PhreeZone 20 #226 January 7, 2004 >Someone had to die before Icarus said 'Ya know, perhaps that canopy collapse issue that's being talked about is real after all. We'd better fix that nose problem.' Thats funny... the nose was'nt changed on the Crossfire post fix, they changed some trim specs on it. In a review of the fatilities database there is not a single fatility that is related to a Raven -M breaking apart under the correct specs. There is a report of a Raven 1 and a Raven -M 181 having issues but both were deployed well outside of specification. Are these part of the 4 deaths related to the -M bulletin you are talking about?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #227 January 7, 2004 Judy- He didn't have to pay a lawyer. All he had to pay was the gas money to drive down to the courthouse and defend himself, plus the cost of one day off of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #228 January 7, 2004 Quote Quote Alot of juries will look at Precision as the large evil corporation (which I don't believe be true) and only in it for the money. I fly their canopies have 2 of their reserves with no problems... are you sponsored in full or in part by precision? First off, why would it matter? and NO, I don't get jack shit from Precision - yes, we are in the same state but I live on one side and they are way on the other. I do like some of their products. If PD or any other manufacturer was in this spot, I would feel the same way.The only thing that would change about my posts would be to delete the parts where I said I own and use their canopies. I do not currently own or fly a PD canopy. I used to have a Sabre. I believe a greenie posted something about a worn out PC and damage on the Reserve.Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #229 January 7, 2004 Quote Judy- He didn't have to pay a lawyer. All he had to pay was the gas money to drive down to the courthouse and defend himself, plus the cost of one day off of work.[/repl1 and what do they say about people who play lawyer - they have a fool for a client. Maybe he didn't want to look like a fool. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #230 January 7, 2004 Perhaps, Free. I do recall two ravens blowing apart prior to Rubio burning in. We had this same discussion several weeks ago over dinner and five reserve failures were pointed out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #231 January 7, 2004 Quote Maybe he didn't want to look like a fool. Not showing up at all seems the singularly most foolish option available, which is I think the point a lot of us have been trying to make. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #232 January 7, 2004 the situation couldn't have turned out any worse by him representing himself. By not showing up, he virtually ensured a loss. by showing up, he could possibly have at least presented some contradicting evidence. If you know you're going to lose if you don't show up at all, it makes no sense whatsoever to fail to appear. Better to have your say, and be able to cross-examine the witness. For example: "Mr. Rubio, could the reserve have been damaged due to the simultaneous main/reserve deployment?" Rubio: "Yes, its possible." "Mr. Rubio, is it standard procedure to deploy both canopies at the same time?" Rubio: "No." Closing Argument: "I submit that the parachute in question was most probably damaged due to simultaneous deployment of the main and reserve canopies. Deploying two parachutes at once is not standard procedure, and therefore, Mr. Rubio was not using the equipment as it was intended. Therefore, PA should be found not responsible for Mr. Rubio's unfortunate accident." The thing with being a defendant is that you don't have to prove your case. The prosecution has the burden of proof. You just have to cast enough doubt on their version of things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #233 January 7, 2004 Quote Quote Maybe he didn't want to look like a fool. Not showing up at all seems the singularly most foolish option available, which is I think the point a lot of us have been trying to make. _Am I thought the point most of you were trying to make was sue and you can make lots and lots of money regardless of how stupid the lawsuit is. My bad. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #234 January 7, 2004 5 failures are different then 4 deaths. I'm yet to know of a canopy that has'nt blown apart. Plus I've seen a round rip on opening too. Look up the stats on the Ravens. One was a Raven I that was well before the -m's were made. The -M that blew up was deployed at an estimated 145mph and overweight at a high altitude DZ. All of that is outside the scope of what a canopy was designed for.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #235 January 7, 2004 So George did go. What you all are saying is its okay to sue and seem to encourage it. Well, I'm tired of having to pay more because people won't take responsiblity for their own actions and the risks they take in life. I don't live in the perfect world you all do. Sorry. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #236 January 7, 2004 IF there was gross negligence happening, as alleged in the suit, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO SUE. however, IF there was a main/reserve entanglement, suing was the wrong option. However, he was sued, and that's a fact. Not showing up in your own defense is foolish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #237 January 7, 2004 Regardless of how stupid or unfounded a lawsuit is, it will most likely succeed if how stupid or unfounded it is, is not pointed out to the judge / jury. That is the point that several here are making (and rather well, I think), and yes, you do appear to have missed it. J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #238 January 7, 2004 Quote thought the point most of you were trying to make was sue and you can make lots and lots of money regardless of how stupid the lawsuit is. I didnt see anyone try to make that point. Those defending the suit were simply saying that they believed where there had been to financial and physical damage caused by someones wrong doing the injured party should be compensated. I sat firmly on the fence as to whether or not THIS instance was a case of wrong doing - but I firmly defend the right of someone to seek compensation where there is a wong. I defend this right despite the fact that I spend my working life defending legal proceedings and trying to ensure the claimant gets no more that they are entitled to. I defend it because its an important right to have. Stupid lawsuits piss me off. I did not know if this was stupid or not - I would have argued with anyone who claimed to have enough information to do so. After hook's update it would appear that it may well have been. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #239 January 7, 2004 Quote Thanks for correcting that... I will be at Precision for many years to come thank you.. Glad to hear that Chris, always a pleasure, from another satisfied (multiple) Xaos pilot! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #240 January 7, 2004 Yes.. it would seem that PA was'nt thinking all the way by not appearing in court. I fully agree there. Now, the second issue is if the lawsuit should have been placed or not.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #241 January 7, 2004 Judy is just upset because she cleared me to self supervise in freefall, and she is worried that doing that might come back to haunt her in court some day. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #242 January 7, 2004 Quote Now, the second issue is if the lawsuit should have been placed or not. That is a question I don't think any of us can answer, until we've heard from Precision. I'm eagerly awaiting them jumping in on this thread, as I'm sure they've been anticipating it for weeks. That said, I suspect until the legal proceedings are done, speaking publicly would be a very bad idea... _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #243 January 7, 2004 Quote Now, the second issue is if the lawsuit should have been placed or not. I can't say, not without all the facts... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #244 January 7, 2004 Quote Regardless of how stupid or unfounded a lawsuit is, it will most likely succeed if how stupid or unfounded it is, is not pointed out to the judge / jury. That is the point that several here are making (and rather well, I think), and yes, you do appear to have missed it. J But my point is it should have NEVER been brought to court to begin with. Does the warning label on the parachute mean nothing to people? Do you think its just decoration? This lawsuit is the beginning of the end of skydiving. As I see it, and since people are so sue happy, we won't be able to buy a pull up cord in a few years. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #245 January 7, 2004 Quote This lawsuit is the beginning of the end of skydiving. As I see it, and since people are so sue happy, we won't be able to buy a pull up cord in a few years. This is most certainly not the first time someone has sued a gear manufacturer. The last time it happened it did not end skydiving as we knew it. I'm sure it'll happen in the future, too. I doubt that will end skydiving as we know it, either. It *IS* the first time a gear manufacturer didn't bother to defend themselves. It *IS* the first time a gear manufacturer had a 50 million judgement against them. To me, the connection is clear and obvious. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #246 January 7, 2004 Quote This is most certainly not the first time someone has sued a gear manufacturer. The last time it happened it did not end skydiving as we knew it. I'm sure it'll happen in the future, too. I doubt that will end skydiving as we know it, either. _Am What are ALL the lawsuits you are referring to? It will open the floodgates (as stated on page 1) for more unfounded lawsuits. Go ahead Andy sue away, make friends and influence people. If you all are looking for safety guarantee's then take up bowling. The only guarantee in skydiving is that you will land. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BETO74 0 #247 January 7, 2004 As I see it Precision would be just fine if you represent them. As for the rest of us.... you should start that list so everybody that disagrees with you could never buy skydiving equipment ever and maybe move to another country were companies and persons have moral values so we don't have to ever fight for what we think is right or wrong http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #248 January 7, 2004 Quote maybe move to another country were companies and persons have moral values Umm... so what are you saying here? Because it reads to me like you're saying that a certain skydiving equipment manufacturer and the people behind it have no morals.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #249 January 7, 2004 Quote Does the warning label on the parachute mean nothing to people? Do you think its just decoration? Generally speaking, yes... to many skydivers it means nothing, and is just decoration... and even to many that read it and understand what it represents, it does not pardon gross neglignece... which is what this suit asserted, and was not contradicted by the defendant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #250 January 7, 2004 Quote As I see it Precision would be just fine if you represent them. As for the rest of us.... you should start that list so everybody that disagrees with you could never buy skydiving equipment ever and maybe move to another country were companies and persons have moral values so we don't have to ever fight for what we think is right or wrong When did I say I wanted to represent Precision? Saying Precision does not have any morals is an attack but since you said it about a company, they may let it slide. You seem a little worried about the "list". Like I said before, I don't and won't ever own a gear store, gear company, or dz. The Bent Prop in Eloy had a wall of shame at one time, for the people who lacked morals and were a disgrace skydiving. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites