Recommended Posts
QuoteYou are right, of course, that we should learn from the mistakes of others. Sometimes, it can come across as "look how cool I am" rather than "look what a lucky dumb-ass I was" (not referring to you).
The same information presented in 2 different tones can have widely different results.
Thanks for posting what you have learned - on behalf of newer jumpers, we appreciated it.
No, you can refer to me in the context of 'look at what a lucky dumb-ass I WAS'. 
There comes a point in time during the learning curve in which one starts to look at what 'could' happen with more paranoia, if it's at all possible to shorten that period of time the better off we all are.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
sacex250 0
QuoteQuote
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.Quote
I haven't heard anyone say that.
Yes, it has been said, by you!QuoteThere is inherent risk in skydiving. Risk, and associated injuries/fatalities usually involves a mistake by one or more parties. Human beings are not perfect, nor will they ever be.
In this case, the first line of defense...the skydiver pulling his own reserve handle did not happen. The secondary backup device, worked, but unfortunately a human made an error to render that device useless.
AAD's do a lot more good than harm in the skydiving industry. Lawsuits like this add unnecessary costs to the manufacturer and will end up costing jumpers more to purchase them. They are already at the top end of what most jumpers are willing to spend to use them.
This lawsuit is not productive for skydivers. 1 out of tens of thousands of repacks, and saves in the 100's, and some lawyers wants to name a product in a lawsuit that worked. Unbelievable, and wrong on so many levels.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4139410#4139410
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.
jsreznor 0
Quote
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.
Are you being dense on purpose?
Said skydiver wasn't forced out of the plane - it was a voluntary act. We sign page after page of waivers and watch countless training videos on how our voluntary act could likely kill us. And we choose to go forth anyway. It's called personal responsibility.
Just because someone failed themselves doesn't mean they should sue anyone who ever had the slightest contact with said personally irresponsible person.
So please tell me, what's your point? None of your posts seem to make any sense other than you being a digging lawyer.
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.
Again...what are you searching for here?
What's your defination of non-functional?
The device worked as advertised...the sensor detected the firing parameters and fired.
The fact that there was nothing to cut, isn't the fault of the manufacturer.
The 'human error' of mis-rigging isn't being debated, it's also not the underlying 'cause' of this fatality...the reserve would have worked had the jumper simply pulled the handle.
It is the single most important thing anyone wearing a parachute has to understand and do...training centers around it. This guy didn't do it, why the quest for someone else to shoulder the responsibility of his error.
There a several cases on the books in which the back up devise opened the reserve container at the pre-set altitude and the jumper died anyway...an AAD is a last ditch maybe at best, to think otherwise is nuts. Put all you chips only on a maybe enough times, and you will lose.
What 'protection' from the law do you think is appropriate when someone puts them self in peril, then does not do the generally accepted things to save themselves? Does NOT do what they were TRAINED to do?
If you die from the bends scuba diving it's not the fault of the tank manufacturer.
If you have a mid-air flying a Cessna because you flew through controlled air space with a broken radio, it isn't the fault of the speaker manufacturer.
It's not Nerf world, ya pay your money and you take your chances on some of this stuff...yes human error circumvented a BACK UP device from possibly saving someone that did NOT do anything to save them-self.
Personal responsibility is something that should not be taken lightly in the sport of Skydiving as with may things in life, outside of Disneyland....
Lack of it can get you hurt or killed.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
QuoteThe device worked as advertised...the sensor detected the firing parameters and fired.
Right - it is an Automatic Activation Device.
It Activated.
Period.
JohnRich 4
QuoteRe: sacex250
So please tell me, what's your point? None of your posts seem to make any sense other than you being a digging lawyer.
Whatever it is, his anonymity is important to him. In another forum in which he participates, he identified himself in his profile, which I revealed in post #83. He has now gone into that forum and removed his personal identification information. So, sacex250, i.e. Stephen Vizzard, doesn't seem to have the courage of his convictions to be known for what he says here. And as for me, someone who is unwilling to stand behind and take personal responsibility for what he says, lacks credibility.
Quote>So, who rechecks a student rig that the rigger owns?
The jumpmaster, on every jump.
That may be, but there is only one person responsible for ensuring the jumpable condition of that rig.
The person jumping it.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
QuoteQuoteMultiple things to check. Multiple pics, eh?
If you were going to mandate the photo thing, I would leave it up to the manufacturers to have in the packing instructions that are already specific to the rig tell you what to photograph (rough angle and field of view guidelines) and after which steps.
I'm not going to take that as you wanting to mandate pics.
You'd have every rigger in the country hunting you down.!
But! manufacturers doing something like pointing stuff out like that couldn't hurt, eh? In reality, they already do. Pics with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.
It was brought to my attention that taking pics is a crutch. Riggers don't need crutches...they need integrity. I would tend to agree with that but hell, even crutches help you walk when you need it.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteQuoteQuoteMultiple things to check. Multiple pics, eh?
If you were going to mandate the photo thing, I would leave it up to the manufacturers to have in the packing instructions that are already specific to the rig tell you what to photograph (rough angle and field of view guidelines) and after which steps.
I'm not going to take that as you wanting to mandate pics.
You'd have every rigger in the country hunting you down.!
But! manufacturers doing something like pointing stuff out like that couldn't hurt, eh? In reality, they already do. Pics with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.
It was brought to my attention that taking pics is a crutch. Riggers don't need crutches...they need integrity. I would tend to agree with that but hell, even crutches help you walk when you need it.
IMHO it's only as much of a crutch as a riggers seal...
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
QuoteI'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....
.
.
.
Or, that AADs should have the prejudicial power to decide to work properly or not based on the skill and competence of the jumper ...
.
.
used a rented container with a required safety device that was non-functional....
.
.
...or would I be required to take responsibility for my substandard pack job by living or dying with my main?
.
.
.
...better for the sport than a successful AAD activation is.
Geez, dude...it would be good for you if you just stopped. You're making a total ass out of yourself and it just gets worse with every post you make. You've blown any credibility that you might have had.
The question was raised above about you purposely being dense. I don't believe you are purposely being dense. Just too dense to not be able to realize just what you are doing.
QuoteI guess I'd just have to tell myself that it's all about the money, instead.
Well, at least you got that part right.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteQuoteRe: sacex250
So please tell me, what's your point? None of your posts seem to make any sense other than you being a digging lawyer.
Whatever it is, his anonymity is important to him. In another forum in which he participates, he identified himself in his profile, which I revealed in post #83. He has now gone into that forum and removed his personal identification information. So, sacex250, i.e. Stephen Vizzard, doesn't seem to have the courage of his convictions to be known for what he says here. And as for me, someone who is unwilling to stand behind what he says, lacks credibility.
Worth repeating!
Thanks, John!
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
TampaPete 52
Quote
Wow, good point, I hadn't done the name that way...interesting.
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
ufk22 33
Sorry, but what a crock.....
We have riggers pack our reserves for a reason.
Riggers need certification for a reason.
It is their responsibility NOT to make a mistake.
All the waivers in the world mean nothing when there is negligence.
This rigger was negligent.
He made a mistake.
He made a very serious mistake.
I've been jumping for over 20 years. I jumped without an AAD (as soon as I was off student status) for 16 years. That was my choice. I had a couple of stupid low pulls early (one at 500', one a little higher) and fortunately didn't die. I fully understand the personal responsibly aspect of the sport but that's beside the point.
Students sometime make mistakes (as do we all, no matter time in sport) and they are required to jump with AAD's for a reason.
Anyone with an Instructional rating or Riggers rating has to be held to a higher standard.
If I forget to hook up a static line or turn on an AAD and my student doesn't execute EP's, I'm as much or more at fault as my student. If the student dies, is this just an honest mistake?
If an airplane mechanic fails to attach a safety wire, which causes a mechanical failure and the plane goes in (even if the pilot MIGHT have been able to save it), is this just an honest mistake?
I dislike lawsuits (frivolous lawsuits) as much as anyone, but suing when a real wrong has been committed is the civilized answer (the other option being personal vengeance, i.e. taking a gun and shooting the party that wronged us).
If the deceased was someone with thousands of jumps, not unconscious or disabled in the air, I could at least see some merit in the "it was his job to pull" argument.
This was a student, with very few jumps. He wasn't irresponsible or foolhardy, he just had things go wrong and he brain-locked. That's what students sometimes do. That's something we have all done. The AAD wasn't a guarantee, but it should have been a second chance.
I haven't seen any suggestion in this thread that requiring AAD's on students is stupid or a waste of money. How come?
Why bother? It's their responsibility to pull?
We have riggers pack our reserves for a reason.
Riggers need certification for a reason.
It is their responsibility NOT to make a mistake.
All the waivers in the world mean nothing when there is negligence.
This rigger was negligent.
He made a mistake.
He made a very serious mistake.
I've been jumping for over 20 years. I jumped without an AAD (as soon as I was off student status) for 16 years. That was my choice. I had a couple of stupid low pulls early (one at 500', one a little higher) and fortunately didn't die. I fully understand the personal responsibly aspect of the sport but that's beside the point.
Students sometime make mistakes (as do we all, no matter time in sport) and they are required to jump with AAD's for a reason.
Anyone with an Instructional rating or Riggers rating has to be held to a higher standard.
If I forget to hook up a static line or turn on an AAD and my student doesn't execute EP's, I'm as much or more at fault as my student. If the student dies, is this just an honest mistake?
If an airplane mechanic fails to attach a safety wire, which causes a mechanical failure and the plane goes in (even if the pilot MIGHT have been able to save it), is this just an honest mistake?
I dislike lawsuits (frivolous lawsuits) as much as anyone, but suing when a real wrong has been committed is the civilized answer (the other option being personal vengeance, i.e. taking a gun and shooting the party that wronged us).
If the deceased was someone with thousands of jumps, not unconscious or disabled in the air, I could at least see some merit in the "it was his job to pull" argument.
This was a student, with very few jumps. He wasn't irresponsible or foolhardy, he just had things go wrong and he brain-locked. That's what students sometimes do. That's something we have all done. The AAD wasn't a guarantee, but it should have been a second chance.
I haven't seen any suggestion in this thread that requiring AAD's on students is stupid or a waste of money. How come?
Why bother? It's their responsibility to pull?
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.
grimmie 186
Great post.
I hear crickets...
I hear crickets...
Am I wrong? 
It's NOT your job to pull? 
Damn, this sport is a lot easier than they've been telling people...guess the FJC just got a LOT shorter. 
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
The same information presented in 2 different tones can have widely different results.
Thanks for posting what you have learned - on behalf of newer jumpers, we appreciated it.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites