peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 April 15, 2004 I agree with the two above posts in particular. We all, who skydive, accept the risks involved or we simply should not be skydiving at all. There are sooo many questions and variables involved in determining who or what was at fault in your wife's unfortunate accident (I hope she gets 100% healed soon!). That is part of the reason why no one can ever possibly guarantee the safety of a skydiver. The manufacturer obviously does what it can to provide safe equipment that will work as designed and intended. They are not infallible. You enter the sport knowing they are not infallible. How many times have you read, heard -- and taught people -- that a skydiver ASSUMES ALL RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SKYDIVE? That famous disclaimer (the bearded guy on the video) stipulates "even if certain actors are negligent"! (words to that effect) You can't get much clearer than that, when it comes to warning a skydiver about who's gonna be culpable in the event of an accident. Essentially, when you skydive, you admit that anyone else involved with your skydive could fuck up egregiously and YOU are still the only one you can blame. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Once again, I hope your wife recovers as soon as possible, and NO, I think you should NOT sue. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #27 April 15, 2004 QuoteMy wife had a malfunction due to a contrived malfunction, her cutaway system failed, she had to deploy her reserve (alt. remaining) in to her main trash. Survived the spinning entanglment with a broken back. Do you think the manufacture is responsible for poor, or faulty gear. She and I are not newbies, are both Instructors, and current. I feel she did everything right, and saved her life, but the medical bill are adding up, and before I decide to point fingers, I want feedback from the community. Thank you. My vote is no, don't sue, at least based on the situation as I know it from your post. There is a chain of events that resulted in this accident, and it appears that the links in that chain were under the jumpers control. First link was the malfunction. According to your post, your wife is an instructor. She should have opened the rig and inspected the new parachute herself prior to making any jumps as the owner/user. You say this was the first jump on a new rig, and I believe that jumping a rig "out of the box" is inappropriate. Failure to inspect the rig is your wifes fault. The assessment would be different if your wife was a new jumper without any understanding of how to inspect a rig. The second link, it appears, is a failure to correct whatever the malfunction was. You didn't offer enough detail here regarding the type of problem, the altitudes involved, or what your wife did to fix the problem. Given that it was a new rig, your wife had the opportunity to open a bit higher than usual to allow for any problems. You are not clear if she did this or not, or even if a cutaway was the best option given the nature of the problem. For example, a stuck toggle can often be handled by landing the parachute, assuming it can be flown safely in that configuration. Now obviously this isn't always true, but you haven't given me enough information to determine what the initial problem was or what other actions might have been available. Third link was a failure of the cutaway system. You have not explained why this failed. A standard three ring system is easy to inspect. Given that this was a new rig your wife should have checked the system completely. Was the failure of the three ring something that should have been noticed in a prejump inspection? I would not expect a student to find many three ring errors, but I would expect that of an instructor. The fourth link was the entanglement. I don't think your wife had any real options here, although she might have. It's tough to evaluate on the basis of your posts so far. You should also consider the history of the manufactrer. If this is a one time unanticipated problem it is unreasonable to hold the manufacturer responsible. If, on the other hand, the manufactrer had multiple reports of the same problem causing fatalities and decided not to correct the root cause, not to improve in-house inspections, and not to share the problem with the public, then you might have a different issue. Your post indicates this was a new rig and I doubt the manufacturer has yet established a history of negligince. The accident, although tragic, was the result of several factors, many of which your wife had control over. If this was a student jump on a new, uninspected rig, I think the student might have grounds to sue, but your wife should know better and should be responsible for identifying the problems that caused this accident. You mention a concern about a new rig and new manufacturer and a desire to alert the skydiving community. Your desire to fix the problem is noble, but you have failed to identify specifically what went wrong, why, or when. It would be far better to share the name of the manufacturer and photos of the failed three ring system so others can identify the problem before they too have malfunctions. I hope this matter has been investigated by your S&TA and that he is taking action to alert the skydiving community. If Many years ago I had an accident that resulted in, among other things, a broken back. As I was wheeled into my hospital room a nurse started asking questions from an intake form. One of those questions was "Is there anybody you can sue." I understood the hospital was just looking for a financial stake holder who would be responsible for the costs of my treatment. Financials may ultimately drive your decision, although they shouldn't. For the rest of us, it's important to understand that when a jumper is hurt there are huge medical bills. Those bills may push a person to consider litigation even when they otherwise might oppose the idea. Likewise, a medical provider or other party with a financial stake in the matter (the holder of a loan) might drive a decision to sue. A jumper on solid financial footing may be less likely to litigate for recovery. Tom Buchanan Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem) S&TA Author JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and EasyTom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigM 2 #28 April 15, 2004 QuoteI'm not trying to get rich, Kris. But IF the manufacture is at fault I want to altert the community to the problem, How can you alert the community if you don't say what type of gear it is? Honesty, forthrightness, and candor go a long way here. Starting with a profile that includes a name. Another vote for no lawsuit. The validity of a lawsuit has nothing to do with a need for medical expense money. I hope your wife recovers quickly and fully. Blue 111- Jeff "When I die, I want to go like my grandmother, who died peacefully in her sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in her car." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #29 April 15, 2004 I think that if you try to sue, you will fail miserably. This will make your situation much worse than it is now. If you are instructors, you know, or should know, that this is a sport where you can do everything right and still get killed or worse. Also, since you have yet to provide the exact sequence of events and give only vague and contradictory information about the system involved, you sound like a troll. Please post the sequence of events, the reason for the "contrived malfunction" (and a definition of what a contrived amlfunction is) and the sequence of actions. Then, and only then, can we make a fully informed opinion.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #30 April 15, 2004 Quote...she (threw) the reserve handle, after pulling it (be)cause it could cause an entanglment. or so we have herd. Well, you're instructors, right... When was the last time she got in a hanging harness and practiced a spinning chop or severe line twists? The last time she performed maintenance on the cutaway housings? Flexed the three ring system? Sorry to hear about this. Is she still in the hospital?"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weegegirl 2 #31 April 15, 2004 you want my vote??? HELL NO. DO NOT SUE. Sorry about your wife... really. But please don't sue. Your wife accepted responsibility the minute she set foot in that airplane. Come on. I hope she has a speedy recovery. And please, if there is something that we as a community can learn from this event... clear up the details and give us the specifics. Maybe it won't happen to the next guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #32 April 15, 2004 You need to give ALL the relevant information for others to come to an informed opinion. 1. What type malfunction did the main have? 2. What caused that malfunction? 3. What caused the 3-Ring Release to fail? 4. Was this in any way because of a Poor Design, Defective Materials or Shoddy Manufacturing? The only way that I think anyone should Sue would be in the event that it was CLEAR Gross Negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Even then it is questionable if there was anyway a proper gear inspection would have found the problem before the jump. Coming here and only giving part of the story and not identifying the equipment will only lead to poor speculation in the community and will not benefit anyone. You mention "A new manufacturer" and a 3 ring release that failed. I immediately think of one company that has a new design on their 3 rings that fits your description. Please clarify everything as much as possible to avoid this type of speculation. If there is a problem with a particular manufacturer, Please let everyone know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SniperCJ 0 #33 April 15, 2004 QuoteI have been in the sport for almost 10 years and am an Instructor.Quote And a whole 600+ jumps in that 10 years? Lets do the math, thats OVER 60 jumps a year. The numbers say youre still new... The question I posted has not been answered by anyone yet. Should or Would you Sue?*** Based on the sketchy information youve provided so far? A resounding NO. Youre going to have to provide far more information indicating that this wasnt an unstable main deployment, poor gear maintenance, or poor emergency procedures first before I would consider changing my mind. Also, line twists, slider up etc, arent "contrived malfunctions", theyre nuisances or at worst partial malfunctions. An instructor would know this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SKYWHUFFO 1 #34 April 15, 2004 THIS IS EXACTLY WHY SKYDIVING GETS A BAD NAME/PUBLICITY AND PROBLEMS WITH INSURANCE FOR DZ'S!!!!! You are an instructor have been jumping for awhile lets assume. You know the risks of our sport and at sometime a miscue IS going to happen. I don't mean to make this look like an attack on you because it's not. I am just really tired of the world especially here in our skydiving world thinking the the end all answer is to SUE SOMBODY! GEE, I sctatched my leg coming out of the port-o-potty the last time I was at the DZ. Should I include the DZO, Airport, The toilet company, the owner of the toilet, and charmin bathroom tissue in my suit? Sounds dumb doesn't it! But hey, it still in an injury, i want paid too! Look at the problems the DZO are having getting insurance or having lack of it. Please once again, i am not attacking you, so please don't take it that way. I just want people to realize the problems that are coming from everyone suing everyone. Realize the big picture, and the potential outcomes of the process. I am sorry your wife was hurt and i say a prayer for her recovery, but I think a legal issue is only going to cause more headaches for the skydiving industry as a whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cocheese 0 #35 April 15, 2004 No Sue. Even if it is a good reason to.Usually court sucks and lasts longer than the injury. The pain and stress of court does not promote a speedy recovery.Fighting this takes too much energy. Focus on fighting the injury. Bills are a big problem yes, but i would worry about trying to make each day a little more pleasant for your wife. Be positive and try to move on. I'm not saying all this to protect our sport i would say the same thing if she got injured from a golf ball or golf cart or golf course. Anyway , we still need the whole story before we make a educated decision. But in general, court is for people who would rather spend their life there.... in a big room arguing about fault and justice and every other irrelevant detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #36 April 15, 2004 Quote Should or Would you Sue? No. Regardless of who is "at fault." I assume any and all risks involved with using any piece of skydiving equipment when I put it on my body and throw said body out of an airplane. This includes the risk that the gear I'm jumping is poorly designed and/or built. Quoteand cover our medical bills that is all. That's what health insurance is for. Don't have it? Then the risk of paying off huge medical bills for the rest of your life is something to consider before getting on the airplane. Not willing to pay off huge medical bills for the rest of your life? Don't jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #37 April 15, 2004 QuoteAnd a whole 600+ jumps in that 10 years? Lets do the math, thats OVER 60 jumps a year. The numbers say youre still new... How often a person can jump has nothing to do with this discussion. For all you know he may have spent every minute of every weekend for the past ten years on the dz. He also may have done his first jump ten years ago then waited five years to start jumping for real. He could be jumping someplace with a shorts "season" - combine a short season with a small dz where it's hard to get on loads and 60 jumps a year could be considered a lot. Not every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Designer 0 #38 April 15, 2004 Humm,we just do not take as good care of our equipment as we should.The term you pays your money and takes your chances comes up here.When stuff goes wrong we try to blame somebody,anybody!Your wife is very lucky to be alive!Suing is never the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #39 April 15, 2004 Quote...it was a partial release of the main the right side remainded attached, and just for the record she went in with ALL handles pulled, as a matter of fact, she through the reserve handle, after pulling it cause it could cause an entanglment. or so we have herd. So, why didn't it release? Did the three rings catch somehow? Were they routed correctly? Did something trap the yellow cable? Did it break? How did her fingers get caught in the lines? Don't Sue. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #40 April 15, 2004 Quote He could be jumping someplace with a shorts "season" Ya mean like Florida? QuoteNot every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Lisa, I would disagree with that. Less of a PERSON no, less of a SKYDIVER...My opinion, yes."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 4 #41 April 15, 2004 QuoteQuote Sorry Kris There is no Orange or any other warning lable. This was her contianer system not her canopy then the container either A: was so old that the label came off which voids the TSO B: had the label cut off, which also voids the TSO C: never had a label so was never TSO'd or it does have the label but isnt smacking you in the face The orange label is not a TSO label, it is a warning label developed by PIA. The TSO label on a H/C is usually found on one of the reserve risers. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #42 April 15, 2004 The fact that some skydivers need a big orange label warning them that jumping out of a plane can be dangerous is scary.... Hope your wife heals quick...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #43 April 15, 2004 You have not explained in any concice manner why you think your wife's injury is the fault of the manufacturer and not her own. Unless you can do that, the only possible answer to your question is "no". _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuckbrown 0 #44 April 15, 2004 Save your time and money. Don't sue. If you're not able to present the facts to this forum, it doesn't seem like you'll be able to present any necessary evidence to a judge or jury. Besides unless there was some sort of manufacturing defect that caused the inability of the cutaway system to work properly AND you can prove the manufacturer knew or should have known about any such defect, I don't see how they can be held liable. The TSO means the design is proper. Good luck & I hope your wife heals quick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TALONSKY 0 #45 April 15, 2004 I think your position would be very tough to be in. I am very sorry for what happened to your wife and I hope for a speedy recovery for her. I am not sure what I would truly do in your position but what I would hope to do would be not sue. The reason I would not sue is based on the fact historically it only takes one case to set a precedent that would have a HUGE ripple effect on the entire skydiving community. At bare minimum companies would have to get some kind of insurance against people that might sue (which would drive the already out of sight prices sooo high it would kill the this sport). I understand that there is a huge expense to your wife’s medical bills but in the end everyone in this sport knows the risks associated with this sport and accepts them. When buying equipment, I feel it is up to the individual to evaluate the equipment or have it evaluated to make sure it is safe and will perform as desired, and to educate themselves on every aspect of that equipment. So in the end, before suing please think about the far-reaching implications of your actions. God speed your wife’s healing Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rmsmith 1 #46 April 15, 2004 Quote...but the medical bill are adding up, and before I decide to point fingers, I want feedback from the community. Thank you. The main problem here is a lack of medical insurance, which should be part of your family's life plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #47 April 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Lisa, I would disagree with that. Less of a PERSON no, less of a SKYDIVER...My opinion, yes. The person who makes 200+ jumps a year is a better skydiver than the person who makes 50 (one would hope anyway). But the person who does 50 a year is still a skydiver. Will they ever be on a world record or win a gold medal at Nationals? Probably not. That does not make them less of a skydiver... just not as current and not as skilled. Tying this back on topic - imho any person who would sue because of a skydiving related injury is less of a skydiver than is someone who won't... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SKYWHUFFO 1 #34 April 15, 2004 THIS IS EXACTLY WHY SKYDIVING GETS A BAD NAME/PUBLICITY AND PROBLEMS WITH INSURANCE FOR DZ'S!!!!! You are an instructor have been jumping for awhile lets assume. You know the risks of our sport and at sometime a miscue IS going to happen. I don't mean to make this look like an attack on you because it's not. I am just really tired of the world especially here in our skydiving world thinking the the end all answer is to SUE SOMBODY! GEE, I sctatched my leg coming out of the port-o-potty the last time I was at the DZ. Should I include the DZO, Airport, The toilet company, the owner of the toilet, and charmin bathroom tissue in my suit? Sounds dumb doesn't it! But hey, it still in an injury, i want paid too! Look at the problems the DZO are having getting insurance or having lack of it. Please once again, i am not attacking you, so please don't take it that way. I just want people to realize the problems that are coming from everyone suing everyone. Realize the big picture, and the potential outcomes of the process. I am sorry your wife was hurt and i say a prayer for her recovery, but I think a legal issue is only going to cause more headaches for the skydiving industry as a whole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cocheese 0 #35 April 15, 2004 No Sue. Even if it is a good reason to.Usually court sucks and lasts longer than the injury. The pain and stress of court does not promote a speedy recovery.Fighting this takes too much energy. Focus on fighting the injury. Bills are a big problem yes, but i would worry about trying to make each day a little more pleasant for your wife. Be positive and try to move on. I'm not saying all this to protect our sport i would say the same thing if she got injured from a golf ball or golf cart or golf course. Anyway , we still need the whole story before we make a educated decision. But in general, court is for people who would rather spend their life there.... in a big room arguing about fault and justice and every other irrelevant detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #36 April 15, 2004 Quote Should or Would you Sue? No. Regardless of who is "at fault." I assume any and all risks involved with using any piece of skydiving equipment when I put it on my body and throw said body out of an airplane. This includes the risk that the gear I'm jumping is poorly designed and/or built. Quoteand cover our medical bills that is all. That's what health insurance is for. Don't have it? Then the risk of paying off huge medical bills for the rest of your life is something to consider before getting on the airplane. Not willing to pay off huge medical bills for the rest of your life? Don't jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #37 April 15, 2004 QuoteAnd a whole 600+ jumps in that 10 years? Lets do the math, thats OVER 60 jumps a year. The numbers say youre still new... How often a person can jump has nothing to do with this discussion. For all you know he may have spent every minute of every weekend for the past ten years on the dz. He also may have done his first jump ten years ago then waited five years to start jumping for real. He could be jumping someplace with a shorts "season" - combine a short season with a small dz where it's hard to get on loads and 60 jumps a year could be considered a lot. Not every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #38 April 15, 2004 Humm,we just do not take as good care of our equipment as we should.The term you pays your money and takes your chances comes up here.When stuff goes wrong we try to blame somebody,anybody!Your wife is very lucky to be alive!Suing is never the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #39 April 15, 2004 Quote...it was a partial release of the main the right side remainded attached, and just for the record she went in with ALL handles pulled, as a matter of fact, she through the reserve handle, after pulling it cause it could cause an entanglment. or so we have herd. So, why didn't it release? Did the three rings catch somehow? Were they routed correctly? Did something trap the yellow cable? Did it break? How did her fingers get caught in the lines? Don't Sue. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 April 15, 2004 Quote He could be jumping someplace with a shorts "season" Ya mean like Florida? QuoteNot every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Lisa, I would disagree with that. Less of a PERSON no, less of a SKYDIVER...My opinion, yes."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #41 April 15, 2004 QuoteQuote Sorry Kris There is no Orange or any other warning lable. This was her contianer system not her canopy then the container either A: was so old that the label came off which voids the TSO B: had the label cut off, which also voids the TSO C: never had a label so was never TSO'd or it does have the label but isnt smacking you in the face The orange label is not a TSO label, it is a warning label developed by PIA. The TSO label on a H/C is usually found on one of the reserve risers. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #42 April 15, 2004 The fact that some skydivers need a big orange label warning them that jumping out of a plane can be dangerous is scary.... Hope your wife heals quick...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #43 April 15, 2004 You have not explained in any concice manner why you think your wife's injury is the fault of the manufacturer and not her own. Unless you can do that, the only possible answer to your question is "no". _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #44 April 15, 2004 Save your time and money. Don't sue. If you're not able to present the facts to this forum, it doesn't seem like you'll be able to present any necessary evidence to a judge or jury. Besides unless there was some sort of manufacturing defect that caused the inability of the cutaway system to work properly AND you can prove the manufacturer knew or should have known about any such defect, I don't see how they can be held liable. The TSO means the design is proper. Good luck & I hope your wife heals quick. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TALONSKY 0 #45 April 15, 2004 I think your position would be very tough to be in. I am very sorry for what happened to your wife and I hope for a speedy recovery for her. I am not sure what I would truly do in your position but what I would hope to do would be not sue. The reason I would not sue is based on the fact historically it only takes one case to set a precedent that would have a HUGE ripple effect on the entire skydiving community. At bare minimum companies would have to get some kind of insurance against people that might sue (which would drive the already out of sight prices sooo high it would kill the this sport). I understand that there is a huge expense to your wife’s medical bills but in the end everyone in this sport knows the risks associated with this sport and accepts them. When buying equipment, I feel it is up to the individual to evaluate the equipment or have it evaluated to make sure it is safe and will perform as desired, and to educate themselves on every aspect of that equipment. So in the end, before suing please think about the far-reaching implications of your actions. God speed your wife’s healing Kirk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #46 April 15, 2004 Quote...but the medical bill are adding up, and before I decide to point fingers, I want feedback from the community. Thank you. The main problem here is a lack of medical insurance, which should be part of your family's life plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #47 April 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNot every skydiver can afford to, is physically able to, or even wants to do 200+ jumps a year. That doesn't make someone who does 50 - 100 jumps a year less of a skydiver than someone who does 1000 jumps a year. Lisa, I would disagree with that. Less of a PERSON no, less of a SKYDIVER...My opinion, yes. The person who makes 200+ jumps a year is a better skydiver than the person who makes 50 (one would hope anyway). But the person who does 50 a year is still a skydiver. Will they ever be on a world record or win a gold medal at Nationals? Probably not. That does not make them less of a skydiver... just not as current and not as skilled. Tying this back on topic - imho any person who would sue because of a skydiving related injury is less of a skydiver than is someone who won't... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #48 April 15, 2004 QuoteThe person who makes 200+ jumps a year is a better skydiver than the person who makes 50 (one would hope anyway). But the person who does 50 a year is still a skydiver. Will they ever be on a world record or win a gold medal at Nationals? Probably not. That does not make them less of a skydiver... just not as current and not as skilled. Good point...I don't agree. But its an issue of semantics. I consider the more current jumper that is at the DZ making 1,000 jumps a year to be more of a jumper than the guy that makes 50. The guy doing 1,000 a year is at the DZ more I would guess and living the sport more. Thats not to say you have to do X number of jumps a year to be a skydiver...But that topic has been on fire here before, so we can drag that back up if someone else feels like it. I fiqure if you jump (Solo), you are a skydiver. If you live on the DZ work in Manifest,make 1,000 jumps a year, have blue/purple/green hair and eat ramen so you can afford it, I would say you are more a skydiver than the guy that works in corporate America and only shows up for events or a few jumps a mth. But thats me and my little world...You don't have to agree cause I don't write the rules in the real world...only in my little one. In my little world people listen to experience and know that being careful today is the best way to get better. We all know that does not happen in the real world...Personally I like my little world better..And the people there like me....I'm my own little king! Hail to the King baby!!! QuoteTying this back on topic - imho any person who would sue because of a skydiving related injury is less of a skydiver than is someone who won't... I would agree there. Im not saying I would NEVER sue someone. If it was my fault...nope. But if someone did something REALLY stupid (Like say...Flying the plane into a building while I am on board to do a low pass just to be cool)....Well maybe. If a factory put out a product KNOWN to have problems, but released it anyway...Same thing. But whatever.Ihave never been facing thousands of dollars of medical bills. I personally think that if you can't afford to skydive, and that includes insurance..then you should not jump."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #49 April 15, 2004 Once again - Did a rigger inspect the gear after the incident, and what was his conclusion? Some more information on this would be really helpful.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #50 April 15, 2004 Do I understand the sequence of events? I will try to piece it together from your posts: 1. "My wife had a malfunction due to a contrived malfunction" and "I call a line twist, or slider up, or a released brake line, or a pilot chute under a contrived mal" So she deploys her main, and she has some or all of line twists, fired brake, slider up, and pilot chute under. 2. "her cutaway system failed" and "it was a partial release of the main the right side remainded attached" So she pulls her cutaway handle but only one riser releases. Obvious question is why not? Was her 3-ring correctly assembled? 3. Next, I guess, comes her entanglement with the main: "She could not use her hook knoif scence her fingures were entangled/ traped in her main suspension lines to her right leg. " 4. So now, "she had to deploy her reserve (alt. remaining) in to her main trash" 5. The result was a "spinning entanglment" that she "Survived ... with a broken back." Do I have the sequence of events correct? ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
