PhreeZone 20 #26 January 17, 2005 The incident in question happened at the Russian meet and bits can be found here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1186874#1186874Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #27 January 17, 2005 QuoteAgree, but I still think riggers should pack for free, just cause they love getting all hot and sweaty packing reserves I don't accept free repacks just in case you get what you pay for. Hook knows I'm joking -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #28 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteThere are no guarantees that any equipment will function as intended, regardless of how it is assembled, packed, maintained or used. Sparky, I don't take that as a statement saying "Hey if it doesn't work and we find out why, we're not going to bother fixing it unless you pay for it". I accept the risks if I plowed in because of a defect on my rig (much as I'd really rather not have that happen ). However, should that happen, I also expect the manufacturer to take the steps to try and prevent it happening again to someone else. If they have a bad design, they need to fix it IMO. Recalls in the automotive industry are normally because of a number of malfunctions caused by the same components. When they do a recall it's because they found something wrong with the product they initially released and take active steps to prevent it happening again by replacing/repairing the component. That's all I expect from the manufacturers in any industry. As a software engineer it's expected of me regularly. We release a product, bugs are found, we fix them in that version at no cost to our customers. If they want NEW features, well then....they pay up just like everyone else Blues, Ian You are not dealing with software or cars. You read it and accepted the warning. Have you ever seen a similar warning on a car or a software program? This is a second version, it is found in both container and canopy manuals: "This rig is sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose" This By using the rig you agreed to abide by warnings and disclaimer. Its a little late to change your mind now and say you disagree. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #29 January 17, 2005 QuoteI don't accept free repacks just in case you get what you pay for. You would never be offered one of my free repacks.SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #30 January 17, 2005 Quoteyou ever seen a similar warning on a car or a software program? Yes, CAREFULLY read your EULA sometime and you'll see that by installing it if it turns your computer into a smoldering heap of parts you can't do anything. Even better is a lot of software is worded that if you open the box you agree to the Licence agreement. Luckly lots of software companies release patches and updates all the time for free. Can you imagine having to pay $20 to get each security patch that came out for Linus or Windows? Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #31 January 17, 2005 The owner should (they will anyways.)There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #32 January 17, 2005 QuoteDoes it matter if it is a $100 or $500 SB? No. The rig owners is responsible for their gear. QuoteSay it is a mandatory SB. What FAR says SB's are manditory? They do not have the legal weight of an AD. How is the owner of a rig paying for an SB, any different than the owner of a Cypres paying for the upgrades done durring 4 and 8 year service?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DancingFlame 0 #33 January 17, 2005 QuoteTold by whom? By members of Russian Evolution Pro team. Malevsky Cup, 2004. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #34 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteyou ever seen a similar warning on a car or a software program? Yes, CAREFULLY read your EULA sometime and you'll see that by installing it if it turns your computer into a smoldering heap of parts you can't do anything. Even better is a lot of software is worded that if you open the box you agree to the Licence agreement. Luckly lots of software companies release patches and updates all the time for free. Can you imagine having to pay $20 to get each security patch that came out for Linus or Windows? Does it say this "sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose"? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #35 January 17, 2005 Quote Does it say this "sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose"? Sparky Yes. Quote... AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, ... From a Windows XP Pro Eula on the web; I assume it is genuine. (It looks familiar, but I admit I don't memorize these things...) The capitalization appears in the original. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #36 January 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteHardly what I would call defective gear! Really, I seem to remember some models of Raven reserves blowing up. Guess that's not defective in your opinion.Quote Don't put words in my mouth or keyboard, that was different and was a defect, however comes back to the orange lable. My point is that if it's something for the rig/main/reserve to be better/prettier/etc then sure, buyer pays up. If it's a defective/danger issue then the manufacturer should pay up.Quote if it was defective we would have a pile of bodys by now of people going in with no pc or reserve deployment. So it's a danger issue (could happen), they say lets fix this to keep from someone going in, orange lable again. ***Did you read the orange lable on the rig or in the front cover of the owners manual? Quote Yeah I did. I don't remember it saying if we build something that ends up killing a bunch of people because of bad design that they don't have to fix it. Read it again. Quote You may be refering to a specific bulletin, I am not. I'm talking about defect related SB's. No I'm talking about the warning lable on your rig/canopies that says "we tested this and think we it will work ok, but it might not and if you use it you might get killed"! Quotewhy should they go broke because your cheap? Quote Ha, seriously. There's a difference between cheap and expecting the product to deliver what it "promises" (couldn't think of a better word but I'd like to hope you get my meaning). I do get your meaning, but it comes back to the orange lable. QuoteYou pay your money and take your chances it's really that simple with any rig. Quote Ever bought a new car? If you have and the tranny broke after you had it for 2000 miles, I bet you'd get it replaced under warranty. Yes I would if it was under warranty, however there is NO warranty with your rig, orange lable thing again. BTW I didn't intend to start a pissing contest or pick on Ian in anyway. Anytime something new hit's the market if you are one of the first to get it and use it you are a "TEST JUMPER" it may take years for something to show it's self with the product, just food for thought. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,497 #37 January 17, 2005 Quotejust cause they love getting all hot and sweaty packing reserves You sure that its your reserve that gets your rigger that way.... Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #38 January 17, 2005 QuoteBTW I didn't intend to start a pissing contest or pick on Ian in anyway. Heh, no worries, I didn't take it that way. I just think some of us have differing opinions on what we expect or understand the manufacturers responsibility to be. I certainly don't take this as a right or wrong issue Stay safe. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #39 January 17, 2005 QuoteWhat FAR says SB's are manditory? They do not have the legal weight of an AD. Absolutely true. Techncally speaking this SB doesn't have to be performed, same as the Capewell SB, the Javelin adjustable harness SB, or eventhe Raven-M SB. Even though the SB says the SB must be done, they don't have the authority to ground their containers, only the FAA does (in the U.S.). I have been considering not doing it to Kelli's rig and only doing it if she ever sells it. Just pack it as it should be packed and it works fine. As for the red label, I accept that a rig may not work even though I do everything right. What I don't accept that if there is a design problem, I have to pay to get it fixed. Again, there can be more money at stake than just shipping and a re-pack. If the jumper needs it to make their living, or if the DZ uses them for student rigs, etc. That can add up to a lot more than shipping + $60. When I was jumping full time, being without my rig for a week could have cost me $1000+. QuoteHow is the owner of a rig paying for an SB, any different than the owner of a Cypres paying for the upgrades done durring 4 and 8 year service? Because Airtec absorbs the costs of any upgrades. The 4 and 8 year checks cost what they cost. I could see if they charged the owner to replace a component that needed replacing. That's maintenance. They didn't charge for the electromatic shields or shielding upgrades. I don't mind paying for maintenance (my Mustang alternator example) I do mind paying to fix design flaws (my Mustang intake manifold example). Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #40 January 17, 2005 QuoteBecause Airtec absorbs the costs of any upgrades. I would argue that the $160 fee (plus shipping) for the 4 and 8 year checks are weighted to include improvements, and design changes. I don't see it much different than paying for an SB. But what do I know?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #41 January 17, 2005 That $160 fee also includes a free replacement of your unit with one that has a similar life cycle if there are issues with yours they can not repair. That excludes damage due to abuse or water. I'd love to see a rig manufactor offer that type of plan Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #42 January 17, 2005 Quote I would argue that the $160 fee (plus shipping) for the 4 and 8 year checks are weighted to include improvements, and design changes. I don't see it much different than paying for an SB. And I'm sure Ford built in recalls into the cost of Kelli;s old Mustang. I'm OK with that. I think of it as insurance. If it never needs a design fix, then the manufacturer comes out ahead. If it does, then I don't have to pay for that design fix. If a Cypres upgrade requires more than $160 to apply, Airtec wouldn't/doesn't increase the cost of the maintenance check to reflect that. What I am not OK with is a manufacturer discovering a design problem and expecting the customer to pay for the fix. Again, I think Mirage Sys shouldn't have issued the SB and instead issue a notice to pack the Mirage the way it is supposed to be packed. I don't think I'll mod Kelli's rig. Her reserve works fine and the mod won't improve anything, only makes things worse. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #43 January 17, 2005 I think the cause of the problem should be considered when deciding who should pay. If it is a Manufacturers defect, then the manufacturer should pay. If it is an improvement to an existing design then the Owner should pay. When I bought my Rig, I knew it was a Brand new design and expected that there would be a few service bulletins along the way and I don’t mind paying for those. So far I have had 4 issues with my rig that have been addressed and I think each one should have been handled in a different manner. 1. was the Capewell test - I think that this came from a manufacturing problem then the Manufacturer should have paid. (My Rigger did not charge for this and did it as part of the initial inspection and assembly of the rig so it was a non-issue) 2. was an "Optional" service bulletin on the Leg straps to prevent slipping. This was Optional and I choose to do it, therefore it should be my cost. 3. was a problem with Reserve (done at 1st Repack). The problem was out of spec stabilizer trim (NOT Optional to Repair). This was a Manufacturing error in my opinion and should have been covered by the manufacturer. The repair cost was minimal so I didn’t even mention it to the manufacturer, Had the repair cost more, I would have expected the manufacturer to handle the repair. 4. was a problem with one of the hard housings slipping in the riser and having to be retacked on a rig that was only 120 days old. It seems that there are better designs out there for containing the Hard Housing in the risers but this is the design I bought so it is my responsibility to fix it if it fails. If a Mandatory Service Bulletin is an Improvement to the design of my Rig, I pay. If the Service Bulletin stems from a Manufacturing Defect, They should pay. As for the new Mirage Bulletin, It would seem to me that this results in a new safer design so the Owner should pay for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #44 January 17, 2005 QuoteAs for the new Mirage Bulletin, It would seem to me that this results in a new safer design so the Owner should pay for it. It's not a new, safer design though. It is a fix so that the reserve will work as it is supposed to. It doesn't make the rig safer, it makes it work as it was originally supposed to. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #45 January 17, 2005 QuoteIt doesn't make the rig safer, it makes it work as it was originally supposed to. It would seem to me that the existing design has worked for years, Now it has failed once and therefore the Manufacturer looked into the problem and is saying we found a better way to do this that improve the reliability or YOUR rig. In my (Humble and uneducated) this amounts to an improvement in reliability of the existing design. While I can see the argument that this was a Design Flaw, It is none the less the Design people Bought and used for years without issue. Nothing in this sport come with a 100% gurentee that it will work every time, But I am glad to see Manufacturers step up when there is a problem and find a Better/Safer way of doing something. If we insist that they pay for improving their own designs retroactivly, you can bet that there will not be as much willingness to release these Safety Bulletens in the future. Disclaimer: I am a sub 100 Jump Know Nothing discussing an Opinion with master rigger hoping to learn something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #46 January 17, 2005 QuoteIt would seem to me that the existing design has worked for years, Now it has failed once and therefore the Manufacturer looked into the problem and is saying we found a better way to do this that improve the reliability or YOUR rig. That's just it, the original design has a problem. Sometimes the reserve doesn't deploy. So they have a change to the original design to eliminate that problem. The Mustang's intake manifold worked for a while and not all of them broke. But there was still a problem with the original design that cased some of them to crack and the engine to stop running. The new manifold didn't make the vehicle run any better, it made it run as it was supposed to. We aren't talking an improvement, just bringing it up to where it is supposed to be, i.e. the reserve PC launches when the AAD fires. If it was just an unecessary improvement over the original design, then why not make it optional? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ECVZZ 0 #47 January 18, 2005 Quote"This rig is sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose" Yeah...that'll stop a lawsuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #48 January 18, 2005 The FAA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #49 January 18, 2005 The FAA should pay for SB's? What do you think of my idea of Mirage Sys reimburing riggers at a set rate for applying the SB, eliminating down time and shipping? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,121 #50 January 18, 2005 >Again, I think Mirage Sys should have issued a bulletin clarifying >packing the Mirage reserve and skipped the SB. A few years ago, IIRC, a rig manufacturer was sued out of existence partly because they didn't release a SB in a timely manner (per the opinion of the skydiver who filed the suit.) One of those damned-if-you-do things. Since skydivers tend to sue other skydivers nowadays, I would expect gear manufacturers to go the route that affords them the maximal legal protection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
BIGUN 1,497 #37 January 17, 2005 Quotejust cause they love getting all hot and sweaty packing reserves You sure that its your reserve that gets your rigger that way.... Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #38 January 17, 2005 QuoteBTW I didn't intend to start a pissing contest or pick on Ian in anyway. Heh, no worries, I didn't take it that way. I just think some of us have differing opinions on what we expect or understand the manufacturers responsibility to be. I certainly don't take this as a right or wrong issue Stay safe. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #39 January 17, 2005 QuoteWhat FAR says SB's are manditory? They do not have the legal weight of an AD. Absolutely true. Techncally speaking this SB doesn't have to be performed, same as the Capewell SB, the Javelin adjustable harness SB, or eventhe Raven-M SB. Even though the SB says the SB must be done, they don't have the authority to ground their containers, only the FAA does (in the U.S.). I have been considering not doing it to Kelli's rig and only doing it if she ever sells it. Just pack it as it should be packed and it works fine. As for the red label, I accept that a rig may not work even though I do everything right. What I don't accept that if there is a design problem, I have to pay to get it fixed. Again, there can be more money at stake than just shipping and a re-pack. If the jumper needs it to make their living, or if the DZ uses them for student rigs, etc. That can add up to a lot more than shipping + $60. When I was jumping full time, being without my rig for a week could have cost me $1000+. QuoteHow is the owner of a rig paying for an SB, any different than the owner of a Cypres paying for the upgrades done durring 4 and 8 year service? Because Airtec absorbs the costs of any upgrades. The 4 and 8 year checks cost what they cost. I could see if they charged the owner to replace a component that needed replacing. That's maintenance. They didn't charge for the electromatic shields or shielding upgrades. I don't mind paying for maintenance (my Mustang alternator example) I do mind paying to fix design flaws (my Mustang intake manifold example). Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #40 January 17, 2005 QuoteBecause Airtec absorbs the costs of any upgrades. I would argue that the $160 fee (plus shipping) for the 4 and 8 year checks are weighted to include improvements, and design changes. I don't see it much different than paying for an SB. But what do I know?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #41 January 17, 2005 That $160 fee also includes a free replacement of your unit with one that has a similar life cycle if there are issues with yours they can not repair. That excludes damage due to abuse or water. I'd love to see a rig manufactor offer that type of plan Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #42 January 17, 2005 Quote I would argue that the $160 fee (plus shipping) for the 4 and 8 year checks are weighted to include improvements, and design changes. I don't see it much different than paying for an SB. And I'm sure Ford built in recalls into the cost of Kelli;s old Mustang. I'm OK with that. I think of it as insurance. If it never needs a design fix, then the manufacturer comes out ahead. If it does, then I don't have to pay for that design fix. If a Cypres upgrade requires more than $160 to apply, Airtec wouldn't/doesn't increase the cost of the maintenance check to reflect that. What I am not OK with is a manufacturer discovering a design problem and expecting the customer to pay for the fix. Again, I think Mirage Sys shouldn't have issued the SB and instead issue a notice to pack the Mirage the way it is supposed to be packed. I don't think I'll mod Kelli's rig. Her reserve works fine and the mod won't improve anything, only makes things worse. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #43 January 17, 2005 I think the cause of the problem should be considered when deciding who should pay. If it is a Manufacturers defect, then the manufacturer should pay. If it is an improvement to an existing design then the Owner should pay. When I bought my Rig, I knew it was a Brand new design and expected that there would be a few service bulletins along the way and I don’t mind paying for those. So far I have had 4 issues with my rig that have been addressed and I think each one should have been handled in a different manner. 1. was the Capewell test - I think that this came from a manufacturing problem then the Manufacturer should have paid. (My Rigger did not charge for this and did it as part of the initial inspection and assembly of the rig so it was a non-issue) 2. was an "Optional" service bulletin on the Leg straps to prevent slipping. This was Optional and I choose to do it, therefore it should be my cost. 3. was a problem with Reserve (done at 1st Repack). The problem was out of spec stabilizer trim (NOT Optional to Repair). This was a Manufacturing error in my opinion and should have been covered by the manufacturer. The repair cost was minimal so I didn’t even mention it to the manufacturer, Had the repair cost more, I would have expected the manufacturer to handle the repair. 4. was a problem with one of the hard housings slipping in the riser and having to be retacked on a rig that was only 120 days old. It seems that there are better designs out there for containing the Hard Housing in the risers but this is the design I bought so it is my responsibility to fix it if it fails. If a Mandatory Service Bulletin is an Improvement to the design of my Rig, I pay. If the Service Bulletin stems from a Manufacturing Defect, They should pay. As for the new Mirage Bulletin, It would seem to me that this results in a new safer design so the Owner should pay for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #44 January 17, 2005 QuoteAs for the new Mirage Bulletin, It would seem to me that this results in a new safer design so the Owner should pay for it. It's not a new, safer design though. It is a fix so that the reserve will work as it is supposed to. It doesn't make the rig safer, it makes it work as it was originally supposed to. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #45 January 17, 2005 QuoteIt doesn't make the rig safer, it makes it work as it was originally supposed to. It would seem to me that the existing design has worked for years, Now it has failed once and therefore the Manufacturer looked into the problem and is saying we found a better way to do this that improve the reliability or YOUR rig. In my (Humble and uneducated) this amounts to an improvement in reliability of the existing design. While I can see the argument that this was a Design Flaw, It is none the less the Design people Bought and used for years without issue. Nothing in this sport come with a 100% gurentee that it will work every time, But I am glad to see Manufacturers step up when there is a problem and find a Better/Safer way of doing something. If we insist that they pay for improving their own designs retroactivly, you can bet that there will not be as much willingness to release these Safety Bulletens in the future. Disclaimer: I am a sub 100 Jump Know Nothing discussing an Opinion with master rigger hoping to learn something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #46 January 17, 2005 QuoteIt would seem to me that the existing design has worked for years, Now it has failed once and therefore the Manufacturer looked into the problem and is saying we found a better way to do this that improve the reliability or YOUR rig. That's just it, the original design has a problem. Sometimes the reserve doesn't deploy. So they have a change to the original design to eliminate that problem. The Mustang's intake manifold worked for a while and not all of them broke. But there was still a problem with the original design that cased some of them to crack and the engine to stop running. The new manifold didn't make the vehicle run any better, it made it run as it was supposed to. We aren't talking an improvement, just bringing it up to where it is supposed to be, i.e. the reserve PC launches when the AAD fires. If it was just an unecessary improvement over the original design, then why not make it optional? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ECVZZ 0 #47 January 18, 2005 Quote"This rig is sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose" Yeah...that'll stop a lawsuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #49 January 18, 2005 The FAA should pay for SB's? What do you think of my idea of Mirage Sys reimburing riggers at a set rate for applying the SB, eliminating down time and shipping? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #50 January 18, 2005 >Again, I think Mirage Sys should have issued a bulletin clarifying >packing the Mirage reserve and skipped the SB. A few years ago, IIRC, a rig manufacturer was sued out of existence partly because they didn't release a SB in a timely manner (per the opinion of the skydiver who filed the suit.) One of those damned-if-you-do things. Since skydivers tend to sue other skydivers nowadays, I would expect gear manufacturers to go the route that affords them the maximal legal protection. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
