sacex250

You'll probably have to explain that both of these are rhetorical questions. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, William Faulkner! You didn't really expect this crowd to know what "rhetorical" means; did you? Is "oxymoron" too big of a word? Or will someone just think I'm name calling? As in, "Rhetorical Poll" is an oxymoron, isn't it? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Oh, so it's a Rhetorical Poll? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

First, could you explain how you whittled down your list to these two? If you could remember as far back as Quayle, how could you forget that Cheney shot someone in the face? At least Cheney didn't shoot and kill a founding father like Aaron Burr did! Granted it was a duel, but damn it was Alexander-freaking-Hamilton! What about Spiro Agnew? How many VPs resignations for taking bribes was a comical foreshadowing of his President's later resignation? Talk about going from great to complete failure, Abraham Lincoln may have been a tough act to follow but could any VP have done any worse than the impeached Andrew Johnson did? Clearly, Lincoln's strategy in selecting Johnson as VP depended on Johnson never becoming President! Damn you John Wilkes Booth! And of course, how could we ever forget Henry Wallace? Oh wait, we did forget about him thanks to FDR dumping him as VP before the 1944 election in favor of Harry S. Truman! And finally, the great John C. Calhoun who not only served as VP twice, but once for each of two Presidents [Adams, Jackson] who ran against each other in two elections. Calhoun was so horrible, Jackson finally forced him to resign stating that he regretted not having him put to death as a traitor. Not to mention, much of the cause of The Civil War can be attributed to him. Dan Quayle and Joseph Biden are small potatoes/potatos compared to some of the VPs who have held office, let alone, some of the ones who have only been nominated, Sarah [cough] Palin! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I want that plan. Can you give me more information please? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I'm currently on the $9.99 one DVD plus unlimited streaming plan. I'll probably just drop instant streaming and go with the $7.99 one DVD plan. It'll have the best selection and ration how many movies I watch. Streaming has been pretty good to me though, I know I've seen a lot of good/classic movies and TV shows that I wouldn't have otherwise seen because they were instantly available. And, I've got nothing to lose if I don't like the movie and don't watch the whole thing. So, I've got about two months to make up my mind. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

This is why I like to come to dropzone.com, I like to hear chickens screaming about how the sky is falling. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Here's a picture of one of the jumpers. I'd say he's flying a canopy in the "big-ass" category. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

HELL-O U-TAH! It's the 21st century calling! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It's not going to have a hard time. Paul - you have to pee in a cup to get a private pilot's license and there's no challenge for that. This is the same thing. You don't want a pee test then don't apply for the program. Now, if people are gettin arrested for it, that's a different story. You can put me down for "unconstitutional." This is nothing but political grandstanding, so some politicians can put their hands up in the air and blame it on the courts when it's all said and done. Denying government services to someone based on a "status offense" is pretty much going to get steamrolled by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It's not even close to the same thing as getting an FAA medical certificate. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

So someone at Pepsi said, "Well, since Coke only uses their polar bears during the winter holidays I'm sure they won't mind if we borrow the idea for the summer. And, to make it legit we'll make sure Coke gets featured in the spot, too." Sounds like a perfect plan! Coke executives have got to be ROFL! Coke's next ad should be polar bears at a summer concert singing "We Are The Champions!" It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Pepsi can't even compete with "Diet Coke" anymore, and now this? Were we not supposed to notice where they stole their latest ad campaign from? It's just getting pathetic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if_V648W00k It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Man, you're getting picky! As far as parachutes go, the pilot is only responsible for making sure that it's the correct type of parachute and is within its repack cycle, per the rigger. The pilot can't be held responsible for the rigger's mistakes if he's unaware of them. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

1) The AAD is not required equipment, and the FAA only requires that it maintained properly if it's installed. Whether or not to use the device is up to the jumper. 2) The manufacturer does not require that the jumper use the device if it's installed. Use of the device is completely voluntary by the jumper. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

As I understand it, if the rig is not airworthy and somebody jumps it, then the pilot will be the one the FAA go after. Any other thoughts? The pilot would have to knowingly permit someone to make a jump using a rig that isn't legal. There was nothing in the Archway case that would lead a pilot to question the airworthiness of the rig. Now, if the repack was out of date then that would be another story. The fact that this rig appeared to be airworthy even though it wasn't will fall back on the rigger/DZO, not the pilot. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Overall Legally: - Not Airworthy per FAA regulations. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless by the rigger. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless intentionally by the jumper. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. Overall Legally: - Legally airworthy per FAA regulations. Student must have it turned on per USPA BSRs. AAD: - Factually not airworthy due to having been rendered useless unintentionally by the jumper, et al. Reserve: - Factually airworthy only for manual activation. The misrigging of the AAD makes the entire rig unairworthy per FAA regulations. Proper rigging of the AAD is a required element of a repack; failure to do so makes the rig illegal to jump just as if the rigger had failed to fill out the data card. However, a data card can be checked, unfortunately, the closing loop/cutter cannot. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It didn't malfunction. It functioned, but the rigging of the closing loop rendered its functioning irrelevant. I told you in the other thread, and now I'm telling you in this one: you really need to stop pulling twisted facts out of your ass in an attempt to implicate Airtec. After reading all of your posts in this incident, I don't believe you're simply being dense or obtuse, I think you're deliberately mischaracterizing facts. If you tried that shit in a courtroom the judge would hand you your ass. For a "product liability attorney" you sure haven't read much case law. If you're just going to come here as the leader of the Coalition of the Ignorant and launch personal attacks on me then what you say will simply be disregarded. Now, if you'd actually like to participate in the discussion by using your vast knowledge of product liability law to actually give an opinion, beginning with what you think the legal interpretation of the phrase "but for" means, then that would be a different matter, otherwise get off my ass. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Although a lot of the conversation on these threads has been about "No Pulls," one detail of this incident that seems to have gotten lost at some point is that the student had deployed his main parachute but it apparently malfunctioned causing him to spin out of control with a descent rate high enough to activate the CYPRES. This wasn't a student who just froze and didn't pull, he had some kind of main malfunction and for any number of reasons didn't cutaway and get a reserve. Maybe he lost altitude awareness, maybe he panicked and froze, maybe he couldn't find the cutaway, maybe he thought he could save it, maybe he thought "this can't really be happening," or maybe he really did lose consciousness. I'm sure more information will come out at trial. The primary design feature of a Student CYPRES that distinguishes it from other CYPRES models is that it is designed to cut to the closing loop at a much lower rate of descent in a case like this where a student is under a malfunctioning main parachute, which it apparently attempted to do in this case. But due to a rigging error, all functionality of the AAD was lost. As far as the AAD is concerned, that is 100% the rigger's responsibility unless Airtec can also be found liable for the AAD's failure detection ability and/or inadequate instruction materials provided to riggers. The overall cause of the accident, and death of the student, may be shared between the student, DZO (instruction, rental), rigger, and Airtec but the malfunction of the AAD cannot be blamed on the student if there was negligence involved that deprived him of a safety device that may have prevented his death. Yeah, the student was in a situation where it's concievable that he could have/should have taken action himself, but he didn't, and even the AAD's programming decided the student needed help and tried to cut the closing loop but it didn't work. This case isn't about accidents that didn't happen. This case is about this accident in which activation parameters for a safety device were reached and the device failed to function as intended. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

A functional Cypres is supposed to cut the closing loop; that's Airtec's definition. The fact that the cutter could not have possibly cut the closing loop makes it as non-functional as my television when the cable is out. Ok then... do you call Sony up and bitch at them when the cable is out? No, because they supply the product, it's up to an independent company to hook it up... right? Exactly. Well... I don't recall the FAA saying ANYTHING about the AAD being functional for a jump. I would be in serious trouble if it was a FAR that I violated when I jump a rig with the AAD turned off! The FAA says (FAR 105.43c) it must be 'maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions' so... legally I am falling within the FAR so long as the Cypres gets its 4 & 8 year checks, because that is MAINTAINING it IAW the mfgr's instructions. Try that on for size. You really couldn't win a case on "Judge Judy" with a ridiculous argument like that. That woman would have your balls for breakfast! Shall we check the CYPRES User's Guide? I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever claim that a CYPRES unit with a closing loop that hasn't been routed through the cutter has been maintained per the manufacturer's instructions or is in any condition to function as intended. It's a silly argument! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Thank You. You've just summed up my thoughts rather concisely. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

About the time I was looking through your posting history and found this little gem. Let's see there's a fatal skydiving accident on October 9, 2010 in Illinois in which a DZO misrigged an AAD. Three months later, January 11, 2011, legislation is introduced in the neighboring Indiana State Senate with new expensive state licensing requirements for DZO's including requiring the DZO to inform students of any previous safety violations in writing. Coincidence? The lawsuit being discussed here wasn't even filed until June 2, 2011. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4036230#4036230 Sounds pretty similar to what happened in Northern California at Bay Area Skydiving in Byron. A jumper no-pulled and wasn't reported missing until the next day. A county supervisor who was "shocked" that that could happen got involved and started making noise. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7631363 Lawsuits are nothing compared to what would happen to the sport if state and local governments start trying to regulate it. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Wait, wait, wait. You mean Germans don't speak German? How could I have been so ignorant? I mean I was making reference to a German speaking German who was livid that a German manufactured piece of equipment could be implicated in the death of an American skydiver when the German was sure that the device would have worked to save the life of said American. How dare I make a mockery out of German history by making Hitler look like he actually cares about human life? Oh the shame! How will I ever face the hordes of skydivers on this board who think that a dead student skydiver got what he deserved? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Get a sense of humor! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Like I was comparing Airtec to the Nazi's? Please, you fail. I have nothing for respect for Airtec, and as someone else pointed out, at the beginning of this thread I stated that I hoped that SSK and Airtec weren't found liable. If you think I'm trying to villify Airtec you're dead wrong. I'm simply discussing a likely outcome of the case, if you think attacking me personally will change that, well, I don't how anyone could possibly think that could happen. Okey Dokey "One of Hitler's officers [an Airtec engineer] is calmly explaining that there's a student skydiver who is in the midst of a no-pull free fall as he points to the spot on the map where the skydiver will bounce. Hitler [the CEO of Airtec] calmly reassures everyone that the Cypres will save the skydiver's life and the company will get credit for another save. " So, I guess you've never seen one of the Downfall parodies then? I was clearly making Airtec look like the good guy in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsAu9NG-V_4 It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Like I was comparing Airtec to the Nazi's? Please, you fail. I have nothing but respect for Airtec, and as someone else pointed out, at the beginning of this thread I stated that I hoped that SSK and Airtec wouldn't be found liable. If you think I'm trying to villify Airtec you're dead wrong. I'm simply discussing a likely outcome of the case, if you think attacking me personally will change that, well, I don't know how anyone could possibly think that could happen. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.