billvon 3,116 #26 February 23, 2004 >what about sueing canpoy manufacturers for selling you inherently harmful equiptment . . . That's like suing a car company for selling you a car that can go 80mph. The tag on the tail of my Silhouette 150 says: --------------------------------- This is a high performance parachute. Even normal use may result in serious injury or death. Parachute systems sometimes fail to operate correctly, even when properly manufactured, assembled, packed, and operated. You risk serious injury or death each time you use the equipment. ---------------------------------- They mean it. Any parachute can kill you. It can lead to a lifetime of medical bills that could ruin you and your family financially, destroy your life, your happiness, and your future in any other sport. Decide BEFORE you jump if that's OK with you. If it's not OK - don't jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #27 February 23, 2004 Real skydivers don't sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #28 February 23, 2004 Quote> They mean it. Any parachute can kill you. It can lead to a lifetime of medical bills that could ruin you and your family financially, destroy your life, your happiness, and your future in any other sport. Decide BEFORE you jump if that's OK with you. If it's not OK - don't jump. Just for the sake of conversation, do you think if a canopy manufacturer made and sold a canopy they knew collapsed for no good reason, they should not be held responsible for anything?__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #29 February 23, 2004 QuoteThis is a high performance parachute. Even normal use may result in serious injury or death. Parachute systems sometimes fail to operate correctly, even when properly manufactured, assembled, packed, and operated. You risk serious injury or death each time you use the equipment. Enough said. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #30 February 23, 2004 NO! Why do you think there was no lawsuit over the Crossfire incident? Personal responcibility of Lisa's family that recconized her choices and wishes.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstime 0 #31 February 23, 2004 WHOA!!! wheres Rod Serling??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #32 February 23, 2004 QuoteNO! Why do you think there was no lawsuit over the Crossfire incident? Personal responcibility of Lisa's family that recconized her choices and wishes. Well, did Icarus know that the Crosfire would collapse, and keep selling it with that knowledge? That would be the situation I am hypothetically asking about, and that would be the only situation where I would think a lawsuit could possibly be resonable.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #33 February 23, 2004 >Just for the sake of conversation, do you think if a canopy > manufacturer made and sold a canopy they knew collapsed for no > good reason, they should not be held responsible for anything? No. Many canopy manufacturers make canopies that they know are dangerous; most of them explicitly warn people that their more aggressive canopies can kill you. PD, for example, tells anyone who's not extremely experienced to stay away from the Velocity. So should PD be held legally responsible for designing and selling a canopy so dangerous that most skydivers can't even jump it safely? In my book, no. YOU should decide that you want to take the risk, and if you turn low and the canopy cannot pull you out of the turn in time, it's your fault. If you hit turbulence, and it turns hard and slams you into the ground, it's _still_ your fault, even if the winds were light that day. And even if you decide that the canopy "collapsed for no good reason." I have a Nova. I jump it occasionally. It's unstable in turbulence; I reserve it for days that have almost zero chance of turbulence (cloudy days with little wind.) If I get hurt under it, it will be my fault for jumping a less stable canopy. It would be absurd for me to sue anyone else for an accident that I caused through my selection of equipment. If you really think someone is out there trying to kill people, stop buying their stuff, and get everyone else to stop buying their stuff. No one else will die and they will go out of business. Problem solved. And if no one listens to you? Well, there's always the chance that you're wrong about them. That's the good thing about this approach. Lawyers don't care if there is really a problem - their job is to get millions out of, say, PD, and they don't care if there's a problem to begin with (and they certainly don't care about fixing the problem.) Skydiving is a sport of personal responsibility. Accept that you are responsible for your own life. That means educating yourself about the gear you jump, the DZ's you jump at, the pilot who flies your plane, and the people you are jumping with. You are responsible for determining if they are all safe enough that you are willing to take the risk. And if you decide later that they really weren't safe enough? Shame on you for being too lazy to determine that before you needed the information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
burbleflyer 0 #34 February 23, 2004 QuoteBy now I know how to pack my sabre so it is the finest of al canopies I have tried, but the bad stuff happened long ago, over a decade ago in my 20s when I didn't think anything of hard openings, it wasn't such a big deal back then since the sabre was the first ZP. Of course the one opening that broke the camel's back was packed by an unknown packer since the only other packer I trust was busy. I too have had spankers on the Specres I tried, they sniveled for 1000 feet then opened briskly, that sucked! I like vengences and stilettos, but they don't open as straight on as my sabre. I personally believe if a canopy has beeen snivelling for a thousand feet and then spanks you its un likely the pack job. Not for sure, but unlikely. If it comes out the bag and hits you? Probably packing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #35 February 23, 2004 Well I don't know but thought I would respond to me. Still looking for an answer. Am I invisible or something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #36 February 23, 2004 QuoteSo should PD be held legally responsible for designing and selling a canopy so dangerous that most skydivers can't even jump it safely? No, because the canopy is advertised as a high performance canopy, and running into the ground if you make a low turn is how the canopy was designed and advertised to function. I'm not out to sue a canopy manufacturer for hurting myself when the wind blows me into a tree. I'm just saying there could potentially be a case where the manufacturer was conciously negligent and should be responsible.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #37 February 23, 2004 >No, because the canopy is advertised as a high performance canopy, > and running into the ground if you make a low turn is how the >canopy was designed and advertised to function. But we weren't talking about an intentional low turn. The scenario I mentioned was one in which turbulence caused a turn, the canopy turned and dove and smacked you into the ground. That's not how it's designed to function. I'm sure a lawyer would have a field day with it; you might even be able to put PD out of business. And why not? Here you are, lying in a hospital bed, unable to move or feel anything below the neck because PD intentionally designed and sold a canopy they ADMIT is dangerous for no other reason than to make a buck! You deserve a ton o money to punish PD for paralyzing you. Or you could take responsibility for your own safety, and keep your word even after you get hurt. Up to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WeakMindedFool 0 #38 February 23, 2004 Damn I voted yes without reading your post...I would not sue in your scenario. What I would sue for is if the canopy had an inherent design flaw that the manufacturer knew about and chose not to inform the jumping public for profit/liability reasons (a la Ford and GM). Which is pretty much why I would sue any company that did things with malicious intent. This is how you stop companies from doing bad shit! I would not sue one that was doing the best they could with the information they had. ps. I can't imagine a company in the sky diving community doing something like that. One thing I really like about all this (I'm real new to this...only 11 months in) is it seems most all the people I hear about in the industry are sky divers!Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. -Eric Hoffer - Check out these Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #39 February 23, 2004 No. A hard opening parachute falls into a pretty wide range of what constitutes "properly operating". BTW - the only time I've heard of people having long term neck issues are after long term jumping under consistently hard opening canopies. That's just stupid - if it opens consistently hard, jump something else. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tinkerbelle 5 #40 February 23, 2004 Didn't they recall Novas long ago 'cause people were getting killed under them from unexpected collapses? Yes, I know they did. In fact I knew a very experienced rigger who was killed by one collapsing near the ground, that was right before the recall! By the way, I git hurt from hard openings of my Sabre over 10 years ago when they first came out, and at the time, that was the first ZP canopy I believe, don't crucify me if I am wrong! At the time, there was no other info about the dangers of ZP, and as such their first experiment was INHERENTLY flawed. They did not recall them, but maybe they should have. As it is they know there are problems with the canopy design which is why they made the Sabre 2, to correct for the problems. I tried a sabre 2, but didn't like it. Being slightly more eliptical, it opened more like and eliptical, which I don't like, diving and off heading sometimes, and flew more sloely like a square, which is not as fun as an eliptical. It did not have a good swoop. If I am willing to accept open like an eliptical I might as well enjoy the ride of an eliptical! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #41 February 23, 2004 The recall on the Nova's only lasted a bit over a month. The stigma has lasted for years... > As it is they know there are problems with the canopy design which is why they made the Sabre 2, to correct for the problems. No, the Sabre2 was designed as a new category of canopy to address an emerging market that PD had no presence in yet. It carried over nothing from the original Sabre. The Sabre2 will out swoop a Stiletto due to a more effecent airfoil and trim.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #42 February 23, 2004 >Didn't they recall Novas long ago 'cause people were getting >killed under them from unexpected collapses? Yeah, they recalled them and put a new line set on them. I have one; it flies pretty well under good conditions but is unstable in turbulence. >By the way, I git hurt from hard openings of my Sabre over 10 years > ago when they first came out, and at the time, that was the first ZP > canopy I believe, don't crucify me if I am wrong! Don't worry, no crucifixtion needed. It was the second or third, so you're pretty close. The Blue Track was the first. I'm not sure if the Monarch hit the market before the Sabre. >At the time, there was no other info about the dangers of ZP, and as >such their first experiment was INHERENTLY flawed. ?? I jumped an original Sabre for many, many years, as did hundreds of skydivers I know. They were not inherently flawed. They tended to open hard; everyone knew that. If you wanted a softer opening you put on a bigger slider or a pocket or (later) bought a stiletto. Claiming that they are inherently flawed is like claiming the Velocity is inherently flawed because it's too aggressive, and can kill people. > As it is they know there are problems with the canopy design which > is why they made the Sabre 2, to correct for the problems. The Sabre 2 is not a refinement/repair of the Sabre but rather a whole new canopy. It was introduced to compete with the Safire, Omega etc types of lightly elliptical canopies. >I tried a sabre 2, but didn't like it. Yeah, the Sabre 2 is not a swooping canopy, although if you push it you can get a decent swoop out of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #43 February 23, 2004 More importantly I'd be supprised if you can sue. There's a lable telling you of the risk. You are deamed to have read that lable. If you haven't - more fool you. The label tells you there are risk involved in jumping. Hurting your neck is one of them. You accept that risk as your own when you jump out of the plane. If the risk goes on to hurt you - tough - you accepted it. Go take up golf. But remember to read the lable that comes with the balls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #44 February 23, 2004 QuoteThis one's a lot easier than the DZ question. Not a chance in hell. You bought the canopy.. You had a chance to inspect it. You packed it. You jumped it. All are choices you made, and as fas as I'm concerned, all mean it's not the manufacturer's fault if you get a spanker. Really???? And what if you found out that the guy who sewed it together was drunk and used the wrong stitching, and you blow a couple of cells on opening and you break your back landing? I don't understand how your thoughts on this thread are 180 degrees different from your thoughts in the waiver thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Designer 0 #45 February 23, 2004 Most people know you fly your parachute at your own risk.I made a point to tell my family that if anything should happen,nobody will be sued! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 February 23, 2004 QuoteQuotenot a chance in hell Really???? And what if you found out that the guy who sewed it together was drunk and used the wrong stitching, and you blow a couple of cells on opening and you break your back landing? I don't understand how your thoughts on this thread are 180 degrees different from your thoughts in the waiver thread? This isn't 180 degrees different. Reread my dz posts. I would never sue the dz as an entity, only individual players and only in situations arising form activities not directly related to skydiving [the lead pipe while boarding example]. When I mentioned drunkenness, that was concerning riggers. I sign no waiver for a rigger, and I wouldn't because I can't take responsibility for their work. FAA et al say I'm not allowed to check up on it once the pin is closed. The main, on the other hand, is my choice to buy, I have an infinite number of chances to inspect, have the opportunity to have rigger inspected, and last time I check, spiraling into the ground is unlikely [for me at least] in your scenario. That's why we have the little silver handle. ps - will you be my new arch nemesis? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #47 February 24, 2004 No. I know that in this sport I am accepting the risks and know that I could do everything right and still die. I do not have to get on the plane. I do not have to go to the DZ. I do not have to jump. Therefore, since I am willingly taking the chance that everything will work correctly, I would not sue. For example, I had a hard opening on one of my visits to Elsinore. I was doing a high alti hop 'n' pop. Sunk it to 10,000 and deployed. Had canopy at 9,999 (or so it seemed). My canopy opened so hard that I heard my entire spine from base of skull to bottom crack. The pain was so severe that I was checking to see if I broke my back (figured I could move my arms and legs so it wasn't broken). The only thought in my head at the time was the canopy's flying, and I need to be on the ground. Talk about pain!!! Got down to the ground, handed my canopy to a packer (there was no way I could pack after that opening), and as I laid it out, I noticed that my gear had torn - the hard riser insert covers had been ripped partially off. The right hand side was only 1/4 of the way off. The left hand side was 3/4 of the way off. The thought to sue never entered my mind. What did enter my mind was that I needed to pack for myself to know what my pack job is and to hopefully prevent another hard opening.Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #48 February 24, 2004 er - could be because you opened at terminal in a thin air environment - prime cause of a hard opening and a bad idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #49 February 24, 2004 QuoteI would never sue the dz as an entity Problem there is that you likely wouldn't have a choice which entities are named in the suit. Your lawyer is going to go after anyone and everyone, individuals and businesses - that could possibly have been involved. Know how much it costs to simply get your or your businesses name off a lawsuit? QuoteI sign no waiver for a rigger Reread your dz's waiver, then come back and tell us if riggers are included in the list of "released parties" or not. Every waiver I've read/signed includes riggers on that list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #50 February 24, 2004 QuoteReread your dz's waiver, then come back and tell us if riggers are included in the list of "released parties" or not. Every waiver I've read/signed includes riggers on that list. Yup. I asked my rigger a year or so ago how he protected himself from lawsuits and he pointed out that the DZ waiver covers him. Something about "all parties, agents, and representatives...". - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
