Airchway Skydiving Sued

DaVinciflies · June 21, 2011

Quote

In this case, there is a product that claims it will cut the closing loop of a reserve parachute container under certain conditions, with the subsequent intent of allowing the reserve parachute to deploy as a life-saving measure.

[my bolding]

Those conditions would include being installed and operated correctly. That would include having the closing loop routed through the cutter and having the unit turned on.

sacex250 · June 21, 2011

Quote
Quote
In this case, there is a product that claims it will cut the closing loop of a reserve parachute container under certain conditions, with the subsequent intent of allowing the reserve parachute to deploy as a life-saving measure. It failed to cut the closing loop, even though the device properly activated, apparently as a result of improper installation/set-up of the device.

What then, do you make of this:
Quote
CYPRES is strictly a backup device, and is not intended to replace proper
training or timely execution of appropriate emergency procedures.

Even with the best training and the best equipment, skydiving is a high-speed,
hazardous recreational activity that can severly injure or kill you.

Statistics indicate that the use of CYPRES tends to reduce the risk of serious injury or death, but it does NOT eliminate it, and in certain circumstances it may even increase the risk.

If you or your family are not willing to accept these facts, please discontinue the use of CYPRES, and seriously consider taking up a safer sport.

So when you go skydiving, do you use your Cypres to automatically open your parachute on every jump?

Are you under the impression that having a Cypres will keep you from breaking your leg upon landing?

Do you regularly pull at a low enough altitude so that both of your canopies will come out at the same time?

What part of that don't you get?

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

wildcard451 · June 21, 2011

Quit feeding this lawyer. Disgusting.

June 21, 2011

Quote
Is it reasonably foreseeable that a tsunami could disable emergency diesel generators at a nuclear power plant causing the nuclear reactors to lose their cooling water flow and subsequently have their cores melt down?

Sure it's foreseeable. If said generators were improperly installed by a contractor other than the manufacturer, you believe the manufacturer is responsible? Even if the manufacturer built a water-proof generator and provided adequate installation instructions, it's still their fault that an independant contractor, not trained or overseen by the manufacturer, improperly installed the generators in a way that caused them to fail in flood conditions?

I'm starting to suspect that the others are right, and you're just digging for info. Dig all you want, you're not going to find anything that will help you implicate Airtec or SSK in this incident. They're just not liable for the actions of the FAA certifed rigger who improperly installed the AAD.

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't name them and let them do math between paying to defend themselves and settling out of court, and hope that the settlement comes up the winner and they pay you for being a dick, but that's your call. I have feeling, however, that Airtec has a legal team on retainer somewhere in the US, and they're just dying to get something for their money.

deltron80 · June 21, 2011

Quote
Quote
And just like the court will see, there are two ways to look at the situation.

I agree with you there, Dave.

Now, speaking just about the Airtec issue, Airtec's claim, and the one that everyone usually points out, is that a Cypres doesn't actually deploy the reserve canopy, it only cuts the reserve closing loop, when certain altitude and descent speed criteria are met, period! A Cypres has no other function, at all.

In this situation, there is a Cypres unit that indicates that it's ready to use even though its one and only reason for existence has been made non-functional by a rigger's mistake.

Airtec is going to have to show that it is not foreseeable that a rigger could forget to route the closing loop through the cutter, which leaves Airtec in the position of pointing fingers and shouting, "Negligence," at the rigger.

On the other hand, if forgetting to route the closing loop through the cutter is foreseeable then Airtec is going to have to show what steps they've taken to account for that. An obvious complication here is that there is no way to check the placement of the closing loop until the reserve is repacked in six months, or until the reserve is deployed manually, or until someone dies.

Airtec's "cutting the reserve closing loop" vs. "deploying the reserve" claim may just come back and bite them in the butt on this one.

I hope it doesn't, and believe it or not, I really do feel for the rigger; it was a horrible mistake that I'm sure he didn't do intentionally. But somebody died, and that changes everything.

I'm going to go suffocate myself with a plastic bag and sue the supermarket.

I'm sure the student signed a waver stating that it was his responsibility to pull his own reserve and that the gear doesn't always work. Your altimeter could stop working too...doesn't mean you can sue if you don't pull. Why don't you go crawl back into whatever hole you came out of and leave us alone.

June 21, 2011

Quote
So when you go skydiving, do you use your Cypres to automatically open your parachute on every jump?

Are you under the impression that having a Cypres will keep you from breaking your leg upon landing?

Do you regularly pull at a low enough altitude so that both of your canopies will come out at the same time?

What part of that don't you get?

I see your point. Please hire me as an expert witness and I will fly (at your expense of course) to the location of the hearing and attest to the truth.

I won't even ask for much, flight, lodging and a rental car... I'll cover the M&I.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

JohnRich · June 21, 2011

Quote
Who are you again?
Are you affiliated with this case??
And why do I have the feeling we met under a different user-name before?

Google that user name: http://www.google.com/search?q=sacex250

He also participates, or by amazing coincidence someone using the exact same user name does, in scuba and aviation forums. That's a very unusual and unique user name, and I doubt that someone else would happen upon it by sheer chance.

Name: Stephen Vizzard, Sacramento, CA
(obtained from publicly available internet postings)

Trader Feedback · June 21, 2011

Quote

Quote

So when you go skydiving, do you use your Cypres to automatically open your parachute on every jump?

Are you under the impression that having a Cypres will keep you from breaking your leg upon landing?

Do you regularly pull at a low enough altitude so that both of your canopies will come out at the same time?

What part of that don't you get?

I see your point. Please hire me as an expert witness and I will fly (at your expense of course) to the location of the hearing and attest to the truth.

I won't even ask for much, flight, lodging and a rental car... I'll cover the M&E.

NO, hire ME!

I will be glad to testify that the AAD listed in MY profile has performed flawlessly for over 35 years and should be the ONLY one people depend on!!!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

billvon · June 21, 2011

>Is it reasonably foreseeable that a tsunami could disable emergency
>diesel generators at a nuclear power plant causing the nuclear reactors to
>lose their cooling water flow and subsequently have their cores melt down?

Yes. It is also reasonably foreseeable that a jumper could forget to put on a rig before jumping out of an airplane. Indeed, that has actually happened, thus it is provably probable.

Still, one could not win a lawsuit against Aerodyne because their rig did not detect a rig-missing skydiver and prevent him from jumping.

June 21, 2011

Quote

NO, hire ME!

I will be glad to testify that the AAD listed in MY profile has performed flawlessly for over 35 years and should be the ONLY one people depend on!!!

I'm the rigger, you're just the guy that signs my name on his reserve card.

I will attest that MY H.A.R.D. works as well.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Trader Feedback · June 21, 2011

Quote
>In this situation, there is a Cypres unit that indicates that it's ready to use
>even though its one and only reason for existence has been made
>non-functional by a rigger's mistake.

Yep. And that's true of pretty much everything inside the reserve.

Missing quick links or slinks? No way to tell once the rigger makes the mistake and seals it. Misrigged MARD? Usually no way to tell once it's sealed. Reserve brake line fingertraps not sewn? Brakes not stowed? Canopy stepthrough? E thread instead of seal thread/breakcord? In all cases the rigger's seal indicates the reserve is ready to use, even though a rigger's mistake can cause it to fail at its one reason for existence.

That's sort of why we _have_ riggers to begin with, so claiming that the Cypres is an exception to that will be tough.

Quote
The Cypres's design as a loop-cutting AAD is not new in the marketplace, nor is the design unique. A Cypres, in terms of installation and set-up is not a 'consumer' product in that it's not intended for use by the 'public at large'. It's use in that capacity is limited to rated, qualified professionals, and as such, including the step of routing the loop through the cutter in the manual is sufficient notice to the installers that this obvious step must be performed.

The added complexity associated with any number of methods of attempting to verify with varying degrees of certainty that a closing loop was present and properly routed would not yield a safer skydiving rig.

DiverMike · June 21, 2011

Quote
The added complexity associated with any number of methods of attempting to verify with varying degrees of certainty that a closing loop was present and properly routed would not yield a safer skydiving rig.

Wrong - properly designed it would yield a safer rig, albeit a more expensive one that may falsely identify a problem thus grounding a perfectly good rig.

Airtec has marketed that the CYPRES has never failed to activate when called upon to do so. In this incident, it activated exactly as the manufacturer intended.
I imagine they could produce a product that would notice the lack of a closing loop routed correctly through the cutter. The additional cost to add something that senses the presence of a closing loop does not seem a sound decision based on the highly unlikely possibility it wouldn't be routed correctly and in the history of AAD's it appears to have happened only one time where it could conceivable have saved a skydiver and didn't because of human error. Airtec has made a fine product that if used correctly saves lifes. Nothing on this planet can be made idiot proof.

My sympathy goes out to the family of the skydiver and to the rigger who might have made an honest human mistake.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Trader Feedback · June 21, 2011

What then, do you make of this:

Quote
CYPRES is strictly a backup device, and is not intended to replace proper
training or timely execution of appropriate emergency procedures.

Even with the best training and the best equipment, skydiving is a high-speed,
hazardous recreational activity that can severly injure or kill you.

Statistics indicate that the use of CYPRES tends to reduce the risk of serious injury or death, but it does NOT eliminate it, and in certain circumstances it may even increase the risk.

If you or your family are not willing to accept these facts, please discontinue the use of CYPRES, and seriously consider taking up a safer sport.

Trader Feedback · June 21, 2011

Quote
Quote
The added complexity associated with any number of methods of attempting to verify with varying degrees of certainty that a closing loop was present and properly routed would not yield a safer skydiving rig.

Wrong - properly designed it would yield a safer rig, albeit a more expensive one that may falsely identify a problem thus grounding a perfectly good rig.

"Properly designed" is a circularly defined term in this argument. Wanting to add consequence-free features does not make it so.

Quote
I imagine they could produce a product that would notice the lack of a closing loop routed correctly through the cutter. The additional cost to add something that senses the presence of a closing loop does not seem a sound decision based on the highly unlikely possibility it wouldn't be routed correctly and in the history of AAD's it appears to have happened only one time where it could conceivable have saved a skydiver and didn't because of human error. Airtec has made a fine product that if used correctly saves lifes. Nothing on this planet can be made idiot proof.

What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness.

You're saying the dollar cost and perhaps hassle is too high. I'm saying an event involving this added feature causing a problem with the safe operation of the rig is more likely than an event involving a rigger misrouting a closing loop and this added feature correctly detecting it.

GobbleGobble · June 21, 2011

Quote
Quote
Quote
The added complexity associated with any number of methods of attempting to verify with varying degrees of certainty that a closing loop was present and properly routed would not yield a safer skydiving rig.

Wrong - properly designed it would yield a safer rig, albeit a more expensive one that may falsely identify a problem thus grounding a perfectly good rig.

"Properly designed" is a circularly defined term in this argument. Wanting to add consequence-free features does not make it so.

Quote
I imagine they could produce a product that would notice the lack of a closing loop routed correctly through the cutter. The additional cost to add something that senses the presence of a closing loop does not seem a sound decision based on the highly unlikely possibility it wouldn't be routed correctly and in the history of AAD's it appears to have happened only one time where it could conceivable have saved a skydiver and didn't because of human error. Airtec has made a fine product that if used correctly saves lifes. Nothing on this planet can be made idiot proof.

What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness.

You're saying the dollar cost and perhaps hassle is too high. I'm saying an event involving this added feature causing a problem with the safe operation of the rig is more likely than an event involving a rigger misrouting a closing loop and this added feature correctly detecting it.

But now you are just talking sense. The internet is no place for that!

Trae · June 22, 2011

in reply to "What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness. "
..................................

It might be possible to design the cutter/loop so that the unit could be supplied with the part of the loop to be cut already installed.

If the cutter unit had the part of the loop to be cut as an integral part of the cutter unit . ie the loop section to be cut is always in the cutter , it wouldn't have to be placed there by the rigger .
The loop sections outside the cutter could still be easily replaceable and open to rigging errors, but the bit to be cut would remain inside .

Because a loop would have to be attached both sides of the cutter the loop would become a chain ,
A missing link in this chain may be easier to pick up than a misrouted loop.

Hope we get better AAD's out of cases like this.

Trader Feedback · June 22, 2011

Quit being obtuse for the sake of a paycheck, andcheck my sig line.

Done.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Trader Feedback · June 22, 2011

Quote

Quote

What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness.

It might be possible to design the cutter/loop so that the unit could be supplied with the part of the loop to be cut already installed.

If the cutter unit had the part of the loop to be cut as an integral part of the cutter unit . ie the loop section to be cut is always in the cutter , it wouldn't have to be placed there by the rigger .
The loop sections outside the cutter could still be easily replaceable and open to rigging errors, but the bit to be cut would remain inside .

Because a loop would have to be attached both sides of the cutter the loop would become a chain ,
A missing link in this chain may be easier to pick up than a misrouted loop.

Hope we get better AAD's out of cases like this.

Sooo..... what happens when you just pull your reserve handle?

billvon · June 22, 2011

>Sooo..... what happens when you just pull your reserve handle?

Well, something happens, but PLEASE stop saying that pulling the handle OPENS the reserve!

Trader Feedback · June 22, 2011

Oh, how familiar this all is. The families of irresponsible people will grab at anything trying for money....anything except accepting that the jumper failed in his responsibility to save his own ass.

ADD - Automatic Deployment Device
AOD - Automatic Opening Device

Jumper dies on a no-pull. Family sues because the ADD/AOD did not "deploy" or "open" a parachute.

Oh, wait! We can't call it an ADD because it doesn't actually deploy or open anything. It only activates the deployment process so let's call it an AAD - Automatic Activation Device.

Oh, wait! Let's now call it a DTMOMNCACLDOITCLIRTTCP.
- Device That May Or May Not Cut A Closing Loop Depending On If The Closing Loop Is Routed Through The Cutter Properly.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Trader Feedback · June 22, 2011

Quote
The question is: who is ultimately liable for the rigging of the device? Is the rigger solely responsible, or is the manufacturer taking an unjustified risk depending on riggers alone to install each and every unit correctly everytime?

What? Are you out of your mind? Are you so blinded by the color of money that all common sense and reason has departed you?

Oh, wait. I got indigestion this morning. I think I'll sue the toaster manufacturer because they didn't put an anti-indigestion sensor on it.

God help ALL the screwball money grabbers, including the lawyers, should I ever become king.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

June 22, 2011

Quote
in reply to "What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness. "
..................................

It might be possible to design the cutter/loop so that the unit could be supplied with the part of the loop to be cut already installed.

If the cutter unit had the part of the loop to be cut as an integral part of the cutter unit . ie the loop section to be cut is always in the cutter , it wouldn't have to be placed there by the rigger .
The loop sections outside the cutter could still be easily replaceable and open to rigging errors, but the bit to be cut would remain inside .

Because a loop would have to be attached both sides of the cutter the loop would become a chain ,
A missing link in this chain may be easier to pick up than a misrouted loop.

Hope we get better AAD's out of cases like this.

How exactly would you install a closing loop into a container if it's already installed in the cutter? It's not as easy of a concept as you might think.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Dutton · June 22, 2011

Quote
in reply to "What I have a feeling you are picturing is a cutter that detects that something is routed through it. There's no reasonable way for an AAD to tell that that something is a properly routed closing loop. And setting aside monetary costs of doing this incomplete check you have the safety cost of a bulkier cutter that interferes more with the packjob/closing of the container, has more potential hang ups, and has a more complicated wiring harness. "
..................................

It might be possible to design the cutter/loop so that the unit could be supplied with the part of the loop to be cut already installed.

If the cutter unit had the part of the loop to be cut as an integral part of the cutter unit . ie the loop section to be cut is always in the cutter , it wouldn't have to be placed there by the rigger .
The loop sections outside the cutter could still be easily replaceable and open to rigging errors, but the bit to be cut would remain inside .

Because a loop would have to be attached both sides of the cutter the loop would become a chain ,
A missing link in this chain may be easier to pick up than a misrouted loop.

Hope we get better AAD's out of cases like this.

Stay at home.

You'll be safer there.

DiverMike · June 22, 2011

Quote
How exactly would you install a closing loop into a container if it's already installed in the cutter? It's not as easy of a concept as you might think.

I agree and it proves your point that as you make a system more complicated it becomes more error prone. Current AAD's are passive - they don't add any more connection points between the closing pin and the container. I would think they should remain that way. An additional sensor that detects some object is passing under the cutter is better than nothing, but not much.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

Trader Feedback · June 22, 2011

Quote

How exactly would you install a closing loop into a container if it's already installed in the cutter? It's not as easy of a concept as you might think.

Put the cutter on the outside of the rig under the reserve cover on top of the top flap?

As long as we are going to condone putting it under a top flap and the problem that creates, hell, just put it outside the top flap under the pin cover so you can see it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

This Site Is For Sale

Sign In

Sign In

Airchway Skydiving Sued

Recommended Posts

DaVinciflies 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sacex250 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

wildcard451 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

davelepka 4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

deltron80 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theonlyski 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

JohnRich 4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

airtwardo 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,822

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

theonlyski 3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

champu 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DiverMike 5

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

jlmiracle 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

champu 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

GobbleGobble 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Trae 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

diablopilot 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

champu 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

billvon 2,822

Share this post

Link to post