies in the maintenance dept are just fantastic to deal with. Blue ones, Kolla Kolbeinsdottir Performance Designs, Inc ** Forgot to mention that we also make a note on the warning label "Do Not Fly"Blue Skies Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cbennettjr 0 #35 March 9, 2005 Quotean faa certified rigger deemed the canopy "not airworthy" meekerseeker clearly stated in the auction the conditions that she determined the canopy to be unairowrthy. She was VERY clear that this should not be jumped. However, she based this on her putting lots of jumps on the canopy before and after it went south, not from the condition of the canopy. Hell, if a rigger were to give it the once over it may look perfectly serviceable. She did everything she could to inform the bidder that this sucker would hurt them. Now, perhaps we should start removing the Orange ID Panel when we sell something that shouldn't be jumped? The military cuts the lines on demilitarized gear. That's also an option. Either way, let's find this canopy this weekend. Worry about who did what wrong when we know nobody is throwing their ass out of an airplane with this in their rig. Just my $.02 chuck Canis meus id comedit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #36 March 10, 2005 Quotemeekerseeker clearly stated in the auction the conditions that she determined the canopy to be unairworthy. She was VERY clear that this should not be jumped. I don't read the auction description (http://www.skydivekansas.com/107.htm) that way. She never says "unairworthy" and she took no steps to ensure it was unjumpable. She does say there's something wrong, but she qualifies this by saying, "It may only be good for hanging up as decoration, I don't know." I'd take that as, "Might be good only for decoration, but might be good for skydiving, I don't know." As for "But you buy this and jump it AT YOUR OWN RISK! Please, if you plan to jump this, experienced canopy pilots only!" you can find similar boilerplate attempts to limit liability on many other ebay auctions, especially skydiving gear. I also read in the auction description, "I ... have been the only one to jump it." I'm still interested in finding out if Meekerseeker has any comparison jumps on other Sabre 107s. I'm still interested in what other jumpers, especially PD test jumpers, might say. Right now, I'm regretting not bidding $70. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,426 #37 March 10, 2005 > The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the >identity of the person he sold it to . . . . Imagine if someone came up to you and said "Joe Blow sold me some used brake pads, and they were really worn out, and I put em on my car, and I crashed!" Might your response be "why did you put worn out brake pads on your car?" Calling the cops is inappropriate. If the canopy is as bad as people say it is, then he did something slimy and unethical. It is up to each jumper to evaluate the gear they use for every jump they make, used or not. I have an old Nova in great shape. Someone sold it to me years ago for $100. They told me "you know about all the problems with this canopy; be careful." If I jump it, and I get a collapse at 50 feet and break my back, whose fault is it? Mine, for jumping a cruddy canopy in turbulence. Now, if Tom had not said a single word and I had bought it, it would STILL be my responsibility to understand how the canopy flew and how it reacted to turbulence. Tom might be slimy and unethical for not telling me about the Nova's problems, but it's not a criminal issue, it's a moral one - and it doesn't change MY responsibility. I bought a piece of used skydiving gear in as-is condition. It's my responsibility to determine whether or not it is airworthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cbennettjr 0 #38 March 10, 2005 Well, hell...I didn't say I wouldn't have bid on it. I just wasn't in the office when the auction closed. Besides....it is an interesting looking canopy. chuck Canis meus id comedit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites D22369 0 #39 March 10, 2005 Perhaps it is a good idea to modify unairworthy canopies to be sold on e-bay for decoration purposes in a way that they cannot be immediately attached to the rig *** cutting the line attachment points off the canopy came to mind when my stiletto was deemed unairworthy by PD and I found a person looking for a wall hanging, so a few snips here and there made sure it would stay on the wall. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Avion 0 #40 March 10, 2005 Cut the attachment tapes. That would require a rigger to fix it, and if you cut all of them it would be quite a bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Dumpster 0 #41 March 10, 2005 Write "UNAIRWORTHY" with a big fat magic marker all over the top of the center cell near the label. That should get a little attention, too, along with the cut tapes and such! Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #42 March 10, 2005 QuoteQuotemeekerseeker, is a rigger. "so he states" wich i would have a hard time believing he wasnt, seems honest to me. um, me thinks 'he' is a 'she'..... And she is a senior rigger with a back rating, has been since 1995. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #43 March 10, 2005 Quote> The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the >identity of the person he sold it to . . . . Imagine if someone came up to you and said "Joe Blow sold me some used brake pads, and they were really worn out, and I put em on my car, and I crashed!" Might your response be "why did you put worn out brake pads on your car?" Calling the cops is inappropriate. If the canopy is as bad as people say it is, then he did something slimy and unethical. It is up to each jumper to evaluate the gear they use for every jump they make, used or not. I have an old Nova in great shape. Someone sold it to me years ago for $100. They told me "you know about all the problems with this canopy; be careful." If I jump it, and I get a collapse at 50 feet and break my back, whose fault is it? Mine, for jumping a cruddy canopy in turbulence. Now, if Tom had not said a single word and I had bought it, it would STILL be my responsibility to understand how the canopy flew and how it reacted to turbulence. Tom might be slimy and unethical for not telling me about the Nova's problems, but it's not a criminal issue, it's a moral one - and it doesn't change MY responsibility. I bought a piece of used skydiving gear in as-is condition. It's my responsibility to determine whether or not it is airworthy. Along the same line. It takes 2 for a con to work. The one pulling the scam and the one whose greed blinds him/her to the fact that the deal is just too good to be true. The old saying, "You can't cheat an honest man". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites btucker 0 #44 March 10, 2005 does the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $500. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $450, this guy has potentially endangered a life (thus risking a lengthy geol sentence – hello bubba) + totally trashed his reputation and lost any chance of selling the gear his flogging now. qudos to those who sound the alarm. edit: I once had a rig with a dodgy eserve pack. I cabled tied the leg straps with two warning labels on it. And yeap it was jumped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites feuergnom 22 #45 March 10, 2005 i had a discussion yesterday with my rigger about this subject - so thats how things are dealt with in austria (maybe different in other countries) basically she told me this: if she inspects a canopy and it is not airworthy anymore, she makes this fact very clear to the owner and states the fact of the canopy being "unairworthy" on the invoice/receipt & the packing card. so in case the owner sells the canopy to a third party afterwards (and hopefully hands out all the papers) third party should know whats wrong with the canopy. as for writing something on an unairworthy canopy - well since it still belongs to somebody, she (as a rigger) wouldn't want to 'damage' it if the rigging loft sells and unairworthy canopy of its own stock (sometimes you just get old ones and keep them) for decoration, lines are cut of and the orange warning label is removed – so it is obvious the canopy is not jumpable any more my 0,2 euro-cents: i'd be extremely cautious if i bought something on the web without a rigger/rigging loft being involvedThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #46 March 10, 2005 Quotedoes the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $500. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $450, this guy has potentially endangered a life Quotedoes the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $69. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $69, this gal has potentially endangered a life So why didn't Meekerseeker do that before she sold the canopy? Why didn't she have PD test jump the canopy? Why did she "potentially endanger a life" by selling an intact canopy? The answer is on her own web site: she sold it intending for someone else to fix it and jump it. One more time: all we know is that Mr. Ruetsch misrepresented the number of jumps on the canopy and lines, and that he sold the canopy for more than he paid; and that Meekerseeker had trouble landing it. That's all we know. Here's a phrase that should set off alarm bells: "It is the canopy, not me." Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OnYourBack 0 #47 March 10, 2005 Does the fact that a canopy collapsed once in turbulence behind a hanger and the fact that it doesn't flare very good make it unairworthy and extremely dangerous? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #48 March 10, 2005 Quoteall we know is that Mr. Ruetsch misrepresented the number of jumps on the canopy and lines, and that Meekerseeker had trouble landing it The actual performance of the canopy is unknown at this time, but that info is not what's important now. What is important is that he was told that it was unsafe, and unless he is a qualified test jumper, who determined that it was actaully a safe canopy, it is his responsibility to sell it as unsafe. I could care less if lied about jump numbers and linesets. That's up for you and rigger to determine during the inspection. But if it's not jumpable, and you can't plainly see that (as in lines cut off, or missing a cell or two) you need to disclose that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dragon2 0 #49 March 10, 2005 Quote We didn't she have PD test jump the canopy? Why did she "potentially endanger a life" by selling an intact canopy? The answer is on her own web site: she sold it intending for someone else to fix it and jump it. Is that so bad? You wouldn't mind someone selling a canopy saying it needs a reline would you? ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mark 102 #50 March 10, 2005 QuoteDoes the fact that a canopy collapsed once in turbulence behind a hanger and the fact that it doesn't flare very good make it unairworthy and extremely dangerous? The canopy collapse and flare-ability are separate issues. If canopy collapses in turbulence behind a hanger, the lesson learned should be, "The SIM was right -- there is turbulence in the vicinity of obstacles, especially on a day when the winds are strong." Meekerseeker mentions the strong winds that day and, to her credit, does not blame the canopy for the problem. Curiously, Jumphog just writes that the canopy collapsed at 50 feet, leaving out the context and leading a casual reader to believe the collapse was spontaneous and unexplainable. There are several correctable reasons why a canopy might not flare well: the lines may be out of trim, the brake lines might be too short or too long, the risers might be too short or too long, or pilot technique might be faulty. And of course it's possible the problem for this canopy might be exactly what Meekerseeker says: none of the above. I don't think it has been established as a fact that this canopy doesn't flare well, just that she was unable to make it flare well. That makes it dangerous for her, but we just don't know if the canopy is unairworthy or dangerous for others. It may still turn out this is a bad canopy. I'd still like a second opinion, from someone else who has jumped it. Is that too much to ask? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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
kjarv 0 #29 March 9, 2005 I stand corrected--- couldn't tell meekerseeker was a rigger. canopy tis unworthy then---if this guy did what was said, then it sure seems he's committed a crime! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #30 March 9, 2005 I didn't say anything about consideration or fair play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #31 March 9, 2005 QuoteQuotemeekerseeker, is a rigger. "so he states" wich i would have a hard time believing he wasnt, seems honest to me. um, me thinks 'he' is a 'she'..... well i couldnt tell, no name in profile. so i took a guess... the odds were in my favor at least. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #32 March 9, 2005 QuoteI stand corrected--- couldn't tell meekerseeker was a rigger. canopy tis un[air]worthy then... There is nothing in rigger training or testing that qualifies a rigger to determine the airworthiness of a main canopy based on its landing characteristics. Meekerseeker is entitled to use her experience as a skydiver as a basis for her opinions of its performance, but her rigger ticket doesn't give her any special privileges in that regard. Before I condemn this canopy as a lemon, I'd like to know if Meekerseeker jumped any other Sabre 107s for comparison, and I'd like to know what other jumpers encountered when they jumped that canopy. And I'd like to know what the PD test jumpers had to say. We agree on this: if Kenny Ruetsch is misrepresenting the age or condition of the canopy, that's a crime. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #33 March 9, 2005 I'm aware of that.....my point was simply that he doesn't deserve any consideration or fairness, and not calling in the law is actually doing him a favour..... The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the identity of the person he sold it to, as he seems to be a little reluctant to do so. In fact, he can thumb his nose at the skydiving community and there's sweet F*** all we can do about it......and thats exactly what he's doing....... Unless luck is involved, this canopy timebomb could stay hidden for months and reappear down the line when we've long forgotten about it ......... I think its an issue for the law to deal with.....at least it'll get the canopy out of circulation.....and thats the immediate priority..... Let the courts sort out the rights and wrongs of it all later..............My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kolla 0 #34 March 9, 2005 Quote Perhaps it is a good idea to modify unairworthy canopies to be sold on e-bay for decoration purposes in a way that they cannot be immediately attached to the rig and jumped by inexperienced people. - very good idea indeed! PD has on occasion given away canopies deemed unairworthy, and in those cases we make sure that the canopy can not be easily hooked up. Usually we remove several line tabs (leaving holes in the bottom of the canopy). In addition we cut a few inches off the bottom of the lines so that the canopy can't be hooked up. Also - should you at any point have a problem with your PD canopy, please don't hesitate to contact our maintenance department. We will do our best to help you with determining the cause of the problem and see what can be done to fix it. If the canopy is beyond repair, we will let you know that too. It really isn't very expensive - $15 for a complete inspection, and the ladies in the maintenance dept are just fantastic to deal with. Blue ones, Kolla Kolbeinsdottir Performance Designs, Inc ** Forgot to mention that we also make a note on the warning label "Do Not Fly"Blue Skies Magazine Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbennettjr 0 #35 March 9, 2005 Quotean faa certified rigger deemed the canopy "not airworthy" meekerseeker clearly stated in the auction the conditions that she determined the canopy to be unairowrthy. She was VERY clear that this should not be jumped. However, she based this on her putting lots of jumps on the canopy before and after it went south, not from the condition of the canopy. Hell, if a rigger were to give it the once over it may look perfectly serviceable. She did everything she could to inform the bidder that this sucker would hurt them. Now, perhaps we should start removing the Orange ID Panel when we sell something that shouldn't be jumped? The military cuts the lines on demilitarized gear. That's also an option. Either way, let's find this canopy this weekend. Worry about who did what wrong when we know nobody is throwing their ass out of an airplane with this in their rig. Just my $.02 chuck Canis meus id comedit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #36 March 10, 2005 Quotemeekerseeker clearly stated in the auction the conditions that she determined the canopy to be unairworthy. She was VERY clear that this should not be jumped. I don't read the auction description (http://www.skydivekansas.com/107.htm) that way. She never says "unairworthy" and she took no steps to ensure it was unjumpable. She does say there's something wrong, but she qualifies this by saying, "It may only be good for hanging up as decoration, I don't know." I'd take that as, "Might be good only for decoration, but might be good for skydiving, I don't know." As for "But you buy this and jump it AT YOUR OWN RISK! Please, if you plan to jump this, experienced canopy pilots only!" you can find similar boilerplate attempts to limit liability on many other ebay auctions, especially skydiving gear. I also read in the auction description, "I ... have been the only one to jump it." I'm still interested in finding out if Meekerseeker has any comparison jumps on other Sabre 107s. I'm still interested in what other jumpers, especially PD test jumpers, might say. Right now, I'm regretting not bidding $70. Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #37 March 10, 2005 > The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the >identity of the person he sold it to . . . . Imagine if someone came up to you and said "Joe Blow sold me some used brake pads, and they were really worn out, and I put em on my car, and I crashed!" Might your response be "why did you put worn out brake pads on your car?" Calling the cops is inappropriate. If the canopy is as bad as people say it is, then he did something slimy and unethical. It is up to each jumper to evaluate the gear they use for every jump they make, used or not. I have an old Nova in great shape. Someone sold it to me years ago for $100. They told me "you know about all the problems with this canopy; be careful." If I jump it, and I get a collapse at 50 feet and break my back, whose fault is it? Mine, for jumping a cruddy canopy in turbulence. Now, if Tom had not said a single word and I had bought it, it would STILL be my responsibility to understand how the canopy flew and how it reacted to turbulence. Tom might be slimy and unethical for not telling me about the Nova's problems, but it's not a criminal issue, it's a moral one - and it doesn't change MY responsibility. I bought a piece of used skydiving gear in as-is condition. It's my responsibility to determine whether or not it is airworthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cbennettjr 0 #38 March 10, 2005 Well, hell...I didn't say I wouldn't have bid on it. I just wasn't in the office when the auction closed. Besides....it is an interesting looking canopy. chuck Canis meus id comedit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #39 March 10, 2005 Perhaps it is a good idea to modify unairworthy canopies to be sold on e-bay for decoration purposes in a way that they cannot be immediately attached to the rig *** cutting the line attachment points off the canopy came to mind when my stiletto was deemed unairworthy by PD and I found a person looking for a wall hanging, so a few snips here and there made sure it would stay on the wall. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Avion 0 #40 March 10, 2005 Cut the attachment tapes. That would require a rigger to fix it, and if you cut all of them it would be quite a bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #41 March 10, 2005 Write "UNAIRWORTHY" with a big fat magic marker all over the top of the center cell near the label. That should get a little attention, too, along with the cut tapes and such! Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #42 March 10, 2005 QuoteQuotemeekerseeker, is a rigger. "so he states" wich i would have a hard time believing he wasnt, seems honest to me. um, me thinks 'he' is a 'she'..... And she is a senior rigger with a back rating, has been since 1995. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #43 March 10, 2005 Quote> The cops would probably have a much easier job discovering the >identity of the person he sold it to . . . . Imagine if someone came up to you and said "Joe Blow sold me some used brake pads, and they were really worn out, and I put em on my car, and I crashed!" Might your response be "why did you put worn out brake pads on your car?" Calling the cops is inappropriate. If the canopy is as bad as people say it is, then he did something slimy and unethical. It is up to each jumper to evaluate the gear they use for every jump they make, used or not. I have an old Nova in great shape. Someone sold it to me years ago for $100. They told me "you know about all the problems with this canopy; be careful." If I jump it, and I get a collapse at 50 feet and break my back, whose fault is it? Mine, for jumping a cruddy canopy in turbulence. Now, if Tom had not said a single word and I had bought it, it would STILL be my responsibility to understand how the canopy flew and how it reacted to turbulence. Tom might be slimy and unethical for not telling me about the Nova's problems, but it's not a criminal issue, it's a moral one - and it doesn't change MY responsibility. I bought a piece of used skydiving gear in as-is condition. It's my responsibility to determine whether or not it is airworthy. Along the same line. It takes 2 for a con to work. The one pulling the scam and the one whose greed blinds him/her to the fact that the deal is just too good to be true. The old saying, "You can't cheat an honest man". SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
btucker 0 #44 March 10, 2005 does the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $500. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $450, this guy has potentially endangered a life (thus risking a lengthy geol sentence – hello bubba) + totally trashed his reputation and lost any chance of selling the gear his flogging now. qudos to those who sound the alarm. edit: I once had a rig with a dodgy eserve pack. I cabled tied the leg straps with two warning labels on it. And yeap it was jumped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feuergnom 22 #45 March 10, 2005 i had a discussion yesterday with my rigger about this subject - so thats how things are dealt with in austria (maybe different in other countries) basically she told me this: if she inspects a canopy and it is not airworthy anymore, she makes this fact very clear to the owner and states the fact of the canopy being "unairworthy" on the invoice/receipt & the packing card. so in case the owner sells the canopy to a third party afterwards (and hopefully hands out all the papers) third party should know whats wrong with the canopy. as for writing something on an unairworthy canopy - well since it still belongs to somebody, she (as a rigger) wouldn't want to 'damage' it if the rigging loft sells and unairworthy canopy of its own stock (sometimes you just get old ones and keep them) for decoration, lines are cut of and the orange warning label is removed – so it is obvious the canopy is not jumpable any more my 0,2 euro-cents: i'd be extremely cautious if i bought something on the web without a rigger/rigging loft being involvedThe universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle dudeist skydiver # 666 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #46 March 10, 2005 Quotedoes the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $500. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $450, this guy has potentially endangered a life Quotedoes the uspa have a code of conduct? I think a discipline hearing is in order. what a f***whit: Why not have sent the canopy to PD paid them to repair it and sold the thing for $800 not $69. I'm sure if you pushed the point they'd even test jump it. No! Instead for a lousy $69, this gal has potentially endangered a life So why didn't Meekerseeker do that before she sold the canopy? Why didn't she have PD test jump the canopy? Why did she "potentially endanger a life" by selling an intact canopy? The answer is on her own web site: she sold it intending for someone else to fix it and jump it. One more time: all we know is that Mr. Ruetsch misrepresented the number of jumps on the canopy and lines, and that he sold the canopy for more than he paid; and that Meekerseeker had trouble landing it. That's all we know. Here's a phrase that should set off alarm bells: "It is the canopy, not me." Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnYourBack 0 #47 March 10, 2005 Does the fact that a canopy collapsed once in turbulence behind a hanger and the fact that it doesn't flare very good make it unairworthy and extremely dangerous? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #48 March 10, 2005 Quoteall we know is that Mr. Ruetsch misrepresented the number of jumps on the canopy and lines, and that Meekerseeker had trouble landing it The actual performance of the canopy is unknown at this time, but that info is not what's important now. What is important is that he was told that it was unsafe, and unless he is a qualified test jumper, who determined that it was actaully a safe canopy, it is his responsibility to sell it as unsafe. I could care less if lied about jump numbers and linesets. That's up for you and rigger to determine during the inspection. But if it's not jumpable, and you can't plainly see that (as in lines cut off, or missing a cell or two) you need to disclose that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 0 #49 March 10, 2005 Quote We didn't she have PD test jump the canopy? Why did she "potentially endanger a life" by selling an intact canopy? The answer is on her own web site: she sold it intending for someone else to fix it and jump it. Is that so bad? You wouldn't mind someone selling a canopy saying it needs a reline would you? ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mark 102 #50 March 10, 2005 QuoteDoes the fact that a canopy collapsed once in turbulence behind a hanger and the fact that it doesn't flare very good make it unairworthy and extremely dangerous? The canopy collapse and flare-ability are separate issues. If canopy collapses in turbulence behind a hanger, the lesson learned should be, "The SIM was right -- there is turbulence in the vicinity of obstacles, especially on a day when the winds are strong." Meekerseeker mentions the strong winds that day and, to her credit, does not blame the canopy for the problem. Curiously, Jumphog just writes that the canopy collapsed at 50 feet, leaving out the context and leading a casual reader to believe the collapse was spontaneous and unexplainable. There are several correctable reasons why a canopy might not flare well: the lines may be out of trim, the brake lines might be too short or too long, the risers might be too short or too long, or pilot technique might be faulty. And of course it's possible the problem for this canopy might be exactly what Meekerseeker says: none of the above. I don't think it has been established as a fact that this canopy doesn't flare well, just that she was unable to make it flare well. That makes it dangerous for her, but we just don't know if the canopy is unairworthy or dangerous for others. It may still turn out this is a bad canopy. I'd still like a second opinion, from someone else who has jumped it. Is that too much to ask? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
