sacex250

Like I was comparing Airtec to the Nazi's? Please, you fail. I have nothing but respect for Airtec, and as someone else pointed out, at the beginning of this thread I stated that I hoped that SSK and Airtec wouldn't be found liable. If you think I'm trying to villify Airtec you're dead wrong. I'm simply discussing a likely outcome of the case, if you think attacking me personally will change that, well, I don't know how anyone could possibly think that could happen. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So let's just ban AADs all together then. Jumpers take full responsibility for their actions, no one has to spend a dime on an AAD, no AAD lawsuits, and no saves. Now, if you honestly think that the only person that an AAD protects is the jumper, you'd be a fool. All of the equipment manufacturers, dropzones, riggers, instructors, and the sport of skydiving itself has something to gain by embracing AADs. Each time that an AAD saves someone's life the sport reaps an immeasurable benefit. If you don't think that a large chunk of the cost of an AAD goes straight to a product liability insurance fund then you'd also be wrong. Do you really think an AAD is physically worth $1500.00? Of course, not. There's a reason that an AAD costs five to ten times more than an audible altimeter and has to be installed by a certified rigger. Either way, you end up paying, either for a safer product that is more likely to prevent a fatality or for the product liability insurance to cover the potential fatality. So, the best way to decrease the cost of an AAD is to have more people using them while decreasing the number of fatalities while using them. Are you familiar with those Downfall Hitler rant spoofs on YouTube? I keep imaging Airtec's reaction to this accident as one of those rants since it's a German company after all. One of Hitler's officers [an Airtec engineer] is calmly explaining that there's a student skydiver who is in the midst of a no-pull free fall as he points to the spot on the map where the skydiver will bounce. Hitler [the CEO of Airtec] calmly reassures everyone that the Cypres will save the skydiver's life and the company will get credit for another save. Suddenly another officer chimes in, "My Fuhrer," and becomes speechless. Another officer finishes the statement, "My Fuhrer, the Cypres unit fired the cutter, but it didn't cut the closing loop because it wasn't routed through the cutter by the rigger. The skydiver has died." Hitler now tells anyone who thinks that the jumper deserved to die to leave the room. Let the rant begin... It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

The AAD was perfectly functional. The closing loop was improperly rigged. This isn't a question of semantics. The AAD was useless whether it fired or not, i.e. non-functional. Airtec isn't going to count this as a SAVE just because the unit fired the cutter. Airtec has hung its hat on the claim that the "function" of a Cypres is to cut the closing loop. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You really need to work on your analogies, Bill. This AAD wasn't in the jumper's car. It was in the jumper's container, turned on, and, due to not being installed and maintained per the manufacturer's instructions, it was non-functional. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

This will be my 95th post on this site. You have posted 25,010 times. The majority of my posts have been on a single subject because I am part of a very small minority of posters who aren't going with the flow. My posting here has nothing to do with any connection to the case. I hadn't even heard of this case until this thread was posted. I don't know any of the people involved and have never been to Archway Skydiving. I'm posting here simply to state my opinion on the law and the subject of the thread. For someone who's made 25,000 posts on this site I'm sure you'd understand the attraction of doing so. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Could you really be so dense as to think that the possibility that the reserve might not open would excuse the AAD from having to cut the closing loop? By that logic, we could excuse the jumper for not pulling silver because it wouldn't have guaranteed that the reserve would have deployed either. If you honestly think that there is any alterior motive to my posting here other than what I post here then you are seriously mistaken. I've gotten more than one private message from people who have thanked me for making the argument because it's an unpopular argument that skydivers don't want to hear. Just because you hate lawyers or think that the lawsuit is a threat to the sport doesn't change the fact that a skydiver most likely didn't have to die in this case, and that this is something that could have happened to any skydiver who uses an AAD for whatever reason, especially any one of the people who used this specific rig. Here's my opinion summed up: Yes, the jumper failed at his duty to open a parachute which what was determined by the investigation to result in an "accident." If he didn't have an AAD or the AAD had "functioned" correctly by cutting the closing loop and the jumper died anyway then I wouldn't be saying that it was anything but a tragic, unfortunate accident for the sport. The fact that the AAD was rigged in such a way that it couldn't have possibly functioned correctly which made the unit completely useless makes the rigger and DZO ultimately responsible for the jumper's death. It doesn't matter what the "odds" were of the reserve deploying and saving the jumper's life had the AAD functioned correctly; the rigger's negligence absolutely deprived the jumper of any chance that the AAD may have given him. I do not hold Airtec responsible for this particular fatality. The question is purely legal, had there been a secondary means of confirming that the closing loop was properly routed would the unit have functioned correctly? This is the question that will likely be put in front of the jury, and the answer is most likely yes. Airtec has, knowingly, put itself in the position of relying solely on a rigger to ensure that the device functions as designed and as advertised; and in this case, Airtec's decision to do that resulted in a failure because the rigger that Airtec has put the responsibility on - failed. Airtec can't just pass the buck like that. Airtec bears some responsibility for the installation of the product, just like it bears responsibility for jumpers turning it on beforehand. How many Cypres ads have you seen with the reminder to "Turn It On"? That's an example of Airtec's responsibility. Remember, Airtec requires that the unit be shipped to a service center every four years for required service and has even guaranteed that the batteries won't need to be replaced between service intervals. And yet, Airtec has done nothing to give anyone, even the unit itself, the ability to do a pre-jump check to ensure that the closing loop is properly routed and has enough tension on it. Even diablopilot who is holding the jumper 100% responsible claims that no one other than the jumper is responsible for doing a pre-jump inspection of the rig. Okay, if that's the case then why hasn't Airtec given jumpers a way to do that? Would you buy a car that didn't have a dipstick to check the engine oil? Now if skydivers want to bet their lives on the integrity of their rigger then that's their choice, but should Airtec get to bet the lives of skydivers solely on the integrity of a rigger? That's what it has done, and it didn't work out in this case. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out. The FAA requires installed AADs to be functional, do you think the FAA would say this AAD was functional as installed? Doubtful. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Let me guess, you've never taken a statistics class, have you? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Then why purchase/install/require them? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You hear crickets because it is difficult to compose a reply to such utter crap. Can a rigger make a mistake? Yes. Can't live with the responsibility of that? Quit jumping or become your own rigger. Nothing this rigger did cause the man in this incident to die. The fact he was not cut out for skydiving cause him to die. I'm flabbergasted that people in the sport as long as the two of you have such an attitude. Maybe if you spent more time working with the masses of ignorant people that see skydiving on TV and assume there is nothing to it, you might realize that by giving people a crutch and letting them all believe they can do it, is really just weakening the safety culture on a daily basis. Guess what? There are consequences to actions we take. If you jump from an airplane and fail to open a parachute you will most assuredly die. Perhaps your opinions would be different if you worked with more students. Perhaps I'm jaded since I have more instructional skydives than the two of you report combined. But I know one thing for sure. Every student of mine tandem or AFF knows what Can happen if they fail to open a parachute. Let's clarify the definition of "back-up device." An installed AAD is a back-up device only as far as a skydiver's training is concerned. It's not the primary activation method, but that doesn't mean that it's excused from having to function properly. There is a reason why USPA requires AADs on student jumps and the FAA requires an installed AAD to be functional on each jump. The fact that this jumper unknowingly had a non-functional AAD is what makes this case so relevant. Hindsight can't be used here to decide whether or not the AAD needed to be functional, it needed to be functional whether a student froze, had a heart attack, or collided with something during freefall and was knocked unconscious. If a jumper without an AAD no-pulls and dies then that is the risk that skydiver personally took. A student jumper, or ANYONE, who is jumping with an AAD is entitled to a functional AAD that at least gives them a last chance at survival for whatever reason. To have an AAD malfunction, and then simply say in hindsight, "Well, he should have pulled, he got what he deserved," is ridiculous. He deserved a functional AAD. He rented a rig that both the FAA and USPA say was supposed to have a functional AAD. It didn't, period! And, that applies to anyone else who may have used this rig since its last repack. The likelihood that this jumper would still be alive if the AAD was installed correctly is pretty good, definitely better than even, even if he'd been unconscious. The jumper didn't pull but that doesn't excuse the AAD from having to be functional. It's not a coincidence that there's a dead jumper and a non-functional AAD, there's a pretty strong connection between the two. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Yes, it has been said, by you! It's interesting how you think that a human being packing a reserve parachute/AAD is entitled to be protected from his mistakes, but a human being in a fatal freefall is not entitled to any protection from his mistakes. And, that you claim that a device "worked" although it had been rendered completely non-functional when it was rigged. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Okay, if I'm an attorney, who would my client be? I obviously wouldn't be the rigger's or the DZO's attorney if I'm shouting "negligence" on the packing oversight. I'm obviously not Airtec's attorney if I'm claiming that Airtec should've considered that the cutter's placement in a secured packjob prevents routine pre-jump inspections considering the importance of the tension required (>10 pounds) on the closing loop for the cutter to function properly over a period of six months. If I was the jumper's family's attorney, the last people on my list I would want opinions from are skydivers who think that with a single signature on a piece of paper that they've absolved any professionals with any responsibility for their safety from actually having any responsibility for their safety. Or, that AADs should have the prejudicial power to decide to work properly or not based on the skill and competence of the jumper so that an AAD can allow any jumper deemed responsible for putting an AAD in the inconvenient position of actually needing to function correctly to die. The last people I would want to hear from are skydivers who believe that every single jumper/student who within a period of up to 180 days (6 months) used a rented container with a required safety device that was non-functional were solely responsible for someone else's mistake with their own lives. Just out of curiosity, if I inadvertently packed a step-through on my main canopy would I be entitled to pull my cutaway handle and activate my reserve, or would I be required to take responsibility for my substandard pack job by living or dying with my main? No, if I was the plaintiff's attorney then I wouldn't give a damn about skydivers who think that a dead skydiver who didn't pull is better for the sport than a successful AAD activation is. I guess I'd just have to tell myself that it's all about the money, instead. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

If you think a lawyer would go to a message board to discuss a case, I think you may need to get out more! Besides lawyers aren't smart enough to be the first to correct the spelling error in the subject line of every post of this thread! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You would have the jumpmaster looking at the repack video before each jump? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So, who rechecks a student rig that the rigger owns? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

How many jumpers are actually qualified to recheck work done by a rigger by looking at a video tape? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Paul, I have an innocent question here, because I don't have a clue about this: Is there a big difference between repacking a reserve with or without an AAD? Is it in any way possible that a rigger who's distracted could just plain forget that there's an AAD that has to be set-up since some rigs have AADs and some don't? In this case, I'm still boggled by the idea that this rigger, who owns the DZ, mispacked one of his company's own student rigs. Do you have any ideas on how that could happen? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

None of those guys had permits. If it were as hard to get a driver's license as it is to get a CCW permit, there wouldn't be any cars on the road. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

What then, do you make of this: So when you go skydiving, do you use your Cypres to automatically open your parachute on every jump? Are you under the impression that having a Cypres will keep you from breaking your leg upon landing? Do you regularly pull at a low enough altitude so that both of your canopies will come out at the same time? What part of that don't you get? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Really? That is a statement of opinion. Where in the FAR's does it say any of that? Where in the FAR's are any standards of certification or operational requirements noted? Where are there any laws period about the use, certification, or requirements of AAD's in general noted? You haven't got a leg to stand on. According to LAW, the AAD doesn't have to do a thing. We're dealing with product liability tort law here. The manufacturer of any product is liable for any damages/injuries that the product may cause. It doesn't matter if it's a step ladder, fingernail clippers, or pajamas. It it's designed/manufactured by somebody then they are going to be held responsible for it if it causes injury or damage through its use, foreseeable misuse, or defects. In this case, there is a product that claims it will cut the closing loop of a reserve parachute container under certain conditions, with the subsequent intent of allowing the reserve parachute to deploy as a life-saving measure. It failed to cut the closing loop, even though the device properly activated, apparently as a result of improper installation/set-up of the device. This is not a frivolous lawsuit. We may well debate who should be held more accountable, but arguing the validity of the lawsuit itself is futile. Here's one for you that's in the news right now: Is it reasonably foreseeable that a tsunami could disable emergency diesel generators at a nuclear power plant causing the nuclear reactors to lose their cooling water flow and subsequently have their cores melt down? How do you think that one will turn out? My money's on "Yeah, they probably should have seen that one as a possibility." It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Wrong again. Reserve parachutes are classified as the only "life-saving device" in your rig. That's why a certified rigger has to inspect and pack it. Your main parachute is not considered life-saving by the FAA, and that's why (basically) anyone can pack it. Try reading the FARs sometime. You might learn something. Which was the point I thought I made! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I've never had any more issue closing a rig that had a cutter mounted properly than closing one without it. I don't care HOW shitty of a day/time I'm having if the rig is kicking my ass, I take a break, relax a few mins or leave it till the morning to finish closing. I don't know of ANY rigger that would intentionally do anything even close to just 'making it easy'. ETA: According to the incident thread, it looks like it was a Wings container, which has a bottom of the pack tray mounted cutter, not threading it thru the cutter would make no difference as far as closing goes (minus a possible having to adjust the closing loop 1/4" which is a SMALL possibility of having to do) [WARNING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE BELOW, DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS!] It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

First of all, that's not what I meant. Secondly, I'm just trying to discuss the issue, not change the world. [WARNING HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE BELOW, DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO THIS!] Thirdly, what if you were a rigger, you were having a bad day, and you were having a bitch of a time getting the closing loop, the cutter, and the pilot chute to cooperate while closing up the rig; and, you finally get ticked off enough to say, "the hell with it, if he needs a stupid AAD to open his reserve he deserves to die anyway." So, you simply close up the container without the complication of that stupid cutter because no one would ever know. And then, the jumper gets knocked unconscious by a funnel crasher, and falls to his death because of your attitude towards AADs. Lastly, I'm only saying that I'm not arguing with the premise that it's the jumper's responsibility to open his chute, just that there is a legitimate reason that the AAD is there. And there is a legitimate reason that the AAD is required for students, it's called the "No Pull". The AAD in this case apparently worked properly, but since the rigger made a mistake, and there was no possible way that anyone else could ever know about it until it was too late, then why shouldn't some sort of solution to that single-point failure possibility be considered? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Sorry to tell you this, but an AAD is only a backup from the skydiver's perspective. Legally, an AAD is a product that the manufacturer is responsible for on it's own merits. The device was purchased, installed, turned on, and failed to do what it was supposed to do, which is cut the closing loop, and damages were incurred by the user of the equipment and his family. Reserve parachutes are just back-ups as well, are they held to any less of a standard than main parachutes? Of course not, they are held to a far more strenuous and restrictive standard. Even though skydivers are told not to depend on a Cypres to save their lives, never the less, that is the exact reason why Airtec manufactures them, why people purchase them, and why lawyers are going to come calling when somebody dies while using one. I'm sure Airtec will be the first to admit they missed out on a "SAVE" here. The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I agree with you there, Dave. Now, speaking just about the Airtec issue, Airtec's claim, and the one that everyone usually points out, is that a Cypres doesn't actually deploy the reserve canopy, it only cuts the reserve closing loop, when certain altitude and descent speed criteria are met, period! A Cypres has no other function, at all. In this situation, there is a Cypres unit that indicates that it's ready to use even though its one and only reason for existence has been made non-functional by a rigger's mistake. Airtec is going to have to show that it is not foreseeable that a rigger could forget to route the closing loop through the cutter, which leaves Airtec in the position of pointing fingers and shouting, "Negligence," at the rigger. On the other hand, if forgetting to route the closing loop through the cutter is foreseeable then Airtec is going to have to show what steps they've taken to account for that. An obvious complication here is that there is no way to check the placement of the closing loop until the reserve is repacked in six months, or until the reserve is deployed manually, or until someone dies. Airtec's "cutting the reserve closing loop" vs. "deploying the reserve" claim may just come back and bite them in the butt on this one. I hope it doesn't, and believe it or not, I really do feel for the rigger; it was a horrible mistake that I'm sure he didn't do intentionally. But somebody died, and that changes everything. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.