Beware of Kenny Ruetsch selling a Sabre 107

[mark 102]

Quote

Is that so bad? You wouldn't mind someone selling a canopy saying it needs a reline would you?

No, it is not so bad. Which is why I am surprised at the amount of ink this has generated.

Mark

[LawnDart21 0]

I agree with you Mark. Saying a canopy collapsed behind a hangar in turbulant conditions doesn't really signify a dangerous canopy. I think it would be a fair statement to say (air locks aside) most any canopy is capable of collapsing in those conditions.

As for its flare-ability, I have seen people of differnt shapes and sizes (equalling different arm lengths too) fly the same canopy where 1 person cannot flare it and the other can. I just think there are too many variables (brake line setting, riser length, arm length, etc) to deduce this canopy as completely unairworthy becuase one jumper was unable to sort it out.

NOTE: None of my above comments are aimed to justify this persons actions. misrepresenting a canopy's condition or jump numbers is flat out wrong, but also yelling from the watch tower that this guy has sold a dangerous canopy is also a little bit over the top.

--
My other ride is a RESERVE.

[Jumperintheair 0]

Your auction listing most certainly does not mention the parachute being "unairworthy". IT does say it collisaped behind a hangar, but that really means nothing.
I'm like Mark, and really regret not bidding $70.00. PD makes every one of there parachutes the same (not like Icarus, where 1 Xfire may fly completely different from another). that being said, its highly unlikely that you were the only person in the world to ever purchase a "defective" PD canopy. A Sabre1 can be a tricky parachute to land, you obviously can't land a parachute, and there for in your mind its defective. Thats right, when that student couldn't stand up his PD230 it was defective too.
You screwed up all the way around. I've got a bunch of old "unairworthy" canopies, but I'm in no hurry to list them on eBay for $50

[JumpHog 0]

Quote

Your auction listing most certainly does not mention the parachute being "unairworthy". IT does say it collisaped behind a hangar, but that really means nothing.
I'm like Mark, and really regret not bidding $70.00. PD makes every one of there parachutes the same (not like Icarus, where 1 Xfire may fly completely different from another). that being said, its highly unlikely that you were the only person in the world to ever purchase a "defective" PD canopy. A Sabre1 can be a tricky parachute to land, you obviously can't land a parachute, and there for in your mind its defective. Thats right, when that student couldn't stand up his PD230 it was defective too.
You screwed up all the way around. I've got a bunch of old "unairworthy" canopies, but I'm in no hurry to list them on eBay for $50

You're right, the canopy was not listed as unairworthy. The original owner stated that their was something seriously wrong with the canopy, and that it should probably only be used as decoration. I originally used the term "unairworthy", not the owner. As it is not a reserve, there is no specific thing that makes a main unairworthy (hell, I suppose my bed sheet is technically "airworthy" as a main). Had this guy bought the canopy, then had PD inspect it, and then put several hundred jumps on it, in which he determined it to be fine, and then relisted it for sale, that might have been excusable. But to buy a canopy that was described as being unsafe, and then relist it without jumping it, inspecting it, or probably even unpacking it is extremely unethical to me. Add to that, the fact that he grossly lied about the number of jumps on the canopy and the lineset, and that he then lied again, saying that the canopy listed on dropzone.com was a different canopy than the one he bought on eBay. Those things combined make me think this guy should not be involved in this sport. I have seen Jen fly this canopy, and I can assure you that it is not her flying skills. I consider myself to be an above average pilot, and I could not see anything wrong with the way she flew it. In my opinion, there most definately was something wrong with that canopy, and I would not want myself or anyone else I know to jump it.

[mark 102]

Quote

The original owner stated that their was something seriously wrong with the canopy, and that it should probably only be used as decoration.

Only half true. What she wrote was, "It may only be good for hanging up as decoration, I don't know." She left open the possibility that it could be jumpable. How should we interpret her words, "If you plan to jump this, experienced canopy pilots only!"?

Quote

Lots of stuff about unethical practices attributed to Mr. Ruetsch

You and I agree.

Quote

I have seen Jen fly this canopy, and I can assure you that it is not her flying skills. I consider myself to be an above average pilot, and I could not see anything wrong with the way she flew it. In my opinion, there most definately was something wrong with that canopy, and I would not want myself or anyone else I know to jump it.

I'm still waiting for a second opinion from someone else who has jumped that canopy.

Mark

[PhreeZone 15]

If the canopy is still local I'll try to jump it shortly.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[HydroGuy 0]

As I read this thread, I imagined a jury of people who have never and would never skudive listening to and reading this thread.

One thing is obvious...the person with the most experience would be the TRAINED rigger who originally sold the canopy. NO WHERE in that ebay ad did it say the canopy is unflyable or unairworthy. It does say that it should be flown by an experienced canopy pilot...what IN-experienced pilot flies a 107???

Kenny might be a scum bag...but ultimately, I think legal responsibility (criminal or civil) would fall on the rigger in this instance.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[gjhdiver 0]

This canopy looks very like the staff canopies that we used in Skydive City Z Hills in 1992-1993. If so, it is a very early Sabre 107, with a huge amount of jumps on it, probably in excess of 3000.

Either that or it's a carbon copy of one of them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Kenny might be a scum bag...but ultimately, I think legal responsibility (criminal or civil) would fall on the rigger in this instance.

How do you figure? While some here quibble about whether or not it was ethical to sell the canopy in it's unknown state, she made full disclosure. No juror outside of Alabama would apply any responsibility to her rather than Kenny when he misrepresented the canopy to the new buyer.

[JumpHog 0]

Quote

Kenny might be a scum bag...but ultimately, I think legal responsibility (criminal or civil) would fall on the rigger in this instance.

Please explain how you come up with that. For the "jury's" sake, let put this in terms of something they would understand. Lets say that I sold my car, with 100,000 miles on it to someone dirt cheap, and told them that there was something seriously wrong with it. I told them that the brakes just quit working every now and then, and even after taking it into the shop, the brakes still don't work right. I then tell them that it may be fixable, but it's probably only good for parts and that they probably shouldn't drive it. After buying it, that person turns around and sells the car, which I gave them ample warning about, and claims that it's in excellent condition and only has 50,000 miles, without even driving it once or having it looked at themselves. So you're saying that if the unsuspecting new buyer dies because the brakes failed on them, that I am liable for that. I think any court in the world would find that the person who sold it to this unknowing buyer, without disclosing any of the problems, even though they were well aware of them would be found at fault, rather than the original owner who sold it with the understanding that there was something wrong with the car. If you don't believe me, do some research on "lemon laws" and read about how many people/companies have been sued and imprisoned for selling a car with known problems without disclosing them to the buyer.

[OnYourBack 0]

You keep acting like this canopy is some kind of death trap. What exactly did it do when she flared it? I mean, after she first diagnosed the problem and had it relined she said she put another almost 200 jumps in on it. The guy should have accurately described the life of the canopy but the only time it seriously injured her was when she made a mistake in turbulance.

[HydroGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

Kenny might be a scum bag...but ultimately, I think legal responsibility (criminal or civil) would fall on the rigger in this instance.

Please explain how you come up with that. For the "jury's" sake, let put this in terms of something they would understand. Lets say that I sold my car, with 100,000 miles on it to someone dirt cheap, and told them that there was something seriously wrong with it. I told them that the brakes just quit working every now and then, and even after taking it into the shop, the brakes still don't work right. I then tell them that it may be fixable, but it's probably only good for parts and that they probably shouldn't drive it. After buying it, that person turns around and sells the car, which I gave them ample warning about, and claims that it's in excellent condition and only has 50,000 miles, without even driving it once or having it looked at themselves. So you're saying that if the unsuspecting new buyer dies because the brakes failed on them, that I am liable for that. I think any court in the world would find that the person who sold it to this unknowing buyer, without disclosing any of the problems, even though they were well aware of them would be found at fault, rather than the original owner who sold it with the understanding that there was something wrong with the car. If you don't believe me, do some research on "lemon laws" and read about how many people/companies have been sued and imprisoned for selling a car with known problems without disclosing them to the buyer.

Last time I checked, this was a parachute, not a car. As I understand it, only certain qualified individuals can work on parachutes. That person is expected to make choices regarding the safety of that parachute. Because of their knowledge, training and certification, their standard of negligence will be different than joe shmo reselling the gear.

If this canopy truely has the said problems, this DZO/Master rigger had no business selling it to anyone other than another qualified rigger. She especially had no business selling it on ebay. And she DOESN'T say this is a non-jumpable canopy.

I'll give you a better example than your car. When I was a kid, I had a very mean Rhodesian Ridgeback. She tore up a gardener. I had to get rid of her. I could have given her to anybody and said, "She bites, be careful." But knowing her disposition I gave her to an experienced breeder/trainer who was knowledgable enough to evaluate the situation. Why, because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[OnYourBack 0]

"As I understand it, only certain qualified individuals can work on parachutes. That person is expected to make choices regarding the safety of that parachute."

On a reserve or container your correct. However a main canopy doesn't fall into the same category. Both you and Jumphog are making a huge deal about this canopy but if she could put 200 more jumps on it after realizing the problem without serious injury, then its obviously not that bad.

[dreamsville 0]

Phree, surely you jest (I assume). Please don't jump that thing, in case you are serious, or anyone else. Who wants to take a chance by evaluating this canopy?
|

I don't drink during the day, so I don't know what it is about this airline. I keep falling out the door of the plane.

Harry, FB #4143

[mark 102]

Quote

Who wants to take a chance by evaluating this canopy?

I do.

Mark

[JumpHog 0]

Quote

What exactly did it do when she flared it?

At about 1/4 brakes, with plenty of airspeed left. the canopy would simply stall and stop producing any lift. This was definately not from overflaring it or flaring too quickly, creating a high-speed stall. In mild turbulence, it didn't take much for the canopy to "breathe" and react much more severly than it should. I was also watching when the canopy collapsed on her. She was landing in the same area that 3 other people had just landed in, and the winds were strong, but steady. At about 50 feet, with no control input, her canopy simply went into a full stall and collapsed. It may have very well been a freak thing, but with everything else I have seen with this canopy, I think some problem in the canopy contributed to the collapse. I have watched tens of thousands of landings and have never seen a canopy behave the way her's did. With a proper inspection/service/repair, this canopy may very well be safe to jump again, and all I want is to make sure that the person who buys it is aware of its current condition.

[billvon 2,400]

>Who wants to take a chance by evaluating this canopy?

I will. I'll stick it in the cutaway rig, jump it, play with it a bit, and then if it gives me even a hint of trouble I'll chop it and land normally. With any luck I'll lose the main if I chop it, which will solve the problem!

[peterk 0]

Wouldn't that mean that you would be jumping a container/canopy system, where you would be, for all practical purposes, intentionally cutting away? Are you going to wear a belly mount to fully comply with the FARs?

Just curious...

---------------
Peter
BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime

[flyangel2 2]

Peter, I'm sure Bill will follow the BSRs or FARs. Unlike other people.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[peterk 0]

I just can't imagine knowingly and intentionally getting myself into a situation, where I would have only one canopy, and one chance, to save my life.

That would be a LOT of trust in the container/canopy. Maybe I'll try it someday...

But seriously, why would BillVon's situation be legal under the BSR (recommendations, NOT regulations)?

---------------
Peter
BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime

[flyangel2 2]

Oh gee..........give me a break. Go do some reading about intentional cut aways. You would think with your experience, you'd know how it works.

And yes, I know they are recommendations.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[billvon 2,400]

> I just can't imagine knowingly and intentionally getting myself into a
> situation, where I would have only one canopy, and one chance, to
>save my life.

I trust my Reactor about as much as I trust my Reflex. I'm just a lot more careful packing the Reactor.

>But seriously, why would BillVon's situation be legal under the BSR
>(recommendations, NOT regulations)?

I have an intentional cutaway system that uses a chest mount main (which gets cutaway), a regular main to be deployed after the first main is chopped, and a normal reserve. After the cutaway the rig reverts to a normal single harness dual canopy system.

[peterk 0]

Yea, I have one of those containers also.

It would have been easier to edit your post to keep yourself out of hot water than to claim that you have a three canopy/one harness system...

Chest mounted main, with two other back mounted canopies, that gets cutaway, legally? Priceless!!!

Why not just d-bag that crap canopy, with a groundlaunch harness underneath a skydive container? Oh yea, we have those 3-in-1 containers...

The rules are the rules, BillVon...

---------------
Peter
BASE - The Ultimate Victimless Crime

[jdfreefly 1]

Are you some kind of troll? Three parachute cutaway rigs have been around for quite a while.

Just because you cant conceive of a rig with 2 parachutes in it, doesn't mean you couldn't have one with three.

If you are a troll, then I do hear by launch a personal attack on myself for feeding you. I am a real jerk, an absolute knee biter.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Yea, I have one of those containers also.

It would have been easier to edit your post to keep yourself out of hot water than to claim that you have a three canopy/one harness system...

Chest mounted main, with two other back mounted canopies, that gets cutaway, legally? Priceless!!!

Why not just d-bag that crap canopy, with a groundlaunch harness underneath a skydive container? Oh yea, we have those 3-in-1 containers...

The rules are the rules, BillVon...

I don't care if he is troll or not. That is just dumb.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.