Equipment failure - legality question

[alexey 6]

What will skydiving community (USPA, FAA, ets) do, if skydiving incident
occur because of equipment failure - total reserve mal, for example.
Equipment has certificate, for example - TSO, and was inspected\packed in time.

Sorry for bad English

Lexa

[AggieDave 6]

A total reserve mal would fall back onto the rigger, not the industry. Infact, a gear failure may fall back onto the rigger who packed it last too (since it would probably be an airworthiness call on his part, weither to pack it or not), unless it was definately something from the design.

Remember, every jumper signs a release of liability agreement AND with the warning signs and documents sold with each piece of gear, then winning a lawsuit would be hard for the person sueing (then they would be countersued for damages, legal fees, etc and basically be a very messy ordeal).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[alexey 6]

But, what about cases, when it was because of desing.
Will somebody (FAA?) make any forces to manufacturer, and which?

Lexa

[AggieDave 6]

Well, design problems should have been seen in the TSO process, so the FAA has already seen it once.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhreeZone 20]

There used to be a rig in the early 80's that people were modifing and removing some padding to make it lighter, but when they removed the padding they had to remove a few stitches, unfortuanatally it was found out that with these stitches removed, a reserve opening at terminal could result in the reserve risers getting ripped right off the rig. A few people found out this lesson the hardway.

FAA can go after the rigger that last packed it. The Rigger, the gear makers and anyone involved in the DZ can expect to be named as defendents in the resulting civil lawsuit but the FAA can't seek anything more then a fine to the rigger generally.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[wmw999 2,584]

There have been cases where innate design, while not directly responsible, certainly contributed to a fatality. Unforseen circumstances can make for unfortunate results. I don't know how the FAA is involved with this, but there's a serious customer credibility issue when that happens.

Even if the manufacturer makes the necessary changes, and retrofits them (either for free or not), it's very likely to hurt their reputation, and possibly cause them to go out of business. Simply because people don't buy that brand any more.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Faber 0]

Quote

But, what about cases, when it was because of desing.
Will somebody (FAA?) make any forces to manufacturer, and which?

No if you read any warning label at skydiving gear,it then says that equitment sometimes just fail.
i dont think youll get a reserve out in these days were there are an genneral failur in.so i doubt that the manufactor would get sued.
sadly i think the poor rigger who packed the reserve,would migth be looked after by someone.And he/she would already feel bad becours of the fact that he/she had packed and inspected a reserved that didnt work....

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[cloud9 0]

Well I don't know what the outcome was/is but there have been several just in the last couple of years.

The crossfire comes to mind, there were several injuries and at least one death. I'm not going to blame the canopy but they did recall (or ground them) and changes were made to the canopy!

Then there were the Raven reserves that came apart, they were also recalled (or grounded) and changes had to be made. I can't remember if anyone was killed but there were definitely some serious injuries.

So it can and does happen .

[jlmiracle 7]

The Raven that blew-up was OVER wingloaded. The guy was jumping a reserve way too small for his weight and the manufacturers recommended wingloading.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[MrHixxx 0]

I found 2 that failed on the fatalities page. Both were over loaded according to the placard one by 80 lbs another by 45.

-Hixxx

death,as men call him, ends what they call men
-but beauty is more now than dying’s when

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

The Raven that blew-up was OVER wingloaded.

Absolutely true. And the Green Star rigs that had the reserve fall off did have the stitching from the mud flaps picked out.

The thing is that whenever possible, gear should not fail catastrophically; the penalty for overloading your reserve should be damage and a couple of broken lines; the penalty for picking off some stitching should be that the harness pulls apart on the ground and you KNOW you did something stupid.

Just like slamming on your brakes should involve having the guy behind you rear-end you and cause a lot of damage to your car (sometimes it's partly the guy in front's fault). It shouldn't explode in a ball of flames.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Faber 0]

Quote

The crossfire comes to mind, there were several injuries and at least one death. I'm not going to blame the canopy but they did recall (or ground them) and changes were made to the canopy!

Then there were the Raven reserves that came apart, they were also recalled (or grounded) and changes had to be made. I can't remember if anyone was killed but there were definitely some serious injuries.

So it can and does happen .

you dont need to sue someone who takes the blame and correct the failur..

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[quade 4]

Quote

The thing is that whenever possible, gear should not fail catastrophically; the penalty for overloading your reserve should be damage and a couple of broken lines; the penalty for picking off some stitching should be that the harness pulls apart on the ground and you KNOW you did something stupid.

On the part about overloading . . . manufacturers of anything can only design to a certain tolerance and load limit.

In the case of TSOed gear, there is a limit and the gear needs to be able to perform beyond that limit to a certain point, however, beyond a certain point, anything will fail.

I find it facinating that otherwise perfectly reasonable people would overload their harnesses or reserves beyond the manufacturer's recommendations.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,584]

Quote

I find it facinating that otherwise perfectly reasonable people would overload their harnesses or reserves beyond the manufacturer's recommendations.

That too. I'd like to see more non-catastrophic but obvious failures sometimes; it'd be kind of like peer pressure not to do anything quite so stupid.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[markbaur 0]

Quote

I'd like to see more non-catastrophic but obvious failures sometimes; it'd be kind of like peer pressure not to do anything quite so stupid.

At the risk of sounding cold-hearted, I'd point out that someone else's catastrophic failure is a non-catastrophic but obvious failure for me. It changes my behavior, even if it's too late to change theirs.

Mark

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

I find it facinating that otherwise perfectly reasonable people would overload their harnesses or reserves beyond the manufacturer's recommendations.

That too. I'd like to see more non-catastrophic but obvious failures sometimes; it'd be kind of like peer pressure not to do anything quite so stupid.

Wendy W.

Have you ever heard of Darwin? His theory helps keep the dead wood out of skydiving.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[nightjumps 1]

I think one would have to prove, "Gross Negligence" - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others.

[quade 4]

Sadly, only after they've been allowed in and perhaps been allowed to breed the same attitudes in others, so it doesn't really help too much.

A wise man learns from his mistakes. A very wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mjosparky 4]

Paul,
We have to learn from the mistakes of others, we can't live long enough to make them all out selves.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Faber 0]

Quote

I find it facinating that otherwise perfectly reasonable people would overload their harnesses or reserves beyond the manufacturer's recommendations.

you should also be facinated by the manufactores who makes such small reserves,that even tiny people would over load them
Says the guy that has landed a micro Raven g120 2times,sayin OUCH each timewell naked im about 80kg,if you dare you could calculate on the wingload on it,but i think it flew like a round,well it looks like i got to the ground in the same speed..I should migth just have hooked it(just a joke dont hook a canopi you dont know)

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[Tonto 1]

Yeah. The nova sank it's company in the early 90's when it killed a dozen people on front risers...

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

What will skydiving community (USPA, FAA, ets) do, if skydiving incident
occur because of equipment failure - total reserve mal, for example.
Equipment has certificate, for example - TSO, and was inspected\packed in time.

Sorry for bad English

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Returning to the original question: under American law no-one cares who's mistake killed the guy. American lawyers go after the party with the deepest pockets.
It does not matter if the party with the deepest pockets never saw the gear, just ask Para-Gear!

If the original poster is hinting about the recent fatality in the Ukraine where a reserve container failed to open - apparently the reserve flap stiffeners where too big. That sounds like a design flaw.
In the short run the manufacturer and national aerosport association (i.e. USPA) should issue a Service Bulletin that grounds all similar equipment. The government (i.e. FAA) used to reinforce the most life-threatening Service Bulletins with Airworthiness Directives.
Then the factory or field riggers modify the equipment to conform to the new standard. Sometimes the factory pays for modifications and sometimes owners pay for the work.
Sometimes the cost of the modifications is so expensive and sales drop so dramatically that the factory goes out of business.
Then the lawyers get into a feeding frenzy over the assets of the bankrupt company.

[skydiverek 63]

Quote

If the original poster is hinting about the recent fatality in the Ukraine where a reserve container failed to open - apparently the reserve flap stiffeners where too big. That sounds like a design flaw.

More details please... That's sounds really bad...

[billvon 3,107]

>More details please... That's sounds really bad...

There was a similar issue with the old Talon, where the combination of a large reserve PC, a small reserve container, a tight pack job and a weak spring caused a reserve total. Fortunately this inspired the jumper to try the main again; she got it out and landed safely. Rigging Innovations quickly fixed the problem and put out a SB on the old springs.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

***

And the Green Star rigs that had the reserve fall off did have the stitching from the mud flaps picked out. Wendy W.

That was the Green Star Express rig. Green Star had been a respected rig maker up until then, but those two fatalities pretty well did them in. There was another rig maker who put the reserve ripcord housing too close to the pins (older 2 pin reserve), some poor soul on the U.S. Army team cutaway and jammed his first pin in the housing, resulting in a total mal fatality, this was in the early eighties.

Most manufacturers expressly do NOT warrant their products and remind us in all kinds of legalese that skydiving is inherently dangerous and we might kill ourselves anyway. One of the biggest rig makers even added "uninsured" to the legal registered name of the company (a good move, since money is the deciding factor anyway). American law is case law, it's not just what the statutes say on paper, it's how the courts interpret the law in actual cases. Which makes every lawsuit a crapshoot more "exciting" than your average cutaway.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !