ladyskydiver 0 #51 February 24, 2004 Quoteer - could be because you opened at terminal in a thin air environment - prime cause of a hard opening and a bad idea. Well...the point of my post was that I would not sue anyone due to that incident as I do not have to jump and therefore can prevent myself from being in any of the possible dangerous scenarios that can and have happened (to me and others). I've done high alti hop 'n' pops prior to this at Elsinore and never had an issue. I know the hard opening was due to a packing error. I do not understand why you reference it as a bad idea. That would be like saying CRW is a bad idea as they pop high. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean so if I am, would you please clarify?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
piisfish 140 #52 February 24, 2004 QuoteGo take up golf. WARNING, golfing is bad for your back !!scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #53 February 24, 2004 CRW open out the door so they are not going at terminal when they deploy. Opening at terminal in a thin air environment can cause hard openings regarless of packing technique. I would describe this as a bad idea if you're worried about increasing the incidence or intesity of opening shock. I wasn't trying to argue with you about sueing or not - just trying to help by pointing to a possible cause for your really hard opening. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #54 February 24, 2004 Thanks for the clarification. It's appreciated. 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
Kennedy 0 #55 February 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteI 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. That's why if I ever need a lawyer, I'd get one who does as he's told. When I say sue the DZO, I don't mean the dz, the jumpers, the JMs, or anyone else. I mean the DZO QuoteKnow how much it costs to simply get your or your businesses name off a lawsuit? Yes, a ridiculous amount, but that's really no different form any other legal action. I watched firearms manufactures try to get their names removed from a lawsuit that didn't even involve their products. 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. IIRC, there is a clause in there something to the effect of "and all other dz representatives." That implies that unless the rigger is somehow affiliated with the dz [i.e. working for them or a partner] the release does not apply to him.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
Nightingale 0 #56 February 24, 2004 Not if the canopy was made the way a canopy is supposed to be made. Hard openings are a fact of skydiving and fall under the category of "shit happens" If you hook in or do something stupid under canopy and injure yourself, you did it to yourself, and can't sue (well, you could, you just probably wouldn't win) on the other hand, if you're jumping a brand new canopy and pull, and the thing completely unravels (and you're jumping it within the manufacturers' specs), I'd say you had a right to sue. Its kinda like buying a car. if there's something totally wrong with it (gas tank randomly blows up or something) and you're using the car the way its meant to be used and it malfunctions and injures you, sue if you like. But, if you're stupid and drive the car into a tree, you're just stupid. stay out of court. And if you drive the car over a puddle on the highway and skid out, well, shit happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #57 February 24, 2004 QuoteYour lawyer is going to go after anyone and everyone, individuals and businesses - that could possibly have been involved. The lawyer works for the plaintiff, so if I'm the plaintiff, and I say "sue x", he'll sue x, and not "y" nor "z". The problems are when the lawyer doesn't work for me (hypothetically). If I bust myself up and my insurance company pays out $300,000 to fix me, they'll sue on my behalf to recover their $300,000 and there's nothing I'll be able to do to stop them. I also won't have any say in who gets named in the lawsuit, becuase the lawyer wouldn't be working for me, he'd be working for the insurance company. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #58 February 24, 2004 What part of throwing pieces of material and rope into a wind blowing at 120+ mph and expecting it to come out perfect and have slow openings 100% of the time seems normal? Guess what? Material blows up, lines break, stitching comes unravled. There have been instances for years of material just ripping for no clear reason, there was once a batch of Tri's that had issues like this due to a bad bolt of material from the factory. I've seen almost new canopies shreded due to openings going awray, my favorite was seeing the rig that opened hard enough to rip the rings off the reenforced riser. The label on the canopy says you have no reason to sue since you realize that "There is no such thing as a perfect parachute, a perfect airplane, a perfect jumpmaster, a pefect jumper or a perfect student" (Name that quote!) Actually read the label, by using the parachute you basiclly say you know that know anything can go wrong and its not the manufactors fault.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #59 February 24, 2004 QuoteThe lawyer works for the plaintiff, so if I'm the plaintiff, and I say "sue x", he'll sue x, and not "y" nor "z". Not if "x" has very little in the way of assets and "y" and "z" - either or both of whom may or may not have been involved in the incident in question - do have assets (or appear as if they should have assets). If that's the case and you insist on only suing "x", I'd think finding a lawyer willing to take your case would be difficult. This is assuming of course that you'd be working with a lawyer on a contingency basis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #60 February 24, 2004 QuoteActually read the label, by using the parachute you basiclly say you know that know anything can go wrong and its not the manufactors fault. Read the owner's manuals too. There's a warning and disclaimer in every one. Here is a link to PD's reserve manual; check it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #61 February 24, 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 they shouldn't. Because they warned you that it is for only the most exprienced pilots. They warned you and let you know how dangerous it was. Now if they, let's say they switched material on a canopy because it was cheaper and didn't get it approved. Just switched fabric without telling anyone. This "X" material blows up after 50 jumps no matter how well you take care of it and they didn't tell you. If that where to result in some sort of injury why should they get a free pass? There are certain things that I think are expected when you buy something like a parachute. You expect that they are following all the procedures and saftey requirments that they are required to do, to insure they sell you an airworthy canopy. If they take short cuts and knowingly sell bad products they should be held liable. Shit happens as well. We just sold a canopy to a guy overseas. It folded up on him twice in his first two jumps on it. Everytime he touched the front risers it would fold up in two. Was this done intentionally? I don't think so and he shouldn't sue. But if this manufacture had been making these canopies and they had been doing it all the time and decided not to change it because it would cost them to much money to change there production steps or soemthing like that. Then I think they are liable at that point.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jrcrackers 0 #62 February 24, 2004 Hell no. we all know the risks & chose to put ourselves in harms way. Besides who ever told you there are guarantee's in life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #63 February 24, 2004 NO------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #64 February 24, 2004 >Because they warned you that it is for only the most exprienced >pilots. They warned you and let you know how dangerous it was. Agreed. A similar warning is on the tail of all canopies. >Now if they, let's say they switched material on a canopy because it >was cheaper and didn't get it approved. I know for a fact that the fabric used on the Sabre 2 was not approved by anyone other than PD. How do I know that? Because there's no official certification process, period, for mains. Which is one of the reasons they have that warning label on them. You can be killed jumping an uncertified canopy. >Just switched fabric without telling anyone. This "X" material blows up > after 50 jumps no matter how well you take care of it and they didn't > tell you. Triathalons had a new type of ZP that blew up more often, and wore out faster, than other fabrics. And they didn't tell anyone. Should Aerodyne be sued? The Excalibur used F111 on a cross-braced canopy, and it was essentially unlandable after 100-200 jumps. Should PD be sued? The Racer had a new RSL which killed at least one person. Should Jump Shack be sued? Several manufacturers unknowingly used mesh that became acidic after exposure to water on their round reserves. Should they have be sued? I think if we followed that way of thinking we'd be left with only PdF equipment; all US companies would have long ago gone the way of Glide Path and (now) Precision. >If that where to result in some sort of injury why should > they get a free pass? Because they told you that their parachute systems sometimes fail to operate correctly, even when properly manufactured, assembled, packed, and operated. And they told you that you risk serious injury or death each time you use their equipment. I must say I am amazed by the new sense of entitlement I see in skydiving. "I deserve gear that works right, that's tested before I get it, that I can rely on without knowing much about the canopy, the company, the testing, or the designer!" It didn't always used to be that way. We fully expected the (then-new) Sabres and Monarchs to kill a lot of people. And they did kill a few. The attitude was far more along the lines of "figures" than "What an outrage! A new, untested, unapproved canopy, made of a new and unproven material, that killed skydivers! Sue sue sue!" We knew back then that we _were_ test pilots when we jumped new canopies. If we wanted something reliable, we'd jump our Cruislites. If we wanted to risk injury and death we jumped Sabres or Monarchs. And if we did get hurt when the thing collapsed or opened hard? We figured it was because we were jumping a dangerous product that we didn't understand completely yet. Times change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #65 February 24, 2004 >Now if they, let's say they switched material on a canopy because it was cheaper and didn't get it approved. What do they have to approve and who approves it? Nothing on a main has to be approved by anyone. If they wanted to they could go to Walmart, buy bedsheets and turn them into canopies and they are well within their rights to do that. >to insure they sell you an airworthy canopy. Mains don't have to be certified as airworthy. I've got a few jumps on "condemed" canopies from a manufactor. It failed the pull test in a few spots so it was trashed... it flies nice with a few patches. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dougjumper 0 #66 February 25, 2004 No I most likely wouldnt sue... Im also aware of the Hazard Warning Label... However...If you went and bought a new car say nice one 30,000+ or so and U pulled off the Parking Lot Fresh and all of a Sudden the Engine blows a Rod.. Whose at fault..??? Its your Baby you bought it oh well...or is it the Manufactures build defect???? Someone has to take some kind of responsibility.. So if someone builds a Defective Canopy and knows about it or not its Defective...Someone gets hurt..Good packing all correct equip to include Pilot chute whos gonna be held accountable here??? Bottom line is the Skydiver supposed to take the loss?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #67 February 25, 2004 In your car example the car should still be covered under the manufactor warenty until 3 years/36000 miles. And yes, I've known a car to throw a rod at about 37000 miles and the owner was left to eat the cost of the repair since its outside the warenty of the car. Have you ever seen a warrenty on your canopy or from any skydiving manufactor? Nope and they even tell you that there are no implied anythings with the canopy and that even if its properly used it might still fail and death and injury can result. About 18 months ago on here someone was raising a really big ruckas about RWS and their policy on selling replacement tandem parts. RWS requires you to sign a waiver stating that you know the risks of using this equipment and that even perfectly manufactored equipment can fail and they do not gaurentee it in the least bit. This person was extremely upset that the manufactor would not sell the item with out the waiver in place. They were further upset that RWS would not gaurentee it at all. Guess what? Your options are to sign the waiver, realize there is no gaurentee and buy the equipment or don't buy it... the choice is yours. They are not holding a gun to your head and saying buy it. Luckly we are in an industry that the manufactors might not gaurentee anything, but they are pretty good about fixing items that break prematurely for a fair price. I've even known a company to replace an almost new canopy that split from nose to tail on opening for free since it had less then 50 jumps on the canopy at the time.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firstime 0 #68 February 25, 2004 yup, beyond normal. you sound like an intelligent woman, therefore ask some intelligent questions. Maybe start a thread with can I sue the people who made the hand lotion that I put on prior to jumping and my hand slipped off the reserve Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #69 February 25, 2004 The Precision thing is wrong! I wouldn't sue for something like that at all. I guess I am not making my point clear. I know that shit happens and we are all taking risks here. I do so every chance I get, with a smile on my face. I am not out to sue someone over something stupid. I am not out to sue anyone period. I do believe that if you or I, or anyone that makes a product that people will be depending on for their life. That they do it to the best of their abilities and take every step possible to insure that the equipment works. IF they knowingly do something that causes someone harm just to make a buck then they should be held liable for it. QuoteTriathalons had a new type of ZP that blew up more often, and wore out faster, than other fabrics. And they didn't tell anyone. Should Aerodyne be sued? I had one of those Tri's when they came out. Bought it in 1995 or 96. Watched my friends blow up during deployment on his 6th jump on his. I put well over 300 jumps on mine that I bought a week before he did. They didn't all blow up and they soon fixed the problem once it was identified. They didn't go around trying to cover it up. QuoteBecause they told you that their parachute systems sometimes fail to operate correctly, even when properly manufactured, assembled, packed, and operated. And they told you that you risk serious injury or death each time you use their equipment. I agree! This statment tells me how it can go if things are made and done properly, right? Great! I excpet that risk! I will never ever sue anyone for doing what they tell me they are going to do. My point is when it is done improperly and puts people at more risk then they have agreed to except. That is when the trouble starts.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgskydive 0 #70 February 25, 2004 Ok, to both you and Bill, I used the wrong thing to try and make my point.Dom Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gkc1436 3 #71 February 26, 2004 YOU made the choice to start jumping YOU purchased the equipment YOU got on the airplane YOU exited the airplane WHO are you gonna sue????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #72 February 26, 2004 QuoteYOU made the choice to start jumping YOU purchased the equipment YOU got on the airplane YOU exited the airplane WHO are you gonna sue????? Ghostbusters! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #73 February 26, 2004 Ethics aside, good luck proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that you didn't deploy in a sit and that you packed it completely according to the manufacturer's instructions. Of course, you could always videotape the entire jump at very close range from the start of the pack job through deployment, if you have a cooperative video person. But I think they would need to deploy right alongside you for comparison purposes - since otherwise they will only get about the first second of the opening and that won't be too much use either. Better yet, don't even waste the mental cycles thinking about it. You pays your money, you takes your chances. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #74 February 26, 2004 QuoteI didn't see this post before you edited out the name of the canopy but save to say I probably wouldn't be flying that canopy in the first place. Most of the hard openers are known. Yet peopes still insist on flying them and dealing with the 1/100jump hard opener that they get or whatever the number, and calling it a great canopy. I think that is a choice that THEY make not the canopy manufacturer. Besides I don't think that there is any guarantees from the canopy manufacturers that there products won't open hard, I know about a warning that says it could result in injury or cause death. So no I don't believe that I would sue.. Besides I live in Canada.. we hardly sue for anything up here Age edit: cause I can't spell lol Ditto all of the above, minus the living in Canada and not being able to spell. lol! Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chute 0 #75 February 27, 2004 Quote No I would just get a smaller pilot chute or learn to pack. But can you imagine what kind of injuries your neck would have if it didn't open? Good one!!Bottomless Beers and Blue Skies! * Brother_Brian * D.S.W.F.S.B. #2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
