DSE 5 #26 June 8, 2006 Quote*** creating "legal liability" that you do? Sounds to me as if you CHOSE instead to buy that Cypres so you could jump there. Again, ...your CHOICE. t First, this is what I was told by a fairly senior certification individual with more than 30 years and 25,000 jumps; I'd rather not attribute the quote to him in case I've misunderstood. But I don't believe I misunderstood him. That said, if the USPA were to adopt a policy that everyone, period, had to use an AAD, then they'd be at liability if one failed, because they've now become part of the problem. Regardless of what dropzone you're jumping in. Every DZ would be exposed. Just like airbags having lost several court cases, I'm sure this would be worse. Then again, what do I know? I'm just one of the dummies that folks with more than 1000 jumps discount comments from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #27 June 9, 2006 >I had no idea that some DZO's adamantly require them. >Kinda stupid to do so, because if one fails when it's required, and is > part of a fatality or injury, or goes off when it shouldn't, then the DZ > becomes legally liable, as they're part of the problem. Nonsense. Some DZ's won't let people jump 97 square foot canopies at 200 jumps; they're not any more "legally liable" than someone who lets anyone jump anything. Some DZ's won't let fun jumpers jump with tandems; they're not any more legally liable than someone who allows that. The whole "you'll get sued if you require an AAD" thing is generally used by DZO's who don't want to require them and need a hard reason (which is odd since you don't need any such reason) and by jumpers who don't want AAD's required by their DZO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #28 June 9, 2006 Quote"chad had taken out his AAD sometime before the accident because he was going to do a regular water jump (not wingsuit) into the blue hole...but that jump got weathered out." That's from the thread about the fatality in belize. This man only planned on jumping without his CYPRES for a little while but when he needed it, it wasn't there. You only need it once to save your life. I don't recall the cause of death being listed as "lack of Cypres". Another really famous bird guy went in because their Cypres fired during a swoop. I don't recall his death blamed on the Cypres either. It's just another tool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #29 June 9, 2006 QuoteI had no idea that some DZO's adamantly require them. Kinda stupid to do so, because if one fails when it's required, and is part of a fatality or injury, or goes off when it shouldn't, then the DZ becomes legally liable, as they're part of the problem. Are you sure of that? Doesn't sound legally defensible to me, but then I'm not a lawyer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 164 #30 June 9, 2006 QuoteQuote*** creating "legal liability" that you do? Sounds to me as if you CHOSE instead to buy that Cypres so you could jump there. Again, ...your CHOICE. t First, this is what I was told by a fairly senior certification individual with more than 30 years and 25,000 jumps; I'd rather not attribute the quote to him in case I've misunderstood. But I don't believe I misunderstood him. That said, if the USPA were to adopt a policy that everyone, period, had to use an AAD, then they'd be at liability if one failed, because they've now become part of the problem. Regardless of what dropzone you're jumping in. Every DZ would be exposed. Just like airbags having lost several court cases, I'm sure this would be worse. Then again, what do I know? I'm just one of the dummies that folks with more than 1000 jumps discount comments from. I would suggest that USPA could take the same attitude that individual DZ's take... if you want to jump at a MEMBER DZ you will have an AAD. Just as I am not required to jump at a particular DZ, I am not required to jump at a USPA DZ, nor am I required to be a USPA member at all. However, it could also be argued that "your honor, my client died because the DZ did not require AADs despite the proof of their value and the standards within the industry..." Don't know if it would win, but it could be argued. (so much for individuals being responsible for thier own choices...) I would liken it to manditory seat belt laws. I wear a seatbelt and believe that they save lives... However, those who want to fight for their right to do what they want can, and do, point to the much rarer accident where a seatbelt contributed to the death (or lack of a seatbelt lead to a better outcome). Yes there are tradeoffs, and will not be a 100% safe answer, but I will take the options with better track records... AAD's on my rigs and seatbelts in my car. BTW - are their times to turn off my AAD, sure... one airshow pilot I jump with likes to do wing-overs and other manuvers on the way to altitude... right around 1000'... In an open cockpit aircraft, it is my opinion that having the AAD on is a higher risk than having it off when he is flying... Blue ones, JimAlways remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #31 June 9, 2006 A bored Monday-morning-quarterback or lawyer can twist ANY decision to support his side of an argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fcajump 164 #32 June 9, 2006 QuoteA bored Monday-morning-quarterback or lawyer can twist ANY decision to support his side of an argument. The difference between God and a Lawyer... God doesn't think he's a Lawyer...Always remember that some clouds are harder than others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
