tdog

There are often credit card rules involved too. If you pay by credit card, the business cannot give you cash back, because then that is considered a cash advance and has immediate interest instead of a grace period. Plus, the credit card companies warn merchants never to give cash back because if the customer disputes the first charge, and business gave cash back, the business might be out the money - especially if the credit card was stolen because the merchant is liable, not the bank. If the business ran your credit card on day 1, then refunds you on day 2, then there are credit card processing fees, which can be be charged twice, one for each transaction. If the DZO refunds you the same day then the transaction can be voided instead of credited, and a void has a transaction fee that is much less. And there is another issue - if the bank sees a credit for a refund, where that card was never run at the merchant, often the bank will reject the transaction, and/or the risk management department will call the DZO (merchant) and warn them they are risking bank fraud, and could increase the fees the merchant pays on all cards (tandems+skydivers) because the bank sees them as a higher risk merchant. So the DZ has to verify the skydiver is using the exact same card for the refund. Large corporations like Home Depot have software programs that track credit cards to make sure refunds go to the proper card, however to store credit card info you have to have PCI compliance certification, which is often a million dollar investment per year for the software developer. DZs using DZ specific software cannot have the same level of data storage, although there are newer technologies like tokens that allow the DZ to store a token and let the processor remain PCI compliant... Without this technology, such as using a plain credit card swipe machine, the DZ has to find the original paper slip to verify the last 4 digits of the credit card transaction or search the bank statements they get from their bank. And some visiting skydivers have, believe it or not, received a credit for unused jumps then disputed the original credit card charge for the original transaction months later. (I have had to research these transactions before). As the DZ has to prove to the credit card company (who always sides on the side of the consumer when in doubt) why the disputed charge was valid, it can cause a headache and a huge risk for the DZO as he might lose the case if there is not enough proof, considering you don't often sign a receipt every time you manifest and/or come to the window and say "transfer my unused funds to Joe". It is easy for the skydiver to prove he paid the DZO, it is next to impossible for the DZO to prove the skydiver was on the plane as unlike Southwest Airlines there is no TSA to verify your boarding pass + boarding pass scan at the gate. So if I was a DZO, I would be much more concerned about refunding credit card transactions due to the possibility of fraud, than cash. Perhaps a refund request form could resolve the liability that is a printout of the transactions on the account with a signature "I agree". But, if that credit card was stolen, the signature is useless. All that being said, I think it is reasonable for a DZO to say, "Jump tickets purchased by credit card will be refunded up to 5 days after purchase, with a 5% restocking fee, to the same credit card that was originally charged, full priced jump tickets purchased by cash are refundable indefinitely, discounted jump tickets are non-refundable."

I think the DZ already lost over half a million in legal costs to see this thru, the amount she paid is just icing on the very expensive cake. She could have bankrupted (and did) smaller DZs.

I also use a stash bag, and knot the drawstring with some funky knots so none of the pesky parachute fabric could ever get out for some 75 mph fresh air.

Thank you for your advice Walt. For those who don't know, Walt has an extensive legal background as a trial lawyer and prosecutor. While no one is perfect and no one can read the FAA hearing officer's or judge's mind in the event of an hearing or trial, I do believe Walt's opinion does come from years of legal practice. Therefore I put a lot of credibility in his word. On a personal note, I am not a 100% fan of the PRH, however I feel the FAA logo on the cover is a very strong defense should I follow the procedures in it, and hopefully to limit all rigger's liability the FAA can refine and improve upon it every 5 or so years making it much better. I wish folks at PIA would help with this (with a positive attitude of making it better, not a negative attitude of the existing version is garbage).

Well, considering the document is silent to chest strap shortening, you really can't say it is wrong procedurally... The OPs question was master or senior, not design. The chest strap replacement and leg strap shortening sections both require master, so one could extrapolate a master rigger should follow the original design for that harness container, following manufacturer specs, while doing the work... And, I knew my post was gonna stir the pot, everyone complaining the PRH is not perfect.... But I don't see anyone calling Poynter asking for the rights to do a MAJOR rewrite of his work, bringing his manuals up to date, and putting it in the public domain as an FAA guidebook... So as it was once said, " everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything to fix it.".

Per the PRH: No chest strap procedure, so this is the closest match. Therefore one could put 2 and 2 together and suggest master is probably recommended for the chest too. At least, that is how I would interpret it.

All: this website and Facebook and an internet blog were admitted into testimony to show the judge that the skydiving community was hostile towards complainers and that more people would have likely complained but for the risks associated with complaining. Specifically, some very derogatory comments made online regarding Kim were shown to witnesses for them to make comments (and thus the judge saw them.) Also some pre-trial motions were decided based on online comments in favor of the plaintiff. The DZO, who is footing the bill for the trial, said Dropzone.com and Facebook "did us no favors" to his (our) case .. On behalf of many Colorado skydivers, who attended the trial and showed the judge and plaintiff respect, please keep it kind. You may disagree with Kim, but because of the active trial, and the fight with the City is far from over, it is important to keep it polite. The other thread on this topic was shutdown with pretty strong words by Sangrio. Please don't rehash that...

I think you just opened a 5 year old thread. That being said, two weeks ago I spent a week in a courtroom watching a skydiving trial. This website and facebook were quoted heavily and used as exhibits in the court case and were not at all helpful to the skydivers. I remember thinking, "some out of town internet poster, making insulting comments online behind their keyboard, is making small talk BS on the internet, is making the locals suffer." It was amazing to see how lawyers could bring the online posts into the trial by making witnesses comment on them. Therefore I disagree with your anonymous and hearsay comment, I just saw the judge admit the evidence in.

It may be real. But it won't be real good. It will be a knockoff made by people who have no clue what bill of materials need to be used. FYI, BillBooth, who replied to my 1st post, is the inventor of the real thing. His post indicates he can't build a safe real thing for that amount, in a funny but perfect way. To Hackish - I fully agree... If these do take off in the industry, riggers, manufacturers and others will have to learn how to identify the fakes. Alti-2 sent out a letter last week explaining how to identify fake components knocked off their line (in their case it was a non-functioning unit designed for role play airsoft games, so anyone in the plane on the way up would have noticed the needle was not working).

The $150 option is still there too. But, I found they have even a better deal on Mirage. Buy 5, get 3 free! See attached!

Best DZ.com post of the day, possibly the millennium.

Unfortunately making this a clicky will not work, alibaba redirects you if you come in from a redirect. So manually go to: http://www.alibaba.com Type in Vector V3 in the search. 150-200 for a vector. Found a mirage too. Can't wait until students show up with these! Screenshot attached in case you can't find it. Importer: Unique Mobiles Limited, UK

I disagree as before I had a rigging ticket of any kind, I had access to the machines you mention and was trained on their operations and frequently used them to repair things from jumpsuits, wingsuits, and even my gear (with advice and instructions from riggers when appropriate). Plenty of senior riggers have access to dz lofts with tons of machines too, so it is more than an intellectual debate, but real world application. I know a former senior riggers (deceased) who would kick out 10 linesets a week... I re-read the manuals PD has on their website today to refresh my memory (call it continuing education). Haha The RESERVE manual suggests linesets be replaced at the factory, but a Master may do it. It further explains bartacks must be done at the factory because of a proprietary stitch pattern, needing templates for locations, and having to replace fabric damaged by the old tack. PD appears to back the concept "no rigger" has the skill or tools in the field to do a factory repair, not one that suggests "those who own equipment, such as master riggers or dzos." On the otherhand, the MAIN manual does not mention riggers much at all, other than "you or your rigger should inspect" and "your rigger should assemble" but without a mandate that they must. I dug thru the website looking for work instructions for main canopy repairs, and found a document on how to modify a pulse to version 2. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/Pulse_190-260_Revision_P01_to_P02_upgrade_Work_Instruction.pdf and it is silent to the type of rigger involved, but very specific on materials and equipment. I searched for other PD official documents regarding mains looking for any factory advice on what they feel is the qualified rigger for repairs to mains, and I did not find any that back your claim that PD would back you. please feel free to send me links, I will read and add to my library.

I did ;-). Difference in opinions.

I am personally not afraid of the FAA. I am afraid of personal injury attorneys. I would spend a lot more time making sure we leverage the documents the FAA gives us to help us in those cases.

I disagree. A master rigger can be sued just as fast as a senior rigger. And since you have chosen to publicly discredit the Parachute Handbook, Manufacturer's documents, and Poynter for being "flawed" - when you get sued, you will have no "gold standard" to refer back to, to explain to the jury why you repaired something the way you did. And, if a container manufacturer can lose a lawsuit because the reserve stalled after their container successfully opened it, even in a less than ideal situation - you have risk to. My point - it is in my opinion, dangerous for us to discredit the only and best documents we have to follow. FARs are just one of many. More than one lawyer has advised me that when there are two documents published by the same authority, the document that is most specific, as long as it is not in conflict with a newer or higher ranking document, shall prevail. So while 65.111 says: It is not as specific as section 7.1.9 of the Parachute Handbook: I believe the FAA is specifically, and with detail, authorizing a senior rigger to perform the steps in section 7.1.9. Now, I understand you believe differently. Just for the record, I don't rig a lot, so personally I hold no skin in the game. I was trained by a Master Rigger to do linesets, and every lineset replacement has been inspected by a Master Rigger just to cover my ass... Do I feel it was necessary? No. Do I have multiple emails from lawyers who are industry aware and master riggers as counter arguments to you I kept on file. Yes.

There is no repair that cannot be done so poorly as to create an unairworthy result. If you search dz.com, you'll find several threads regarding who can do line repair/replacement on a main canopy. MEL and Dave DeWolf argue that line repair/replacement on a reserve is a master rigger task (and I agree), and therefore the same standards should apply to mains. My position with regard to mains is: (a) Since the original Poynter manual in 1971, we have always made a distinction between repair standards for mains and reserves, and in the certificate (senior or master) required. For example, Poynter Vol 1 7.25 Method 1, Replacement of Supension Line from Link to Link in Continuous Line Canopy, calls for a master parachute rigger on a reserve, but allows a senior parachute rigger to do the same task on a main. (b) Reserve parachutes have the characteristic of "airworthiness." They are tested to TSO standards, and manufactured to FAA-approved QC standards. Main parachutes, on the other hand, do not need to meet any performance or production standards. They do not have the characteristic of "airworthiness," that is, they are neither airworthy nor unairworthy. Riggers are not required for manufacturing. Adherence to an approved QC program is. Main components, everything from risers up, can be made by anybody. Imagine yourself in court with Dan Poynter. Now imagine he's sitting at the other table. Mark Mark, I have over the years learned to respect your rational thought and fair interpretation of industry standard protocols. I do agree with what you say above. Thanks for posting it.

For the record, I rarely read these forums anymore, but I am staying current in the industry... Are you suggesting there is a secret underground group of riggers who are lobbying for change or promoting changes in regulations that operate in the background that I don't have access to by reading PIA meeting minutes or talking to those who had the ability to attend PIA seminars or committee meetings, and by reading FAA, USPA, and other publicly available documents. That is a rhetorical question, and I am also guilty as charged as I have talked to some of the same FAA individuals via phone and email that you have in the past. I absolutely agree. When holding a rigger's ticket, you are held to a higher standard. But skydivers are our customers, and some of us love skydiving more than rigging. I honestly don't know who "people like me are"? Clearly I am thus in a different class than you, because you did not say, "people like us". Why am I any different than you? Am I less educated? Less caring? We have only met once in person at PIA, so I don't know who you are to judge me. Is it because over the years we have had different opinions, and because you believe so strongly yours are right, that I am somehow in a class of "people like you?". I take rigging extremely seriously. I perform both parachute rigging, and rigging of theatrical trusses and equipment in concerts and theaters. I also made mistakes in both environments that could have killed good friends, and I have caught mistakes that have saved lives (a reserve that would have fallen off of a riser on opening). I hope "people like you" will never be called to testify against "people like me" when we follow the written industry protocols, but some lawyer is able to spin that the protocol is invalid because it is in conflict with another written protocol, especially if my actions had nothing to do with the accident, like the rather infamous case where Poynter and another skydiver both were expert witnesses in a case where a lady stalled a reserve, known to fly poorly (both the skydiver and reserve brand) and sued the container manufacturer.

...or me which is actually looking like that will be the case. I have been subpoenaed in a pending case which actually has this exact content. MEL My take away from this thread is that it is scary. Not scary enough that we have so much litigation in the USA, but we also have a very outspoken individual who has extremely strong OPINIONS on how to interpret FAA documents and Manufacturing documents, who has for years posted to DZ.com and other places his OPINIONs as FACTS, without acknowledging other equally qualified rigger's alternative interpretations of the same documents as being valid OPINIONs. Now the same individual will be testifying presumably against another skydiver, and I have no confidence this individual will tell the judge and jury that other qualified and competent individuals have interpreted the same documents differently, and therefore there is ambiguity in the industry. I sure hope multiple witnesses are called.... I also sure hope this witness, as an individual, does not go on the stand proclaiming Poynter and the official FAA adopted handbook, manufacturing SBs, and other documents are wrong, as he has here... The only thing we have as riggers are the manuals and handbooks to protect us. We need to have the right to tell a jury "I followed page 27 of a manual published by the FAA that was current at the time" without the fear a fellow skydiver will testify the manual we are following is extremely flawed and riggers who follow it are failing. In this same thread UPT and Poynter are both wrong too in this person's OPINION, so we have nothing to protect us. And it is not just this issue where this will hurt the industry, say a Master rigger followed the book and the harness failed due to an extremely hard opening, they now lost the credibility of the book they followed by case precedent or fear of testimony from fellow master riggers. The FAA regulations are short, broad, sometimes conflicting or ambitious guidelines. Without the credibility of specific documents like the FAA handbook, poynter, or manufacturing SB guidance, we riggers will always be f%&+3d in a lawsuit. I believe the only answer this person or any rigger should give in a court case is: "My opinion does not matter. The FAA's documents, manuals and documents by the manufacturers, PIA, and industry recognized handbooks are all valid sources of information for riggers to follow, and it is not my place, nor am I qualified to interpret the language in those documents. That is something for lawyers who have years of training in contract and regulatory language. If the document says an individual has the right to do it, while I might disagree, who am I to say the FAA is wrong? And didn't the waiver the person signed cover this unfortunate accident?" But I digress. Let the lawyers shut down skydiving or over regulate it until no one can keep a dz open. Outspoken riggers testifying against fellow skydivers then can laugh all the way to the (bank)ruptcy. Everything said above is opinion.

Bill, congrats and thanks for your involvement in our sport. If I was in Deland I would be part of your jump.

...Unless of course the advertisements, based on circulation numbers, cause those magazines to be profitable or break even to the USPA. I wondered the cost of the magazine, anyone from the USPA want to share the Consolidated Financial Statements mentioned in the meeting minutes but not published with them. ;-)

A base jumping stash bag with the pull string tied in a knot works well, from experience.

To my knowledge,no MARD was ever tested in a horseshoe situation. Maybe not a horseshoe.... But the skyhook design took into consideration that it should release when the reserve PC was loaded.... In May this year Bill posted to another thread how the skyhook releases.... Don't get me wrong, I like the mirage design, creative new way to solve a mard... Just debating if the system needs to be able to release post activation...

Mark, as I was I too worried about this. I own both a Vector with skyhook and a Mirage. I am a fan of the Mirage, so I want them to be successful. My only Skyhook reserve ride - the skyhook prematurely released so it was a normal RSL deployment. So I am shooting 100% failure on that system, but it "failed safe". The Skyhook is designed to release when the reserve PC is actually pulling instead of being taken for a ride by the main canopy... In a horseshoe or entanglement where the main cannot fully leave, the Skyhook should release, which is a very good thing... This Mirage MARD, if it does not release, could cause a PC in tow on the reserve (fatal). In this system, I would really want to see what would happen if the PC started working again, would the bridle pop out, does it unload and release on its own? I also agree that I would be concerned with fabric burns and loading... We were doing static line jumps off of the Bridge testing various systems, and sure enough, we discovered how easy it is to leave the PC and half the bridle on the bridge when break cord ended up being stronger than the bridle webbing due to fabric burns and knots being loaded and melting materials. If the RSL cuts off the PC, well.... Game over. What testing was done in this regard? And - in case people question how much force is on a RSL and why I am concerned -- my last cutaway my Mirage RSL lanyard hardware broke at the riser connection point. There was evidence that the RSL was loaded enough to kink the previously never used cutaway cable, thus it was loaded substantially before it broke... Unfortunately the RSL never was found, it came out of the rig, so the point of failure is unknown. (Mirage sent me a nice email explaining it was my user error that the metal clasp must have been open... I disagreed because if that was the case the ripcord would not have been kinked, the RSL would have still been installed, and my A licence checkout student would have failed the gear check portion of his jump when he checked my gear in the plane and before we got on the plane). All that being said, I love Mirage, and I love the fact they were confronted with a patented Skyhook, and a lawsuit by a fellow poster in this thread - and instead of giving up, invented something new! That is why ultimately I am a Mirage fan, even though I am highly critical here. I admire Bill Booth, he can come off cocky at times, but he freely talks about his test jumps and designs, I want to hear Mirage's testing.....