2 major incidents - no conclusive information

[Rover 11]

One of the main reasons I visit this site is to seek information & learn. There have been 2 tandem incidents in the Incident forum (2 fatalities & 2 serous harm injuries) and if you read through the threads there is no real useful information to gained - more silence and stone walling by those that are in the know.

I understand that there are legal implications but I do feel that we owe it to those that have been affected by these incidents to get real useful information out there so that we can learn and hopefully learn from mistakes made.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4674104;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4652161;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[JohnMitchell 16]

You can't make good conclusions without good information, obviously. The USPA and manufacturers are usually in the loop on these investigations, right? Those are the folks I would imagine we'd have to look to for definite answers. But they have their own schedule and perhaps a different agenda. IMHO.

[councilman24 37]

You may underestimate the "legal implications" in this country. Lawsuits from 'incidents' can easily bankrupt companies and individuals. Airtec is still a party, last I knew, to a lawsuit from a fatality where the rigger didn't put the loop through the cutter. AAD worked fine, rigger didn't. Airtec has spent LOTS of money defending this lawsuit. Incomprehensible to Helmut, German owner of Airtec.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[feuergnom 28]

councilman24

Airtec has spent LOTS of money defending this lawsuit. Incomprehensible to Helmut, German owner of Airtec.

Incromprehensible to anyone outside the u.s.

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[riggerrob 643]

feuergnom

*** Airtec has spent LOTS of money defending this lawsuit. Incomprehensible to Helmut, German owner of Airtec.

Incomprehensible to anyone outside the u.s.

.............................................................................

Incomprehensible to anyone outside the legal industry.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Anyone who has been involved in a tandem incident in any way would be well advised not to make any comments about that incident on a public forum without speaking to a qualified attorney first. I am not interested in getting into a "let's bash lawyers" discussion. I'm just trying to keep people out of trouble.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

I'm just trying to keep people out of trouble.

Irony train inbound full steam ahead.

I thinks it's safe to say TI's would love to know what happened with these last two incidents. Knowing said information could, in fact, keep people out of trouble...or future incidents.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[AndyBoyd 0]

tonyhays

Quote

I'm just trying to keep people out of trouble.

Irony train inbound full steam ahead.

I thinks it's safe to say TI's would love to know what happened with these last two incidents. Knowing said information could, in fact, keep people out of trouble...or future incidents.

I stand by my comments. People who are involved in tandem incidents and blab about those incidents on open forums such as this one are looking for legal trouble.

If you are uncertain about proper tandem procedures, talk to a tandem I/E or the manufacturer of the rig you are using.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

I stand by my comments. People who are involved in tandem incidents and blab about those incidents on open forums such as this one are looking for legal trouble.

A sad fact in today's reality, unfortunately. Perhaps posting information anonymously? The profile nazi's would probably go crazy, but at least it could start a discussion.

Quote

If you are uncertain about proper tandem procedures, talk to a tandem I/E or the manufacturer of the rig you are using.

Talking to them won't give me any details on these last two incidents. I would like to know if there is something new to be learned here.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[jimjumper 25]

Unfortunately, T I/E's and the manufacturer's are the very people that have the largest conflict of interest in those investigations. A number of tandem equipment and procedural changes have occurred over the years. Some of those were the result of field reports and incidents that couldn't be ignored by the manufacturer's.

[Rover 11]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4742005;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Another one to add to the list.

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[sammielu 3]

Every line/regulation/BSR/FAR in the FAA manuals/SIM/IRM/Tandem Instructor course materials is "written in blood". Rules are implemented because someone found out the hard way that the rule was necessary.

Work backward from any of those rules and you will find incident/incidents that made them necesarry. I'm being pretty general here, but you can look at any incident, even those that have minimal information on here or in parachutist, and match them up to an existing or new rule or recommendation that addresses the issue.