Hypothetical Question

[Hooknswoop 19]

Another rigging discussion got me thinking about rigging ethics, the FAR’s and the decisions riggers are sometimes faced with. Hence this hypothetical question for riggers:

Given a clear cut choice, no room for debate, maneuvering or ambiguity, where choice “A” is ‘much’ safer than choice “B”. Also, choice “A” is clearly against the U.S. FAR’s pertaining to rigging.

Would you go with choice “A” for a customer’s rig (the safer, but illegal, of the choices) or choice “B” (the not-as-safe but legal choice)?

Why?

Derek

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Another rigging discussion got me thinking about rigging ethics, the FAR’s and the decisions riggers are sometimes faced with. Hence this hypothetical question for riggers:

Given a clear cut choice, no room for debate, maneuvering or ambiguity, where choice “A” is ‘much’ safer than choice “B”. Also, choice “A” is clearly against the U.S. FAR’s pertaining to rigging.

Would you go with choice “A” for a customer’s rig (the safer, but illegal, of the choices) or choice “B” (the not-as-safe but legal choice)?

Why?

Derek

It is hard to think of that as an open ended question however, the riggers that taught me, asked to think of it this way.
Think of the situation as if you are on the witness stand during a trial. How would you answer the questions.

I guess I would do well because I do not think I answered your questions huh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Think of the situation as if you are on the witness stand during a trial. How would you answer the questions.

Right, that is a definate concern and being able to say "I chose "B", so I'm legal and covered", means you are legally without fault. The flip side is what if choice "A" prevented whatever incident landed you on the stand in the first place? How would you answer the question, "Yes, Mr. X, choice, you made choice "B", which is legal, but couldn't choice "A" have prevented this incident?".

It is a tough question, especially when it ooesn't include a specific example. I suppose the question is designed to provoke thought more than answers. That's why I didn't make it a poll.

Derek

[darkwing 5]

tough question without specifics, but one response is to say "I can't do it both legally and right, so I won't do it."

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Think of the situation as if you are on the witness stand during a trial. How would you answer the questions.

Right, that is a definate concern and being able to say "I chose "B", so I'm legal and covered", means you are legally without fault. The flip side is what if choice "A" prevented whatever incident landed you on the stand in the first place? How would you answer the question, "Yes, Mr. X, choice, you made choice "B", which is legal, but couldn't choice "A" have prevented this incident?".

From a legal standpoint, you have no worries. As a rigger you're not empowered to violate or change laws because you think it is a safer solution. Even if you're right. Too many have been wrong in the past. All you can do is push for changes to regulation.

But from a personal/moral perspective, you probably know the person and wish it had not happened. And may believe that if you had gone along with A, it wouldn't have happened.

But how do you know that? Or how would you feel if you had gone with A, and it didn't prevent the accident? (On a personal, not legal basis)

[riggerrob 643]

First, this is a really vague question.

Secondly, I like to use the manufacturer's manual to cover my a$$ while rigging.
That way, if a customer "goes in" I can tell his widow's lawyer to stop wasting their time trying to get blood out of this stone (me).
Instead, I can tell her lawyer to go sue the Uninsured Relative Workshop. RWS is far more experienced than me in telling lawyers to "f^&* off!"

Similarly, if her lawyer claims that my following an FAR resulted in her husband's death, I can tell her to sue the United States Government.
Hah!
Hah!
That is so much more polite than telling lawyers what i really think of them ....
Hah!
Hah!
Nudge!
Nudge!
Wink!
Wink!
Say no more!
Say no more!

[councilman24 37]

Quote

tough question without specifics, but one response is to say "I can't do it both legally and right, so I won't do it."

Since I don't make my living at rigging, can choose my customers, this is my answer. An example of legal but not wanting to put my name on it is a military seat in stock, airworthy condition. I just don't put my name on non diapered rounds. And I cheerfully send them to somebody that will.

Rarely, if ever, would I chose a clearly illegal choice on a customers rig. I'd educate them and let them chose whether to "change" or go somewhere else.

This is a debate that we have often at PIA Rigger Committee meetings and PIA Symposium Rigger Forum. "Will you pack anything that's legal and airworthy or impose your opinions/restrictions on your customers?"

Classic example is "I won't pack ____ rig. I don't care if it's brand new its a death rig!" There are riggers ADAMANT on both sides of the issue. "I don't have to pack anything I don't want to." and "I'll pack anything that's legal and airworthy as the day it was built. It's not my job to baby sit my customers."

Rarely do we get a U.S. rigger saying I'll do what's right not what's legal.

Come join in the fun in January.

PIA Rigging Committee Chairman

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

[masterrig 1]

Naw, I'd rather follow the manufacturer's instructions and be in compliance with the FAR's than have to look 'stoopid' in a courtroom because I didn't. Like the man said, I'm not a 'baby sitter' to my customers.

Chuck

[mr2mk1g 10]

Everyone's missed the easy answer.

Do neither!

Then tell the powers that be why they're endangering people.

[jrcrackers 0]

I'll bite and go with "a" if infact it is clearly safer. I think it is a shame that our decisions are guided by fear of a court room. I realize that is the reality of our world, it just seems that common sense should prevail at some point in time

[thelem 0]

I'm not a rigger, but I think the question applies to much more that just rigging.

I would go with B - the legal but unsafe option. I think kelpdiver has hit is spot on - "too many have got it wrong in the past".

Yes, you are a rigger. Yes, you know a lot about skydiving equipment. But do you really know more than the manufacturers and legislators (who, at least in the UK, are guided by the rigging community)? If the regulations are dangerous, then you should push for a change in the regulations. If other people agree with you, then the changes will be made. If people don't agree with you, then as a jumper I'd be glad you went for option B.

[Hooknswoop 19]

This question demonstrates issues that riggers must face on a daily basis. There is much more to rigging than a clean pack job and thorough inspection.

Derek

[billvon 3,110]

>If the regulations are dangerous, then you should push for a change
>in the regulations. If other people agree with you, then the changes will be made.

Agreed - say, 12 years from now. Look at how long it took to get tandems off exemption. The problem is, what happens to your customer in 2 years, when the needed change has not yet made its way through the bureacracy?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

But do you really know more than the manufacturers and legislators (who, at least in the UK, are guided by the rigging community)?

There are cases where, in my opinion, a rigger knows more then a given manufacture on a given subject. It is rare but can happen.

As far as legislators, hands down, the riggers know more then they do. And probably not just about rigging. In the US it seems they are guided more by money and a good photo op.

As far as Hook's question, its a no win situation. If you do it right you're fucked, if you do it wrong you're fucked. It always amazes me how many people stay in rigging with the vague regulations that are open to interpretation by so low level paper pusher that confront them dailey. jmo

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

Here is a real example of rigging decisions. I got in a rig that the customer had used the reserve on the first jump after having it re-packed from using the reserve. The main was re-hooked up incorrectly.

The only “X” on the reserve label (it’s a PD) is from 6/02, then several “/”’s after that. There isn’t an “X” for the second deployment from when it was last packed. So the rigger didn’t put an “X” on the label. He did put, “A R AFTER USE” on the packing data card. The jumper had lost the ripcord on the previous deployment and the rigger replaced the ripcord with one from another container manufacturer. The card shows that CW 03-01 was complied with at the beginning of the year, but the ‘new’ (used ripcord is not marked as having been inspected I/A/W CW03-01. It also has a bent pin, bent enough to see the bend when holding the pin at arm’s length. There is nothing on the packing data card about replacing the ripcord.

OK, the short list:

Didn’t put an “X” on the reserve label.
Hooked main up incorrectly and re-closed container, causing a malfunction.
Used a ripcord with a bent pin and that hadn’t been inspected.
Didn’t annotate replacing the ripcord on the packing data card.

So, I could straighten the pin and throw it back in and save the customer the down time, hassle and money of replacing it. This would be nice since he just had it repacked, had a malfunction on his first jump w/ the fresh re-pack Saturday morning, ending his jumping for the weekend. But I can’t do that. So I had to call the jumper and add to the bad news.

Derek

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Here is a real example of rigging decisions. I got in a rig that the customer had used the reserve on the first jump after having it re-packed from using the reserve. The main was re-hooked up incorrectly.

The only “X” on the reserve label (it’s a PD) is from 6/02, then several “/”’s after that. There isn’t an “X” for the second deployment from when it was last packed. So the rigger didn’t put an “X” on the label. He did put, “A R AFTER USE” on the packing data card. The jumper had lost the ripcord on the previous deployment and the rigger replaced the ripcord with one from another container manufacturer. The card shows that CW 03-01 was complied with at the beginning of the year, but the ‘new’ (used ripcord is not marked as having been inspected I/A/W CW03-01. It also has a bent pin, bent enough to see the bend when holding the pin at arm’s length. There is nothing on the packing data card about replacing the ripcord.

OK, the short list:

Didn’t put an “X” on the reserve label.
Hooked main up incorrectly and re-closed container, causing a malfunction.
Used a ripcord with a bent pin and that hadn’t been inspected.
Didn’t annotate replacing the ripcord on the packing data card.

So, I could straighten the pin and throw it back in and save the customer the down time, hassle and money of replacing it. This would be nice since he just had it repacked, had a malfunction on his first jump w/ the fresh re-pack Saturday morning, ending his jumping for the weekend. But I can’t do that. So I had to call the jumper and add to the bad news.

Derek

And I have had people accuse me of being anal for using a check list when I pack.

Sparky
(The same person included you in that comment.)

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

And I have had people accuse me of being anal for using a check list when I pack. Crazy

Sparky
(The same person included you in that comment.)

I have a nice checklist too and I'll take that as a compliment

Derek

[firstime 0]

***I think it is a shame that our decisions are guided by fear of a court room. I realize that is the reality of our world, it just seems that common sense should prevail at some point in time

ditto

[flyangel2 2]

Derek, I don't drive almost an hour to give you my rig cause I like the drive. I drive that distance because I know that if there is a problem with my rig, you will find it and fix it.

I don't understand when people complain that they have a safety issue on their rig that needs to be fixed. Gee.....I'm using my rig/parachute to save my life. Make sure everything is correct on it.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Make sure everything is correct on it.

Of course
I hate having to clean up other rigger's messes

Derek

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I think it is a shame that our decisions are guided by fear of a court room. I realize that is the reality of our world, it just seems that common sense should prevail at some point in time

Quote

It is a shame...but it is a fact of life.

It shadows over the decisions many of us make
in regard to this sport.

I don't teach students anymore...
just not worth the possible ramifications.

I continually preach Safety above all else in Demos...

Gotta admire guys like Hook that are smart enough
to realize the liability involved, and competent & confident enough to continue!

That's love and dedication to the sport,
'cause he ain't make the morgage payments
with his lead seal!

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

[masterrig 1]

We live in a 'lottery society'. Get the right combination and BINGO, you're a winner! Also, the judges that award the mega-bucks to someone in a law suit because, they are afraid to be 'over-turned by a higher court, make law suits inviting. It looks inviting to someone who refuses to take responsibility for their own actions. We've had potential first-jump students who wanted to have their lawyer look-over our waiver, before they made a jump. You just have to make sure, you cover your ass.

Chuck