Hooknswoop

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    6,738

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by Hooknswoop

  1. Hooknswoop
    There was more than 2 failures. The SB specificially refers to 2 failures where the jumper was within the operating limits. Derek
  2. Hooknswoop
    He signed nothing agreeing not to sue the manufacturer. He did sign a waiver agreeing not to sue the airport. I agree. I also think that I can't say what I would do if I was severly injured. I'm not saying that injuries makes it right, only that it can affect the decision. Derek
  3. Hooknswoop
    I don't know. If the company knew about the flaw before the crash and did nothing, then yes I would sue. I don't know if I could find that out to help me decide. If they didn't know then I don;t know what I would do. I imagine that laying in a hosipital bed, severly injured, would influence my deciscion. Derek
  4. Hooknswoop
    Does your OS crashing cause you serious physical and financial difficulties. Apples and oranges. Derek
  5. Hooknswoop
    No, I wouldn't. But if I was withing the operating limitations and simply deployed it and it came apart and the manufacturer released a SB to fix what broke on the reserve, yes, I would sue. Derek
  6. Hooknswoop
    Then why the SB? Derek
  7. Hooknswoop
    I'll try to narrow it down w/ more info. There was a design flaw, and it did get certified with the flaw. The SB was issued after your crash. There were no other SB's/AD's for the aircraft. All inspections were current and up to date. The design flaw resulted in the crash. You have no way to determine if they knew about the flaw prior to your crash. The aircraft was being operated within the operating limits. There were no contributing factors to the crash. I agree that sueing bevcause you crashed your airplane because you were drunk, etc shouldn't be allowed to happen. But that is not the case in my scenario. BTW- I am a pilot and I do see that some people that sued when they shouldn't have has driven costs sky high. Derek
  8. Hooknswoop
    Yes, I've seen that in owner's manuals. Derek
  9. Hooknswoop
    If there is no documentation to prove they knew or the documentation isn’t found, they my still have known. Or it may not be found because they didn’t know about the flaw. Derek
  10. Hooknswoop
    The accident investigation determined the design was flawed and the manufacturer issued a SB to fix the problem. The problem is determining if the company knew about the flaw prior to the crash. I would think this would make a difference in deciding to sue or not. If the company didn't know about the flaw and the aircraft was certified, I think suing would be difficult to justify. If the manufacturer knew about the flaw prior to the crash, I would sue the hell out of them. I don't know how I would find out if they knew or not though. Derek
  11. Hooknswoop
    Can an individual, as part of the decision making process on weather or not to sue, legally hire a company to go through the manufacturers documents, computers, e-mails, etc to determine if the manufacturer knew about the design flaw prior to the crash? Does the manufacturer have to let them go through their files and such? How much would that cost? Derek
  12. Hooknswoop
    I have never signed a waiver when buying skydiving gear. Derek
  13. Hooknswoop
    Say no one that works for tha manufacturer will cut their own throats and testify that the design of the tail was flawed.... I dunno, where would you look? If I owned the company, I would not let you go through my files and I would burn anything with the words 'design flaw' and 'tail' on them. Only to establish that the design was flawed, not if the manufacturer knew about the flaw prior to your crash. Derek
  14. Hooknswoop
    I agree, but how can you prove that a manufacturer knew that the design of the tail was flawed? Derek
  15. Hooknswoop
    There were 2 failures that were deployed within operating limits. I don't know if this was one of them. If he was outside the limits, all bets are off and he has no right to sue. If he was within the operating limits, I don't know if he should sue or not. Derek
  16. Hooknswoop
    It is a very tricky situation. Did the manufacturer know about the design flaw and fixed it in later aircraft? Or were they simply improving what they felt was an acceptable design to an even better design? No way to know. And that makes all the difference. Derek
  17. Hooknswoop
    Lets say that it is impossible to determine what the manufacturer of tha aircraft knew, but they did change the design of the tail on later models produced after your was built. These later models with the different tail design are not affected by the SB the manufacturer releases. Derek
  18. Hooknswoop
    Correct assumption. I'll ad to it and say that because of your crash, and the accident report, the manufacturer issues a SB to fix the desgin on all the other aircraft witht he same design. Derek
  19. Hooknswoop
    Injured party. Yes. Purely hypothetical. I know of no incident as I described. Derek
  20. Hooknswoop
    SB20011221 was issued on 21 December, 2001. This incident happened in November, 2001, before the SB was released. I do not know if this 181-M was affected by the SB. The SB does indicate that it was issued in response to 2 –M’s failing after being deployed within operating limits. PA changed the design of the line attachment points starting on 12 April 1999 with the addition of a second bar-tack (which is what the SB requires as a fix for the affected -M's) and again 1 November, 1999 when they switched to a stronger tape for the line attachment points (from Type-III plain weave to a herringbone weave Type-I). Derek
  21. Hooknswoop
    No. N/A No. Yes. Nope, hypothetical. Derek
  22. Hooknswoop
    You are flying an airplane, fairly new, all inspections, etc up to date, within it’s operating limits. The tail falls off and you are severely injured in the crash. Accident investigation determines there was a design defect in the tail that caused it to separate in flight. Do you sue the manufacturer? Derek
  23. Hooknswoop
    The SB references 2 canopies that were loaded and deployed within limits that failed. This incident happened in November, the SB was released in December. Also, it was the type-III tape that was failing, leaving the bar tacks in place. The type-I tape wasn't/isn't failing. Derek
  24. Hooknswoop
    This came up in another forum. PD's reserve manual states that their reserves should be pull tested once a year, "Fabric testing should be done annually (at the appropriate repack cycle)....." [pg 25 of the 2002 manual] Commets? Derek
  25. Hooknswoop
    A rigger can't be expected to know every single container and every varient of every container. That is why it is mandatory to have the manual when packing