sacex250

Perhaps, I just prefer anonymity? Would it make a difference if I had 1262 jumps and a D-license? In the end, the last thing that this case will be about is skydiver's opinions on it, or what was posted on a message board. This is now a tort case and I'm looking at it from the legal side, just as the courts will tell the jury to. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

AADs are required for students by USPA. There's really no way around this, a safety device that would have likely saved this jumper was defeated by the negligence of the rigger/owner of the dropzone. You can pretty much take the waiver the student signed, and light it on fire. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

The traumatic injury is the red marks. "Trauma" is physical injury as opposed to medical illness. The fact that the grandmother brought the kid to hospital for them should prove the point. I wouldn't consider what the Judge said a legal opinion, I would consider it a lecture to a defendent who's just been sentenced to five years probation for beating/injuring her child. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Oh, there's a case; and I can guarantee that no one who feels the same way about this as you do will be allowed anywhere near the jury box. If you happen to get called up for this jury panel then you can consider yourself "thanked and excused" as the plaintiff's counsel boots you out of the courtroom; there won't be any need for any skydivers on this jury. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

The DZ, or any business, is always going to be held vicariously liable for the actions of its staff. It's a worst case scenario for the DZ: student jumper (11th or 12th jump), rented equipment, safety device that functioned correctly but for improper rigging, and the rigger is one of the DZ owners. For Airtec, it's the usual product liability lawsuit with the one plus for them is that their device didn't actually malfunction. I don't think the DZ should be expecting much help here from Airtec since they probably want to add .5 onto their save total on the website. I'm sure SSK, Vandalia Airport, and the Vandalia Park District have nothing to worry about. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Considering that the rigger is one of the owners of the dropzone, it's a pretty obvious connection. Not to mention, the dropzone owns and had rented out the gear to the student. Your last sentence sums up the case against Airtec. When a Cypres is turned on it indicates to the jumper that it's working properly. If there is no way to check the closing loop before each jump then the logic would be that Cypres should have a way of informing the jumper that there is a problem with the cutter or closing loop if it can cause a malfunction since it can't be visually inspected. This becomes the weak link in the chain because Cypres checks itself whenever it's turned on, but the cutter and closing loop are only checked every six months, by someone other than the jumper. It's not that far of a stretch, considering the courts, to say that the cutter should have a sensor to indicate whether the closing loop is present and under tension inside the cutter. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Since when does common sense apply to tort litigation? There's obviously some negligence here on Archway and the rigger, who's a co-owner. If common sense were involved we'd just drop the whole matter and say, "why didn't the student just pull his chute?" On the other hand, if I took my rig for a repack and found out that the closing loop wasn't threaded through the cutter by the previous rigger, I'd be looking to have someone's rigger's license pulled. I don't think this is a frivolous lawsuit, there's some merit to it. Although, I don't think Airtec and SSK should be the held accountable for a device that wasn't installed correctly. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It's Archway Skydiving in St. Louis. The gist of the lawsuit is that the reserve closing loop wasn't routed through the Cypres cutter so even though the Cypres functioned properly it couldn't cut the closing loop and deploy the reserve. Sounds like a reasonable lawsuit to me. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Wow, overreact much? The law is pretty clear in most states that if discipline of a child causes traumatic injury then it constitutes abuse. Obviously, if a third-party notices marks on a child from parent-iniflicted trauma then there's obviously something more going on there than just normal "disciplining." As usual, there's probably more to this case than what was reported in this oh-so-brief article. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So, are we invading Saudi Arabia next week? And that has what to do with success/failure in Afghanistan? We didn't go into Afghanistan in the name of human rights. We went there out of a matter of national security to hunt down terrorists in the name of making the world a safer place, which it has failed to do, especially for Afghans. To claim that removing the government in the name of human rights makes the mission successful is like claiming that we went to Vietnam because "Charlie don't surf"! The violence and discrimination against women in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have little to do with the government. It has to do with religion, tradition, sociology, and beliefs. Even installing a "democracy" won't change that because the government will simply reflect the social values of the people. Hence, how dare we claim that our definition of "human rights" is any better than anyone else's when we can't agree domestically on gay marriage, abortion, and the death penalty. It so much easier to define for others what's right and wrong when we can drop bombs on them when we can't even work it out for ourselves, peacefully. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So, are we invading Saudi Arabia next week? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Not to mention it only took ten years to get Osama Bin Laden. I'll bet if we hadn't gone to war it would've been far easier, faster, and cheaper to hunt him down covertly. Oh yeah, that's right; OBL was only the excuse to invade Afghanistan, just like those WMD's were the excuse to invade Iraq. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Here's some useful information from Performance Designs, especially the last section about Minimum Wing Loading. http://www.performancedesigns.com/docs/W-L_Interpretations.pdf It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You don't need a container for that. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Grand Falls, Iowa has required them since 2004. The only apparent change in the law is that apartment complexes with three or more units, as opposed to six previously, are going to be required to have Knox Boxes for common secured entrances like gates and lobby doors. The keys to each individual apartment unit aren't included since they're private residences. Actually, if there's any condencension on my part, it has to do with the idiot who wrote the article, especially the misleading headline. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Did you actually read the article that you linked? What's hilarious about this is that Cedar Falls has already had this law on the books since 2004, now they're just expanding the scope to include smaller apartment complexes, from six units down to three units. Oh, the horror! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Practically anywhere that's described as a "city" or "incorporated area." Chances are that most people have seen a Knox Box at one time or another and never even noticed it. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

First of all, the presence of a Knox Box has no effect on 4th Amendment Rights. The same laws, and protections, apply whether the police or fire department break down the door or open it with a key. I think the naive residents of Iowa will find that they are quite a bit behind the times; Knox Boxes are common in the "developed areas" of the United States. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Who the hell cares about a Paris Hilton tandem? I want to hear about the threesomes! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Licenses do expire, at the exact same time that the jumper does! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Make sure before you jump that you use the laces to tie both shoes together. That they they will stay together as a pair. The shoes often end up snagged on neighborhood powerlines. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Here is the FAA opinion (from the FAA's Chief Counsel), which has been backed up in several legal cases. Notice that the rule that Sparky quoted doesn't define what a "congested area of a town or settlement" actually is. This is a long standing issue in numerous areas of FAA regulation including: minimum safe altitudes, parachuting, ultralights, aerobatics, and helicopter external load operations; all of which have "congested area" and "open air assembly of persons" restrictions. It's hardly "hearsay" if the FAA openly admits to the policy in writing. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

You misread the rule. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement. The FAA has outright said that: 1) They refuse to define what a "congested area" is. 2) Any interpretation will be handled on a "case-by-case basis." It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Bill for sake of argument, if Daytona decided to open a USPA full-time dropzone in the infield available for use when the track wasn't being used, would you have a problem with jumps being made there? After all, the landing area is easily 100 meters from any hazard as required for student jumps. To the FAA, it's not a congested area if no people are present. BTW to correct something you said earlier, congested areas are not marked on VFR sectionals. There is no specific definition of "congested area." So, if there's no one in the stands then it's not likely a "congested area" or an "open air assembly of persons." Even the USPA demo standards classifies the landing area as an "Open Field," It doesn't even come close to the definition of a "Level 1", "Level 2", or "Stadium" landing area. Now, if Brian Vickers were jumping at said DZ, or any DZ for that matter, and a TV crew were interviewing him about it, would it be a demo jump? I don't think so. A similar situation occured a few days before the 2005 Indianapolis 500 when Dario Franchitti, as part of an interview, took an ABC camera crew up for a ride in his personal helicopter over the track. Even if Dario was just a private pilot, the flight would be legal as long as he was paying for the cost of the flight. It wouldn't be a commercial operation, and as long as he followed the Part 91 operating rules then the FAA wouldn't give a hoot. I suspect the situation is exactly the same with Vicker's jump. As far as the FAA is concerned, it's just a jump onto private property, not a demo. -- It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Put the salt down before I pepper spray ya! -- It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.